Aida Gradina I was excited to see this film, I studied the works of Diane Arbus in photography school, but this is not really about her work, perhaps what inspired it? Honestly I don't care. As artists we are all inspired, maybe by a moment where we have an epiphany and our whole world changes, or perhaps our childhood to which we devote all of our energy to and eventually, as adults, rebel against which this whole crappy movie seems to be about. As an artist myself, when someone decides to cover a film about an individual who produced great art, I truly believe that the filmmaker should also devote themselves to not only producing great art but to respecting and staying true to the artist they are depicting.I did not like this film, in fact I hated it. But having said that i can't help but state that there were actually beautiful moments in this movie. The image of Lionel and Diane hugging each other naked as the background of the blue room illuminated their bodies as you watch him take a hold of her back is absolutely gorgeous. But it was too short! Let the audience enjoy imagery, actual photography which this whole film is apparently based upon. Also, when she wakes in Lionel's bed only to find herself surrounded by his friends, the blue walls, as a backdrop, with the conjoined twins standing before the character truly brought out the beauty of what Diane Arbus created later in her life, but the camera quickly slithered downwards and across the screen not leaving any space for interpretation or acknowledgment of such beauty and uniqueness. It makes me upset that a director has so many resources, so much talent working with him and yet he wastes half of it.This film is a disaster because it is supposed to be about one of the most important and influential women photographers of the 20th century, but is instead about a "weird" housewife who cheats on her husband with a man who is basically looked down upon in society.I understand that it is an imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus but Diane Arbus was not Alice In Wonderland, Diane Arbus was Diane Arbus who showed us what our world really looked like through her lens which was far from imaginary.

eshaines It is clear that Arbus's artistic calling was to portray the marginalized. Though she has received much criticism for her lack of empathy for her subjects or for always portraying darkness and ugliness, I am not sure how much better or more empathetic of a job she could have done given the constraints of societal norms of her time. Remember, her oeuvre was mostly photographed before the 1970's when she died. How much tolerance for the atypical: the dwarfs, the trans-gendered, the nudists--did society really have in the 1960s? Is there really much tolerance of these groups even today? Tolerance is moving in the right direction, but it is still a very small number of people who tolerate statistical abnormalities of lifestyle or body type. What Sontag writes about Arbus's photography, calling it a "freak show" that often lacks compassion for these marginalized subjects of hers, seems to highlight more of a projection of Sontag's own interpretations of these subjects onto the work itself, rather than inherent flaws in the work. There is nothing unilaterally uncompassionate about her photographs, which simply serve as documents of specific moments; she positioned herself and the frame of the camera, but the actions and expressions were those of her subjects. For this reason, some people (with whom I do not agree) consider photography to be not quite an art, per se. That said, the film itself is mediocre at best. Nicole Kidman, RDJr, and Ty Burrell really do an excellent job in holding together a weak-ish plot with superb acting skills. I found the final love scene between Arbus and her first subject Lionel to be anti-climactic considering the build up of tension between the two characters throughout the film. I think the director intentionally portrayed Arbus as starting out with a photographic passion, then letting that morph into a less voyeuristic desire to understand and be around these people who few other than she at the time found beautiful, nearly forgetting altogether to photograph Lionel until his final moments. This was probably to counter the negative criticism Arbus has received for her alleged lack of empathy for her subjects.This film, despite its mediocrity, does portray (albeit fictionally) the process and back story behind an artistic legend, and will no doubt succeed in "comforting the disturbed, and disturbing the comfortable" as art should do. What's sad to me about the film, and I am not sure how much of this is based on factual history and how much was invented, is that Arbus realizes only after a long marriage and two children that she has become a mere shadow and backer of her husband's creative work, and that a change is needed for her to find her independent voice. If she indeed left her children (and let's not mention her man) to pursue the nudist colony as subjects, long-term, I have to think that her art was a little more far-reaching than it needed to be in terms of empathizing with the marginalized, since she couldn't avoid the neglect of her own family to create it. The time to create is either before having children, or concurrently with children, dividing time between responsibility with artistic passion; not in a vacuum in which your children seem not to exist. Her timing was terrible.Does anyone know: was there a Lionel-esque character in Arbus's real life? I'd be interested to know. I do wish there was more background on Lionel that might lead the viewer to understand his interests, his courage, and his love for Diane in more depth and to the completion of his character development.So, I'd recommend the film to those curious about Diane Arbus, though the story is fictional, as far as I understand; as well as to fans of Kidman, Downey, Jr., and Burrell. Be prepared for some uncomfortable moments(odd scenes of prolonged sexual tension), a great deal of nudity (she, after all, visits a nudist colony twice in the film), and images that will force you to question the status quo and why you adhere to it. If anything it is a good excuse to learn more about photography on your own time, which can't be a bad thing.

punishmentpark A bit of a disappointment after 'Secretary', but still certainly more than doable. This time it all felt more 'arty', leaving the drama in the shadows a little; at some point we get the idea that Diane is trapped between to worlds, but this dilemma carries on for way too long. Carter Burwell's soundtrack, the beautiful camera-work and sets and dresses, they all did add to a fulfilling experience, as did the cast. But I did see a photo of the real Diane Arbus though, and Kidman's (heavily face-lifted) appearance does not correspond. Samantha Morton was originally cast for this role, I don't know why that didn't work out, but she would have seemed much more appropriate. Other roles were mostly just fine (daughters) to very good (Ty Burrell), with Robert Downey Jr. excelling.But as said before, 'Fur:...' drags on too long without there being anything poignant put forth to the viewer. I mean, why shave the hero Lionel? I'm thinking that must have been some sort of demand by 'someone' to have Downey Jr. out in the flesh (and pretty much naked) to get a bigger audience, because dramatically, it felt truly unnecessary. And, as said before as well, Kidman just didn't really belong in this, even if I do think she did a fine job considering. And the true intimacy of it all díd come across more than once, so it's not hard for me to be lenient - but not too lenient:A big 6 out of 10 for another film by the exceptional Steven Shainberg. I'm looking forward to his debut ('Hit Me') and new work ('The Big Shoe' is in pre-prod.).

scancap As a photographer who knows something of the work of Diane Arbus I decided to watch this. I waited and waited and waited for there to be anything in it about Diane Arbus and her work as a photographer. It never happened.Instead we are treated to an imaginary story that is extremely unlikely even metaphorically.This is one of those situations where you find yourself just pleading for it all to end.It is called an "imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus" and I suppose that kind of excuses it. But really...