Watch Venus in Fur For Free

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This is an immersive exercise in minimalism. There are only two actors throughout, and the only location is an abandoned theatre. The building is battered by an ongoing storm outside, which adds a layer of safe seclusion from the interference from the outside world.Many interesting themes are present - perceptions, a man's view of a what a woman is (and vice versa); the current fixation with trivialising everything and reducing it to a handful of 'current' reasons/demands to take offence, erotic manipulation and empowerment, and latterly, obsession ...Emmanuelle Seigner plays Vanda Jourdain, and Mathieu Amalric plays Thomas Novacheck. He is the director/adaptor of a play, and she is the 'stupid c***' who needs a job and persuades him she would be perfect for the lead role. At first, he understandably thinks she is a lunatic - eccentric certainly, confident but very scatty. And yet she insists he hear her read for the role. Instantly, her performance and personality win through and she becomes the dominant character. As she excels, Thomas diminishes. Even Roman Polanski's direction visually elevates Vanda to tower over the director (Seigner is Polanski's wife).The only interruption into this burgeoning relationship is from the unseen Marie-Cecile, Thomas's fiancée, who phones him asking when he will be coming home. This pin-prick in an otherwise weirdly evocative world-building seems to prevent, or at least delay, the main pair's total immersion in each other. As to who Vanda actually is - well, she seems to be a lot more than just a struggling actress, but her true nature remains oblique.The movie is based on the play "Venus in Fur" by David Ives, and moves the location from New York to Paris. The themes of domination are taken to frightening and, it seems, unresolved extremes. Whilst difficult to pinpoint the ultimate intent, 'Venus in Fur' is fascinating, the immersive nature of its narrative transcending the subtitles from its French origins.

A theater director makes a casting. An actress arrives very late. The play is based on "Venus in Furs", a book of Leopold Sacher-Masoch which gave origin to the word masochism. The script is a pearl. A film where the script is 90 of it all. Sharp and clever dialogue. The acting work is amazing. The actress is a 10. Tremendous. It achieves a range of expressiveness, conveying very different things at different times in the movie. IT even gives the impression that they are different actresses. A film of these might be called "single-room". A single room, two actors, and pure dialogue. For those who do not like very talkies, give up before you start. Polanski at his 80 years achieved a great movie. It could be a movie based on a play based on a book or a play based on a movie based on a play or .... Plays with the "text" and reality all the time and creates an incredible dynamism throughout the film, with very few resources (the script, basically). It deserves special comment the stunning metamorphosis of the character Vanda, achieved with minimal makeup and costume changes. We are seeing how the characters are moving through different times, both internally and in relation to each other. The incessant back and forth between the "real" dialogue and dialogue of the script of the play, blurs the line between fact and fiction; resource that makes us think a little beyond what is explicitly said in the dialogue. And if all this is combined with the fact that we are on the subject of sadism and masochism ... ..delicious.

Venus in Fur, adapted from a play that couldn't be more made for a play originally than if it was just actors reading from a script (no wait, they do that here, don't they) is, frankly, good but minor Polanski. It's never less than entertaining, and it has engaging performances by the director'ss surrogate Matthieu Almaric (seriously, doesn't he look like him more than a bit?) and his wife, who is so incredibly spot-on at being seductive and crazy and smart as a whip and ahead of the game, Emmanuelle Seigner.It also has an ending that is as unforgettably deranged as its brother movie ending from the director, The Tenant. And why is it minor? For me, it just felt kind of a shallow experience, not very deep, and the back and forth motions as to who is the Dom and who is the Sub (in sex but also power terms) moment to moment gets frustrating at times. And, yes, the cinematography of course is intense and this filmmaker is nothing if not a master of having a couple of people in a room and making it cinematic for an hour and a half and change. Perhaps it just reminds one of other, greater Polanski work a little too much.However, certainly for fans of high heels and silk stockings it's really something!

The movie is set in an empty theater during a night storm. Vanda wants to audition for the female role in the play "La Vénus à la fourrure". Thomas, author and director, reluctant at first, end up being dragged by the ambiguous personality of the woman. She seems out of place: dressed inappropriately and easy-minded but she is just perfect for the role. Vanda and Thomas start rehearsing and they interrupt each other to discuss the characters and the storyline. Vanda repeatedly accuses Thomas to have chosen a sexist subject. The setting estranges both the two characters and the public, also with the help of the screenplay's rhythm, which alternates reality and the actual play.It's a movie that opens up a great number of themes regarding the relationship between man and woman.