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.

Following in the footsteps of revolutionary photographer Robert Frank, Diane Arbus was one of the three (Gary Winogrand, Lee Friedlander) photographers displayed in a groundbreaking photo exhibit entitled New Documents at MOMA in 1967. Less than five years later she would commit suicide her place in photographic history assured. In Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus director Steven Shainberg moves her subconscious into an apartment upstairs from her in a novel way to get inside the head of the troubled artist who had an irresistible desire for nostalgie de la boule.With the support of her parents Allan and Diane Arbus (Nichol Kidman) are in he the midst of realizing the American dream with a burgeoning photography business. Allan the photographer and Diane the assistant along with her parents money and connections seem focused on a successful future. But something is gnawing at Diane in the repressive Fifties where a woman's role in the family is to support the husband and raise the kids. Whether it's manic depression or artistic drive is hard to tell but when her furry muse (Robert Downey Jr.) moves in upstairs she's ready for a walk on the wild side. This insipid approach is ridiculous from the outset. It is more fairy tale than imaginary with it's Beauty and the Beast veneer and Kidman's wallflower Arbus whispering her performance as if she were in a confessional. Parents and husband are perfunctory distant and mystified while Downey's Sasquatch is the same self assured perceptive Downey you get in Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes except here he's Cousin It.The morose topic is poorly paced, the compositions and camera movement pretentious and self indulgent. Near the end director Shainberg attempts an 81/2 montage of many of the subjects Arbus would photograph in her prime by parading them through a scene but even this rings hollow in its presentation by sanitizing the moment, especially with her models drained of their monochromatic identity.This over two hour film on the life of Arbus imaginary or otherwise does itself no favor by concentrating almost totally on the disintegration of her marriage and finding of her voice while ignoring her most important period as an artist when the voice projected with some disturbing imagery that went beyond the contrived and manufactured. It would have allowed Kidman to stretch and avoided what Arbus rejected.

This is not a proper biography, as the title hints, but simply a fragment of what the real Diane Arbus did when she worked as a photographer. Diane lives as her husband's assistant, who is a photographer, and after she notices that her pipes are being plugged up with hair, she questions her neighbor, who at first doesn't show his face because he has hypertrichosis. After meeting with this mysterious neighbor, named Lionel, several times, among them meeting several other "freaks", Diane develops a strong personal relationship with Lionel. After Diane agrees to shave his body, the two make love. This is one of the most powerful, artistic and tender makings of love seen in cinema. After she loses Lionel, who happily dives into the sea after months of being on a respirator, Diane grieves and moves on to her next project, once again forming a personal relationship with a woman at a nudist colony before she photographs her.This film made me blissfully happy. It's filled with such passion, inner beauty, love and also sadness. Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr have the best chemistry on screen and you can see they really match well together. I just don't understand why no one saw this film or liked it, it really is a magnificent film and I definitely recommend it.

despite the fact that i ve never loved the biography -drama genre movies , but this one is done well , i loved it , loved the acting , the unusual script , the whispering plot and the directing i have the honor to be one of nicole kidman' s admirer , this stunning actress , really she love her work i assure of that after i saw that movie , a big star like her never think of that sort of film but a one like nicole who likes to be unique , star with the whole meaning of word , yes she dare to do that and she really succeeded , it will be added to her excellent history,SHE Succeeded TO act the character which has the , whispering , beauty calm , coldness , sensitiveness properties , she had to deserve an Oscar node in my opinion ,good job nicole