Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus Reviews

December 29, 2006
Stilted, stylized and art-directed within an inch of its life, Shainberg's movie (which was written by his Secretary collaborator, Erin Cressida Wilson) manages to be both oppressively literal and fatefully fuzzy at the same time.
December 29, 2006
Don't be fooled for a second by that subtitle. Fur bills itself as An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, but this thing's got all the imagination of a career bureaucrat slumped in his cubicle awaiting a pension.
December 1, 2006
Shainberg neither sugarcoats [Diane Arbus's] distance from her girls nor judges it. The filmmakers understand Arbus's story within the context of her time and upbringing.
December 1, 2006
The world created by Shainberg never seems strange or real enough to convince us that we're getting the goods on anything. Put another way, this imaginary portrait might have done better had it stuck closer to reality.
December 1, 2006
[Arbus's] most famous images still have the power to shock, hanging as they do on the walls of the world's museums. Fur, the movie about her, reaches for that same jolt and settles instead for a raised eyebrow.
November 30, 2006
Not a single frame of Fur conveys Arbus's distinctive vision ...
November 21, 2006
Much of the film is absurdist nonsense, and its symbolism is of the plank-to-the-head variety.
November 21, 2006
As a biopic, it is as meretricious as most, but as a myth about love and loss, about otherness and identity, about compassion and revulsion, about fetishism and sex, about art and life, it will likely stay with you for days.
November 21, 2006
The movie officially becomes the one thing Arbus's photography refused to be: normal.
November 21, 2006
Fur is stuck with offering a reductive and unenlightening view of the real Arbus.