crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I know the film has been mentioned somewhere on this forum, but I was unable to find the post.
Anyway, I recently saw it, and wanted to share my impressions.
I suppose the best thing about it is Nicole Kidman. She did everything she could, within the confines of a bad script, to convey the mystery of Diane Arbus. Robert Downey Jr. is interesting as well, but it's hard to act underneath all that hair. And what a ridiculous thing on which to hang the plot. Downey plays a neighbor of Diane's with a medical condition which causes extreme hair growth-- all over his face, everywhere.
She is drawn to him (is she also repulsed?) by his freakishness. Ultimately, they fall in love, meeting periodically under the ruse of photography sessions. She discovers he's also dying, and his last wish is for her to shave his entire body, ostensibly so he can emote more easily. And also, so that he can swim out to sea and drown himself? I guess it would have looked too silly with all the hair.
About the time he's gone, her husband discovers her unprocessed rolls of 120 film (from her Rolleiflex). He processes it all, only to discover shots of the building staircase, hallways, trim moulding, etc. I suppose he's relieved (since he was expecting the worst). But what a disappointment to the viewer! We were expecting Diane Arbus photos! After that, Diane runs away to a nudist colony. And there are no carefully placed badminton rackets either-- it's full frontal. And for the most part, it's people you'd like to see less of, not more.
The worst aspect of the film is the portrait of Arbus as moon-eyed romantic heroine. I see her photographs as very aloof from her subjects. Cool and distant. The romantic story line of this movie didn't work at all for me.
Well, as I said, it's another interesting performance by a pretty good actress in an abysmal flop. This film is not as bad as Moulin Rouge (still my choice for Worst Movie Ever) but it's pretty bad.
I can't recommend this film much. It's quirky and interesting to look at, but there was virtually nothing in it I was expecting-- namely, a better understanding of a mysterious, iconic photographer.
Some of you must have seen it. What did you think?
Anyway, I recently saw it, and wanted to share my impressions.
I suppose the best thing about it is Nicole Kidman. She did everything she could, within the confines of a bad script, to convey the mystery of Diane Arbus. Robert Downey Jr. is interesting as well, but it's hard to act underneath all that hair. And what a ridiculous thing on which to hang the plot. Downey plays a neighbor of Diane's with a medical condition which causes extreme hair growth-- all over his face, everywhere.
She is drawn to him (is she also repulsed?) by his freakishness. Ultimately, they fall in love, meeting periodically under the ruse of photography sessions. She discovers he's also dying, and his last wish is for her to shave his entire body, ostensibly so he can emote more easily. And also, so that he can swim out to sea and drown himself? I guess it would have looked too silly with all the hair.
About the time he's gone, her husband discovers her unprocessed rolls of 120 film (from her Rolleiflex). He processes it all, only to discover shots of the building staircase, hallways, trim moulding, etc. I suppose he's relieved (since he was expecting the worst). But what a disappointment to the viewer! We were expecting Diane Arbus photos! After that, Diane runs away to a nudist colony. And there are no carefully placed badminton rackets either-- it's full frontal. And for the most part, it's people you'd like to see less of, not more.
The worst aspect of the film is the portrait of Arbus as moon-eyed romantic heroine. I see her photographs as very aloof from her subjects. Cool and distant. The romantic story line of this movie didn't work at all for me.
Well, as I said, it's another interesting performance by a pretty good actress in an abysmal flop. This film is not as bad as Moulin Rouge (still my choice for Worst Movie Ever) but it's pretty bad.
I can't recommend this film much. It's quirky and interesting to look at, but there was virtually nothing in it I was expecting-- namely, a better understanding of a mysterious, iconic photographer.
Some of you must have seen it. What did you think?
