Fur PR Nightmare

Poor Picturehouse. They're trying to promote their movie Fur. They backed the overtly arty Diane Arbus biopic—a daring script which confounds audiences expectations. But stars Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey, Jr. aren't available to fully support it, and director Steve Shainberg hasn't always turned up for every PR opportunity either, my sources tell me. Here, he sounds off on the movie's many critics. Shainberg is fortunate that he got to make his movie his way, and should bear up under any criticism with dignity (is he really surprised?) and do whatever PR Picturehouse asks him to do. And Kidman and Downey, who give terrific, brave performances in the movie, should also be promoting it. (UPDATE: Kidman went to the movie's debut in Rome, where she did a Vogue cover, and was planning to attend the New York premiere and junket when her new husband, Keith Urban, went into rehab, at which point she cancelled. She had done some print but no TV. Downey did the junket but no TV.)

I applaud this movie, even though it takes a debatable sharp turn its third act. It resolves the issue of not being able to use Arbus's photos quite inventively. It's clear, though, that fall movies that don't move into the class of Oscar contenders are unduly slammed as outright failures. Fur may not be a crowd pleaser, but when it opens Friday it deserves some support from smart-house audiences who say they're tired of getting the same old same old. This is definitely not that. It's a feminist fable about a woman who makes the transition into being an artist.

Kidman's marquee value is an interesting question. Certain actors are compelling and brilliant but don't draw you in with warmth and sympathy. Jude Law also comes to mind in Anthony Minghella's Breaking and Entering. They're beautiful and fun to watch (I just viewed Jonathan Glazer's Birth on DVD as well) but do we love and care about them? (I want to read David Thomson's unauthorized Kidman biography, even though it has a lousy 44 rating on Metacritic; the NYT called it a "weird and unseemly mash note.")

Comments

[Karina]

You're so right on Kidman - she's a deceptively difficult sell for a star who seems to have so much tabloid interest. As for the film, I'm definitely rooting for it. I find it frustrating that a certain cache of critics harp on Hollywood films for their dullness and predictability (easy targets?), and then almost invariably reject almost anything truly original when it does come along (knee-jerk reactions to actually having their expectations challenged?).

[Suzie]

I agree that both Kidman and Law are brilliant and compelling actors. They are what I pay to see. They take the risks that make movie-going exciting. So what if they're not warm and sympathetic? It's their compelling presence that draws me in. I don't need to feel their characters could me my best friends. Marquee value is purely a function of box office; Law's and Kidman's projects are hardly box office material.

[Amy]

I will take Kidman over ALL and I mean ALL other performers any day. This is a woman who never makes her characters pitiable nor does she swoon on screen. She plays characters that are not easily understood or asked to be loved but she dares you to look away or dismiss their actions. Warmth? Sympathetic? who needs to see that cliche, over and over? I actually find Kidman warmer than most performers onscreen because her characters are revealed truthfully, you hear her characters breathe unlike some deemed "greatest of their generation". Kidman is paid what she is worth because directors have been known to fight for her, you don't need to make hits to be worth what you are paid for. She is someone that cannot be defined. Some see her as a movie star, others as a character actress and this makes her delectable. She has defied the critics who wrote her off years ago by being ambitious, focused, unafraid of failing and enjoying it all. The tabloids love her despite the fact that she doesn't do much for them news-wise, it is just the way she is. Kidman is more likely to stand taller than most of her peers in the future.

As for the promotion of the movie, alot more support for Fur should perhaps have been more forthcoming from you, too, Anne. Apart from your tidbit from Telluride, a small article on the way it is told differently and now this, you are certainly not shouting it on the rooftop. Is there any reason why YOUR review of this movie is not out there despite liking it, and yet we get one from your colleague, and a bad review at that? You are not showing much support for it by dropping the bomb that it is not Oscar-material or Oscar-worthy (you were quoted by Tom O'Neil at Envelope), how did you think that would have helped? With attititudes like this, there is little promoting the movie would have done. This is a unique movie with brilliant performances but it is "not Oscar-worthy", maybe they should have screamed, turned Arbus into a shrill, broken some plates, etc.

Kidman would have been there to support the movie but for her family commitments, there is nothing she can do about that. I believe Shainberg and Downey are doing what they can.