Roman Polanski’s Venus in Fur is a film that traps two people—and their egos—inside a single room. What starts as a late-night audition between a director and an actress slowly turns into a psychological duel. Thomas Novacheck, a self-serious playwright, is auditioning women for his adaptation of Venus in Furs, the 1870 novel that gave birth to the word “masochism.” Then comes Vanda—wild, brash, uninvited—yet oddly perfect for the part. As they rehearse, the lines between art and obsession, director and submissive, man and woman, begin to collapse.
It’s a simple premise with dangerous energy. The film takes place entirely in a theater, and yet it never feels small. The tension in that space is electric, erotic, and suffocating. You watch two people shift dominance through wit, charm, and hidden motive.
When it first hit screens in 2013, critics leaned in close. The press called it “provocative,” “intimate,” “intellectually erotic.” Rotten Tomatoes gave it a strong 88% approval. Reviewers from The Guardian and The Washington Post praised Emmanuelle Seigner for turning the tables on Mathieu Amalric’s smug director, saying she “devours him whole.” Others complained that the cat-and-mouse game wears thin after a while—that what starts thrilling ends in repetition. Roger Ebert’s site called it “alluring but a touch stagey,” which, to be fair, fits the setting perfectly.
Financially, the film was modest. It pulled in around $8.4 million worldwide—a whisper compared to Polanski’s older hits—but its strength was never box office fireworks. It premiered at Cannes and was built for festivals, not multiplexes.
Here’s where it shines: Venus in Fur is a meditation on power. Every word, every glance, every pause is about who owns control. Amalric plays the artist who thinks he’s running the show. Seigner turns out to be the one who’s been directing the game all along. It’s a reminder that desire and dominance are never as clean as we want them to be.
It stumbles too, but in human ways. The repetition—those same reversals and speeches—can test your patience. And Seigner, while magnetic, sometimes oversells the moment. But maybe that’s the point: everything here is performance layered over performance. The artifice is the truth.
Seen today, Venus in Fur hits differently. In a world where every conversation about gender and power is public, this story feels like a live wire. It’s a two-person allegory for how we perform identity, how control is traded in subtler, quieter ways than hashtags and headlines suggest. Watching Thomas crumble under Vanda’s psychological grip feels like watching the modern ego lose to intuition and cunning. It’s about who reads the room better, not who yells louder.
You have to love it for its imperfections. The tension sometimes breaks, the metaphors sometimes overstay their welcome—but that’s real art. Polanski doesn’t wrap things in moral safety. He leaves you with discomfort, and discomfort, when handled right, breeds clarity.
For men—especially the kind who think they’ve got the upper hand—this is a film worth revisiting. It tests the idea of control. It asks what submission really means, both in love and in art.
That said, this one’s for grown men, not boys. It’s heavy with erotic dialogue, psychological seduction, and the scent of power exchange. If you’re under 18 or not ready to wrestle with your own desires, skip it for now.
But if you’re ready for a slow, intelligent burn—a film that doesn’t flatter, doesn’t coddle, and doesn’t apologize—pour a whiskey, dim the lights, and let it mess with your head.
Rating: 8/10.
Uncomfortable, deliberate, and intoxicating. Watch it not to agree—but to feel.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment