#1
Posted: 6/21/14 at 2:41pm
I was nervous to see the film version of Venus in Fur this morning. How could they make the movie without Nina Arianda? Why did they reset the action to Paris? (It was hard not to think about Polanski's own Rosemary's Baby recently being inexplicably moved to Paris when remade for NBC.)
Nina WAS Venus in Fur. That performance was a force of nature, and when she switched between "real" Vanda and the character Vanda it was like another actor was onstage. The change was so sudden and so complete that it frightened.
So despite going in with zero expectations I basically loved the film. For every awful decision Polanski made adapting God of Carnage he made a great choice here. The screenplay is remarkably faithful to the stage show, except for the final 10 minutes. The ending improved upon the play IMO though, and definitely suited the medium of film better than how the play ends.
As for the actors- they were both terrific. Mathieu Amalric is older and less attractive than either Wes Bentley or Hugh Dancy, which served to make him even more pathetic as Vanda forced him further into submission.
Emmanuelle Seigner took a little warming up to, but I thankfully didn't find myself sitting there comparing every line reading to Nina's. She did her best work in the final 30 minutes.
In the stage show they switched between American accents and their various European accents when performing Venus in Fur. Now in French, the regular text was in normal subtitles and the lines of the play were in Italics. I couldn't tell any discernible difference in their French accents when they shifted between the two. It certainly lost a bit of an effect from the English version; I wonder if you were a native French speaker and not using subtitles whether or not there would be any difference at all. I liked in the stage show that as the conversation and the play began to fold into one the demarcation of the accents faded too.
This is a very minor quibble though, and overall it was one of my favorite stage to screen adaptations of the past decade.
Nina WAS Venus in Fur. That performance was a force of nature, and when she switched between "real" Vanda and the character Vanda it was like another actor was onstage. The change was so sudden and so complete that it frightened.
So despite going in with zero expectations I basically loved the film. For every awful decision Polanski made adapting God of Carnage he made a great choice here. The screenplay is remarkably faithful to the stage show, except for the final 10 minutes. The ending improved upon the play IMO though, and definitely suited the medium of film better than how the play ends.
As for the actors- they were both terrific. Mathieu Amalric is older and less attractive than either Wes Bentley or Hugh Dancy, which served to make him even more pathetic as Vanda forced him further into submission.
Emmanuelle Seigner took a little warming up to, but I thankfully didn't find myself sitting there comparing every line reading to Nina's. She did her best work in the final 30 minutes.
In the stage show they switched between American accents and their various European accents when performing Venus in Fur. Now in French, the regular text was in normal subtitles and the lines of the play were in Italics. I couldn't tell any discernible difference in their French accents when they shifted between the two. It certainly lost a bit of an effect from the English version; I wonder if you were a native French speaker and not using subtitles whether or not there would be any difference at all. I liked in the stage show that as the conversation and the play began to fold into one the demarcation of the accents faded too.
This is a very minor quibble though, and overall it was one of my favorite stage to screen adaptations of the past decade.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!