Aida Gradina
I was excited to see this film, I studied the works of Diane Arbus in photography school, but this is not really about her work, perhaps what inspired it? Honestly I don't care. As artists we are all inspired, maybe by a moment where we have an epiphany and our whole world changes, or perhaps our childhood to which we devote all of our energy to and eventually, as adults, rebel against which this whole crappy movie seems to be about. As an artist myself, when someone decides to cover a film about an individual who produced great art, I truly believe that the filmmaker should also devote themselves to not only producing great art but to respecting and staying true to the artist they are depicting.I did not like this film, in fact I hated it. But having said that i can't help but state that there were actually beautiful moments in this movie. The image of Lionel and Diane hugging each other naked as the background of the blue room illuminated their bodies as you watch him take a hold of her back is absolutely gorgeous. But it was too short! Let the audience enjoy imagery, actual photography which this whole film is apparently based upon. Also, when she wakes in Lionel's bed only to find herself surrounded by his friends, the blue walls, as a backdrop, with the conjoined twins standing before the character truly brought out the beauty of what Diane Arbus created later in her life, but the camera quickly slithered downwards and across the screen not leaving any space for interpretation or acknowledgment of such beauty and uniqueness. It makes me upset that a director has so many resources, so much talent working with him and yet he wastes half of it.This film is a disaster because it is supposed to be about one of the most important and influential women photographers of the 20th century, but is instead about a "weird" housewife who cheats on her husband with a man who is basically looked down upon in society.I understand that it is an imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus but Diane Arbus was not Alice In Wonderland, Diane Arbus was Diane Arbus who showed us what our world really looked like through her lens which was far from imaginary.
scancap
As a photographer who knows something of the work of Diane Arbus I decided to watch this. I waited and waited and waited for there to be anything in it about Diane Arbus and her work as a photographer. It never happened.Instead we are treated to an imaginary story that is extremely unlikely even metaphorically.This is one of those situations where you find yourself just pleading for it all to end.It is called an "imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus" and I suppose that kind of excuses it. But really...
rdolan9007
This film works better than I expected. I was a little nervous of what an imagined film actually meant (ie nonsense, or total nonsense) and whether it was going to be worth watching because of that. When a movie deals with a real person, I think it is reasonable to see where the lines between truth and fiction are going to be drawn. Obviously any film will take some liberties for the sake of a smooth plot narrative. This film is smooth and pretty well polished, and I was less distracted by what was truth and fiction than I expected. The film appears quite conventional in some aspects, ie 'freaks' are real people too, they are nice and kind, and we shouldn't prejudge them. The love affair between Arbus and Lionel I wasn't entirely convinced by . To me it was reminiscent of that horrible beauty and the beast TV series in the 80's or 90's. Again I would like to have known more of what was truth and what was fiction. You will not learn anything about Arbus's work here, which is a severe disappointment. The cinematography is excellent though, reminiscent of Hitchcock, Barton Fink, especially in the corridor shooting. The colours are rather like Mad men; the TV series set in the 50's/ 60's in an ad agency. Nicole Kidman is reasonable in the role, there are moments, especially acting besides her husband in the film, which ring true in there awkwardness. Downey is mostly hidden behind the hair caused by his illness, so its hard to judge how good his role is. I found the film watchable enough, but those awkward questions of what is real and what is fiction are not answered. It matters less to me having watched the film, but means that my praise for the film is more lukewarm than maybe it should be.
klarabergman
I have never read or seen anything about Diane Arrbus before, so I can not comment on that. However, I find this to be the kind of movie you just gasp your way trough. I love the whole imaginary feeling and it really makes the characters pop.Perhaps a bit too long, but that's easily forgotten when you come to one of those breathtakingly beautiful outdoor scenes, or pretty much any scene between Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. Their chemistry is really amazing. And the two characters they portray makes the whole movie.As said before, a few too long scenes, and some weird music here and there that does not really seem to fit in. But all in all a gorgeous and a little bit strange movie
AD
