What ever happen to that Diane Arbus movie?

[Robert Brummitt]

I was witing to see it and I don't think it ever showed up here? Was it one of those "Art" movies that show in one theater then goes? Did I blink and then it was gone?
I saw the advertisment only online never on the big screen. Was that Kidman in a fur suit?

[SuzanneR]

I think it played here for about a weekend. Needless to say, I will wait for Netflix to have it.

Don't get me started on going to the movies!! Umpteen million shoot 'em ups playing on four screens at the gazillion theater multiplex, but if you want to see something off the beaten path you have one weekend at the "Art House" movie theater that is some 40 miles away.

[donbga]

I was witing to see it and I don't think it ever showed up here? Was it one of those "Art" movies that show in one theater then goes? Did I blink and then it was gone?
I saw the advertisment only online never on the big screen. Was that Kidman in a fur suit?

This is what Jim Emerson of RogertEbert.com wrote about the movie:

'Perhaps the two biggest problems with "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" are the last two words of the title. This through-the-looking-glass "[COLOR=#0000ff]Beauty and the Beast[/COLOR]" fable has little to do with Diane Arbus, the famous photographer, or with her work, which is not seen in the film. As a Lewis Carroll title card explains, this "is not a historical biography" but instead "reaches beyond reality to express what might have been Arbus' inner experience on her extraordinary path" to becoming an artist. Sure. All that's missing is a sense of who Arbus was, and how the fictional journey depicted in the film is reflected in (or, rather, distilled from) her art.

What we're left with is a gorgeously mounted, impeccably framed fantasy that exhibits the sensuous aesthetic of an ad in [COLOR=#0000ff]Vanity[/COLOR] Fair but provides no particular insight into Arbus' psychological or artistic sensibility. ...
As it is, "Fur" is stuck with offering a reductive and unenlightening view of the real Arbus.'

This should give you a clue why not many people bothered to go see it much less talk about it; which comes as no surprise to me. The general public knows little of Diane Arbus so the producers took creative license and turned the movie into a vehicle to showcase Kidman and Downey hoping to attract viewers.

[Amund]

It was only shown a couple of times here in Norway too, during Oslo Film festival. I chose to see Sally Mann "What remains" instead. I loved it.

[bjorke]

...but if you want to see something off the beaten path you have one weekend at the "Art House" movie theater that is some 40 miles away.

http://www.blockbuster.com/

Seriously. While the local blue box has limited selection there's a LOT of stuff you can find in their online warehouse. Heck, I even found Wong Kar-Wai's 'Happy Together,' which is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to see... and 'My 20th Century' and 'Closely Watched Trains' too. Recently we've watched 'Shoot the Piano Player' and the '95 'Richard III' (SO great) and 'How to Draw a Bunny' and several bios of Hockney and Francis Bacon. It is a fine, fine, thing.

[catem]

I checked before Christmas here in the U.K. and although it was originally scheduled for release here from 10th Nov the info remains "TBA".....no knowing if it will be released at all here, if it is and someone notices please let me know as I'd like to see it if I don't blink at the wrong time and it's gone.....

[TheFlyingCamera]

I did see it, as I live about a mile and a half from two arthouse theaters (ah, the joys of living downtown in a big city). If you knew nothing about Diane Arbus, it was a mildly entertaining fiction. The film was hampered in showing anything of her actual work because her sister(daughter?) who controls the estate won't let anyone get anywhere near Diane's work without 100% approval and control by her. And since she didn't like the book on which the movie was based, there was no way the movie was going to get access to Diane's work.

Frankly, unless you just want some entertainment, and enjoy watching Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey chew the scenery, then give it a miss. Oh, and you get to see some cool cameras onscreen. Diane's Rolleiflex, and a Sinar Norma with a 14" Commercial Ektar on it, for certain.

[SuzanneR]

http://www.blockbuster.com/

Seriously. While the local blue box has limited selection there's a LOT of stuff you can find in their online warehouse. Heck, I even found Wong Kar-Wai's 'Happy Together,' which is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to see... and 'My 20th Century' and 'Closely Watched Trains' too. Recently we've watched 'Shoot the Piano Player' and the '95 'Richard III' (SO great) and 'How to Draw a Bunny' and several bios of Hockney and Francis Bacon. It is a fine, fine, thing.

Yup... I have netflix, and have rented some very obscure movies and documentaries through it. It's great to watch them when it's convenient for me.

But, I dunno... sometimes it's just fun to see a movie on the big screen.

[catem]

It is good to see films on the big screen, but thanks Scott, I feel better about missing it now

[Jim Noel]

The film appeared in San Diego for a "Limited Engagement" at one theatre for one weekend. I have heard that sometimes this approach is used to test audience reaction and the film re-issued during the following year. I hope that is the case.