SPOILER ALERT! The plot of the movie will be discussed.
If you can get past the fact that Venus in Fur, a film with sexual themes, was made by Roman
Polanski, a man in exile because of his sexual behavior, you might find this
movie interesting for the way it explores perceptions of male-female
role-playing.
This motion picture, in French, is based on a play by David
Ives (who co-wrote the screenplay with Polanski), which was inspired by the novel
written by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (from whose name the word “masochist” is
derived – a point noted in the film). The story takes place in a theater (the
“h” is missing on the sign outside, possibly indicating that either this is not
a first-class locale, or that things are not quite what they seem here). There
are only two characters: Thomas, the playwright and director (played
impressively by Mathieu Amalric, who looks disturbingly like a younger
Polanski); and, Vanda, a woman coming in late for an audition for the part of a
woman named – Vanda (played by Emmanuelle Seigner, Polanksi’s wife – which just
adds to the blurring of the lines between illusion and reality in this story).
We are immediately made to question what is real and what is fiction by the
coincidence involving her name. Vanda, the actress, seems to be ditsy, rambling
on, and she is dressed like a hooker. We have already heard Thomas complaining
how the other women who have showed up for auditions were dressed like
prostitutes. He also says that he could play the part better. However, once she
starts to read her lines, Vanda sounds totally believable in the role. She
knows all the lines, even though she said she just took a quick look at the
script. She knows how to adjust the lighting to set the right mood. She has
props which fit the right time period for the play, and has brought a smoking
jacket to fit the male character’s aristocratic class. (Her knowledge is
explained by her saying that she was a private investigator, hired by Thomas’
fiancé to investigate him. This statement is then passed off as a joke. But, is
it? It would explain how prepared she is). The irony is that as herself, she is
unimpressive, but in a fictional role, she is empowered. Does this mean that in
real life women are not allowed to be strong, and can only achieve strength in
roles men allow them to play?
Thomas is at first dismissive of her. But, he is then surprised
and awed by Vanda’s preparedness. His role of power as the director and writer
is eventually taken over by Vanda. She convinces him to play the male role and
read with her. She becomes the director, and even improvises, basically
re-writing the play. The submissive one becomes dominant. Thomas admits that
when he was young, he had an aunt who beat his naked behind. From this act, he
says, sensuality comes from pain, and it taught him how to be a man – not an
attractive definition of what it takes to be a male. Instead of the male
Dionysus being the punisher in sexual debauchery, here, in this story, Venus
wields “divine cruelty.”
Later in the film, Thomas passively reclines on a couch, and
Vanda becomes his psychiatrist, making him confess that despite his fiancé
being rich and the two talking about art and literature, that underneath he is
unfulfilled. Thomas likens the relationship between the dominant and the
submissive as that between a hammer and anvil. He seems to want to be the
anvil, but feels he must reassert his position of the hammer with the actress
Vanda. But, the ring tone for his fiancé on his cell phone is from Wagner’s
“Ride of the Valkries,” indicating that he is submissive in his sexuality in
his real life. Vanda is the dominant one on the phone when talking to her
boyfriend. But, she, too, seems to alternate between being powerful and
sexually submissive in her behavior, in both the role and in real life. Vanda at
one point during the audition slaps Thomas, and then kisses him. She appears to
be conducting business while signing the contract to be in the play, but then
flashes her breast. She transfers her dog collar from her neck to his, and he
trembles in ecstasy when it is fastened on him.
In the play, Vanda says that the male character will be her
slave for a year, after which they will have sex. It appears that she has the upper
hand. But, Vanda, the actress, accuses Thomas of being sexist. She tells the
author/director that the more the male submits, the more he has power, because
it is his game that is being played,
not the woman’s. He asks to have her boots put on him. The zipping of the boots
signifies enclosure, a type of bondage she is placing him in. She begins to
dress him as a woman – he did mention earlier how he could play the part of a
female, possibly subconsciously suggesting his own urge for submission. At the
end of the play Thomas has written, the male resumes dominance. Things are
different at the end of the film. She has Thomas in female clothing, tied up,
telling him how dare he think that she could humiliate her. He has been made to
assume the enforced traditional degrading role of the submissive woman. At the
end, she undulates as a naked Venus, draped in sensuous fur, taunting him,
rendering him figuratively impotent. Perhaps she really is the goddess, as she
makes Thomas admit at the end. It would explain how she knows so much. Maybe
she is her real self in the play and the actress persona is the fiction. She
quotes a line from the Bible: “And the Lord has smitten him, and delivered him
into a woman’s hands.” At the end, Vanda has delivered divine retribution.
Next week’s movie is Five
Easy Pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please share your thoughts about the movies discussed here.