Venus in Fur

Dir: Roman Polanski

2013

*****

Roman Polanski’s thrilling theatrical two person show is the best adaption of an adaption I’ve seen for quite some time. Based on David Ives play that he adapted from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s 1870 novel, the film shares the same name and feels like a natural evolution of the core story. In Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s classic novel, we see a dream that a man has of him speaking to Venus. The story is narrated by the nameless man as he explains it to his friend who tells him how to break himself of his fascination with cruel women by reading a manuscript, Memoirs of a Suprasensual Man. This manuscript tells of a man, Severin von Kusiemski, who is so infatuated with a woman, Wanda von Dunajew, that he asks to be her slave, and encourages her to treat him in progressively more degrading ways. At first Wanda does not understand or accede to the request, but after humouring Severin a bit she finds the advantages of the method to be interesting and enthusiastically embraces the idea, although at the same time she disdains Severin for allowing her to do so. Severin describes his feelings during these experiences as suprasensuality. Severin and Wanda travel to Florence. Along the way, Severin takes the generic Russian servant's name of "Gregor" and the role of Wanda's servant. In Florence, Wanda treats him brutally as a servant, and recruits a trio of African women to dominate him. The relationship arrives at a crisis when Wanda meets a man to whom she would like to submit, a Byronic hero known as Alexis Papadopolis. At the end of the book, Severin, humiliated by Wanda's new lover, loses the desire to submit. He says of Wanda: “That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he and is his equal in education and work.” The story explored female dominance and sadomasochism – indeed the novel inspired the term ‘masochism’- and was fairly ahead of its time, it certainly wasn’t quite seen as the Marquis de Sade of its day, but rather a precursor to modern feminism, the character of Wanda being based on the writer Fanny Pistor who approached Leopold von Sacher-Masoch for guidance in getting her work published. David Ives updated version is far easier to digest and adds an extra element to the story. Thomas Novachek is the writer-director of a new play opening in New York City; this play-within-the-play is an adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s Venus in Fur. The play begins with Novachek on the telephone lamenting the inadequacies of the actresses who have showed up that day to audition for the lead character, Wanda von Dunayev. Suddenly, at the last minute, a new actress called Vanda Jordan bursts in. At first it's hard to imagine that she will please this very particular and exasperated writer/director: She's brash, vulgar and unschooled. But she convinces him to let her audition for the part of Wanda, with the director/writer reading the part of Severin von Kushemski. Much happens during this dynamic reading, as lightning flashes and thunder crashes outside. Vanda shows astonishing insights into the novel and her character, and she performs what is in effect a terrific audition. They both become caught up in the characters they are reading. The balance of power is reversed, and the actress establishes dominance over the director, which is similar to what occurs in the novel. In Roman Polanski’s version the story moves to a theatre in Paris and Vanda is played by an older woman. Vanda is around twenty-four in the play but is played by Emmanuelle Seigner in the film. Seigner, Polanski’s wife, was in her late forties which I think worked so much better for the role. Mathieu Amalric plays director Thomas Novacheck and the pair of them have a chemistry between them that any director worth their weight would kill for. It’s a two person play, so both performances have to be nothing short of perfect, and they are. Polanski’s visual style is all over the film, as is his ability to apply a certain captivating mystery, seen in nearly all of his films, particularly the classics. The move from New York to Paris, the outstanding performances and with the directors signature all over it, I would argue that Polanski’s version outshines the play. The story keeps you guessing until the very end and the switches from fact and fiction are astonishingly smooth, so you are never quite sure if it is the play, the audition or real life that you are watching. The masochism is psychological and the dominance is subtle, making both side of the story far more effective. The overall story is almost dreamlike, you wonder whether it is even happening or if it is all in Novacheck’s mind. It is kept as a theatrical play, which I think was a bold move but the right decision by Polanski, and the direction is simple but striking with very few camera movements. It’s all about the script and the amazing performances, both of which are masterful.