Celluloid fantasy

I need to make a couple of things clear. I didn't know who Diane Arbus was until I actually saw this movie and I didn't want to watch this movie until I saw a trailer on Painted Veil (which was reviewed in this column a couple of weeks ago). Since that's out of the way, let me just say that this is a different kind of movie. I've never, I think, come across a movie which attracts such conflicting reviews. There's a bunch of people who hate it and proclaim that the director has really forgotten who Diane Arbus was, and another set who now actually wants to live and let live courtesy the thought processes inculcated in the movie!

What you've got to realise is that the movie is not an autobiography. It's a portrait and that was made very clear right from the very start. Diane was an American photographer who I've now come to realise changed the very scope of photography with her unusual choice in subjects.

The movie attempts to delve into a time in her life where she found inspiration but I am yet to understand if there is any truth in it. As for the mixed reviews, maybe, just maybe, if they had not used Diane Arbus' name, the critics would have been kinder and they would have been willing to have more of an open mind. The writer and director used Arbus' claim to fame to explore the spark, the birth if you will of creativity.

The film, which shows not a single of her works, just covers the few key months in which Arbus discovered to be an artist, leaving her well-to-do environment. One day ante litteram desperate housewife Arbus, married to the mild-mannered advertising photographer Allan, looking outside the window sees Lionel, their new neighbour:

This is the beginning of the most unusual of love stories, around which the whole film revolves. Lionel, who is an entirely fictional character, suffers from Ipertrichosis, a pathological condition which causes his body and his face to be completely covered with hair. Lionel helps Arbus to discover her and introduces him to the world of the freaks, like himself, which would be the subject of most of her work.

The title of the film states it is an imaginary portrait of the artist. It's more like a wild fantasy loosely inspired to her figure. Kidman's performance is good, but not mind-blowing. Robert Downey Jr.'s is more interesting: With his face completely covered with hair, he manages to create a rather intriguing character, acting just with his eyes and his beautiful voice.

When Lionel tells Diane that he's "been waiting for a real freak," it is clear what he meant. Diane has been forbidding her own self to be true and she suffers from it. Lionel is her liberator – it's a love story of the most spiritual kind since "…there are only two sins; the first is to interfere with the growth of another human being, and the second is to interfere with one's own growth."

The chemistry between Nicole and Robert was fantastic (I think they'd do marvellously in a period piece!), both of them being seekers of truth. If you believe that the eyes are windows to your soul, then you will be unable to take your eyes off the screen. Their journey is in their eyes – you see in them the curiosity, the fascination, the fear, the pain, the joy, the love and finally the liberation of their souls. When the photograph is finally taken, Robert has your heart in his hands.

I love the sets, the music and the photography because they served the story so well. But I'm still confused whether I loved the movie. I liked it yes… but…

Words of wisdom –
Why don't you tell a
secret?

Watch it if you liked
– The Secretary

Movie Hall of Fame –
No

Watched a good movie? Let us know all about it at filmreview.mm@gmail.com – let's spread the movie "buff"iness! P.S. Thanks for all your mails!