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 "
Beauty and the Beast" 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
Vanity 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.
