Streaming (1)
Sinopsis(1)
Solo en un teatro parisino, después de un día de audiciones de actores para la pieza que va a presentar, Thomas se lamenta al teléfono por la mediocridad de los candidatos. Ninguno tiene la envergadura necesaria para el papel principal. Cuando se disponía a partir llega Vanda, verdadero torbellino de energía, desenfrenada y avispada. Vanda encarna todo lo que Thomas detesta: es vulgar, atolondrada y no retrocedería ante nada para obtener el papel. Pero cuando Thomas, sintiéndose obligado, le deja probar suerte, queda perplejo y cautivado por la metamorfosis de Vanda. No solamente ha adquirido accesorios y vestuario, sino que también comprende perfectamente el personaje (tienen el mismo nombre) y conoce todas las líneas de memoria. Mientras la «audición» se prolonga y aumenta la intensidad, la atracción de Thomas se transforma en obsesión... (Wanda Visión)
(más)Videos (1)
Reseñas (2)
Roman Polanski sabe cómo hacer dramas sexualmente desafiantes y tórridos, es su fuerte. Eligió el reparto de los dos únicos papeles con absoluta precisión (Emmanuelle Seigner y Mathieu Amalric están estupendos) y, a sus ochenta años, hizo una obra muy convincente, que se hacer ver de principio a fin.
()
Venus in Fur creates a dramatic effect in several places and a subtle smile in others. However, labeling it as both a comedy and drama is confusing. Polanski primarily directed an explicitly erotic film. The taboo surrounding human sexuality is long gone in the Euro-American cultural sphere, and open depiction of lovemaking scenes no longer surprises anyone. The director is very reserved in portraying physicality, and anyone who sees his film as soft porn will inevitably be disappointed. Eroticism is built through dialogue and portrayal of emotions by both characters, who inject more and more of their sadomasochistic fantasies into the theatrical text. The audition turns into a battle between passionate partners, a center of dominance and submission, an exchange of gender roles, and a showcase of fetishism, bondage, manipulation, and humiliation. The roles of the author, director, theatrical characters, and their civilian counterparts intertwine and switch, often leaving one unsure where the theatrical replica ends and real life begins. Polanski has never had a problem adapting theatrical conversations, and I don't remember ever finding the theatrical framework of his films to be a hindrance. He is among the directors who never forget that they are there for the viewer, not the other way around. The fusion of film and theater is stronger here than ever before, but Polanski manages with just two actors, constantly changing positions, moods, and emotions to maintain attention. Yet his refined game of seduction and conflict of wills has another dimension. It is not difficult to imagine that Amalric represents the director's younger alter ego. In fact, it is directly implied, and the author engages the viewer's imagination with the question of how much the film's story is inspired by Polanski's marriage and his own conception of sexuality. In terms of acting, the film works perfectly; Seigner and Amalric are fantastic, and the chemistry between them is exemplary. Emmanuelle is charming, provocative, and evidently puts a bit more personal experience into her performance for the boss on set than any other actress in her position would. From a cinematic standpoint, there is nothing substantial to criticize about the film. The only thing that might not be attractive or acceptable to everyone is the somewhat exclusive SM-sexuality it deals with, despite its apparent restraint and indirectness. Overall impression: 85%.
()
Anuncio