sorry guys... this is not a review of this movie. it's not a review of this movie b/c as a huge fan of diane arbus' amazing photography there are too many things about this movie that will most likely make me wanna chuck my popcorn at the screen. first and foremost, why is it an "imaginary" portrait? diane arbus, and the real story of her life and art are perfectly interesting enough without garbling the public's understanding of who she truly was with an imaginary hollywood plotline. secondly, nicole kidman playing one of my favorite artists just plain old hurts my heart. i know she was great with that prosthetic nose in 'the hours' and all, but after suffering through her in the stoned scene in 'eyes wide shut', i really can't watch her any more. i'm actually surprised she's still acting b/c with all of the botox she's had put in her face it's a triumph of nature that she can even still make expressions at all. i'm aware that this is a full on haterish post based purely on my biases but damn... it's like carrot top playing van gogh or fred durst playing frank sinatra. right? okay, maybe not. anyway, if you've seen this film and think it's great or can shine any more light on it, definitely do. until then, i will remain pessimistic on my island of art snobbery in completely blind denial that this film could possibly be wonderful.
you can watch the trailer here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
when i heard that they were making a film about diane, i was happy. when i heard nicole kidman was playing her, i was slightly offended. i hate her.
have you read that arbus biography? it's great and up for borrows if anyone is interested.
Post a Comment