Our perspective is forced to exit the closed doors of the theater with the camera, the movie credits slowly rise, and the backgrounds change one by one, the countless incarnations of the goddess that artists have imagined for hundreds of years. And they - without exception - unsuspectingly present their naked carcasses to viewers thousands of years later. In this way, the Venus wearing fur in the title is somewhat problematic. Why on earth did she want à la fourrure? Or, why are those Venus naked?
Whether it is the original author Masoke, or the "adapter" Polanski, and the artists who have endlessly lewd Venus in the long river of history - these historical portrayers, for their "goddess plot" , fabricated one after another "idol". According to the prototype, it is the Pygmalion in the epic Metamorphoses of the Roman poet Ovid, the artist who fell in love with his sculpture and begged before the altar of Aphrodite to give it life, until he found that "her" lips became warm, Breasts become soft. After all, men want to shape a perfect woman with their own hands. And what women do is to cater to their fantasies.
In the film, the heroine Vanda seems to usurp the initiative in the dialogue and the battle between the sexes. Even at the end, Thomas was bound to the huge phallic symbol and could not escape, and looked pale as his Venus, dressed in fur, danced freely in the thunder and lightning, and left gracefully. However, who exactly is Vanda? She seems to be omniscient and knows all his secrets, and we know nothing about her. Cool, noble, and heartless, her mystery makes her as dull as a sculpture—she is nothing more than a projection of the author's imagination. Therefore, the viewer does not need to know her history, but only needs to follow her raised index finger and provocative eyes to walk through the maze in the creator's mind.
Thinking about it like this, it seems that I can't stop myself and join the author's dialogue on the struggle between the sexes.
View more about Venus in Fur reviews
