The 2006 film Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is perhaps one of the most unique cinematic renditions of an artist’s life in existence. Heavily criticized and rejected by her own children, Amy and Doon Arbus, the film takes a metaphorical approach to the life and influences of Diane Arbus. Anyone seeking a biographical analysis of the artist’s life and work in this film are sure to be disappointed, because the story line is exactly what the title implies; imaginary. The opening credits feature a disclaimer, warning the audience that the ensuing tales are an interpretation of the life and mind of Arbus and hold little historical accuracy. While there are many factual portions of the story line which hold true to her life, much of the primary plot is fabricated. However, is it possible that the film provides an accurate representation of the artists’inspirations, or is it just too furry?
Initially, Fur does a fairly commendable job at setting the backdrop of Arbus’ life. We see her and her husband, Allan Arbus, setting up for a seemingly upscale fashion show. Diane came from a wealthy background; her mother and father being the owners of Russeks department store on 5th Avenue, which sold furs and other high fashion to an upper-class community. This is shown in some of the initial scenes, with the fashion show being held in their apartment. She lived and worked in her Manhattan apartment, assisting Allan in his advertising photography business where he shot for magazines such as Glamour, Seventeen, and Vogue. While she set up the shoots and posed the models, he photographed the scenes. Soon, we see Diane’s desire to break free, so to speak, of her life as a mother and housewife. Having a vast knowledge of cameras and photography from her hands-on experience with her husband, she uses photography as a way to liberate herself.
This is the point in the movie where things take a bizarre turn and the lines between fact and fiction are blurred. Those unfamiliar with the life of Diane Arbus may have a hard time following the metaphorical approach used to depict her life, and even those who are familiar may have trouble keeping up. Arbus befriends her upstairs neighbor, a former circus ‘freak’ named Lionel with a rare disease which causes him to grow copious amounts of hair all over his body. She leaves her family at all hours under the guise of photographing the neighbors, actually spending time with Lionel and other former circus performers and characters from the city: a little person, a woman from the burgeoning S&M community, little people, a giant, and many more. As the pair’s friendship grows stronger, they spend more time together and eventually fall in love.
While this portion of the story is fictitious, it does draw on Arbus’ real-life inspirations for her later photography. There was never a portion of her life in which she befriended her hairy ex-circus performer upstairs neighbor, however, she did famously photograph individuals from circus sideshows, or ‘freak shows.’ She was also known for her photography of transvestites, little people, strippers,giants, nudists, and the S&M community among others. Arbus often grew extremely close to the individuals she photographed, from her most mundane subjects to the most shocking of social outcasts. We see her interest in and connection to those who are frequently ‘othered’ by society in the film. However, it does so in a much more literal form.
The film is most definitely not without its many faults. It is true that Arbus broke many barriers with the subject matter of her photography; taking portraits of those who would have been considered shocking and risqué individuals at the time they were shot in the 1960s. However, Fur portrays them as her sole source of inspiration, not to mention the fact that none of her actual work is discussed or presented in the film. Nothing beyond her connection with these individuals is really discussed in relation to work as a photographer,aside from her introduction into photography with her husband. Any viewer who knew nothing about Arbus or her work would assume that she had an unnatural obsession with sideshow performers and shaving hairy men; a reference to a rather unpleasant and unnecessary scene from the movie. Her work is intensely personal, and her subject is the human heart, whomever that heart may belong to. Much of her later work which came after the time span of the film captures thought provoking and emotional portraits of everyday individuals, such as “Identical twins, Roselle, NJ, 1967,” and “Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, NYC, 1962.” These more mundane portraits are among her most celebrated works, yet the film choses to focus solely on her more atypical subjects. While it does do a good job making sure she is not portrayed as exploiting these individuals and delves into her relationships with her subjects, it does little to discuss the rest of her work. Those who decide to investigate her work further after watching the film may do so with the expectation that they will find more shocking subjects, and rather unenthused and disappointed when they find portraits of everyday people as her primary subjects.
Fur is a wholly original interpretation of Diana Arbus’ life, and it is up to the viewer to determine if it accurately represents her and her work or not. While the film is an interesting take on her work and personal relationships, it strays far from fact and by no means is, or claims to be, a biographical account. This movie is merely entertaining, and viewers will likely leave amused and knowing little more about the photographs or stories behind the work of Diane Arbus.
