The Politics of Fur (2002) was presented at the Rochester ImageOut film festival. I assume it was chosen because three main characters are lesbian or gay, and ImageOut is Rochester's gay and lesbian film festival. However, just because a film features gay and/or lesbian characters doesn't mean it is good enough to be shown at this important festival.
There were two excellent aspects to this particular showing of The Politics of Fur. The first was the very gracious speech made by Laura Nix, the director and screenwriter. The second positive aspect of the event was the presence of Katy Selverstone, who is the film's star. She is extremely beautiful on screen and in person.
That's about all I can say in praise of this movie. Ms. Selverstone plays Una, a entertainment industry wheeler-dealer who "puts people together" and apparently reaps immense financial benefits from doing so. She is given the "gift" of a tough young rock singer, who has not talent, no personality, no intellect, and--for me--no redeeming virtue. The rest of the story unfolds in a tedious and predictable fashion.
The most interesting aspect of this film came from a laughable mistake. In one scene, we are presented with seemingly endless views of Ms. Selverstone's very dirty feet. Obviously, this scene was shot after the scene that could explain this out-of-character lack of hygiene. My question--Didn't anybody notice? If the director didn't notice, didn't the camera operator? (OK--it was low budget film. But couldn't they afford soap?)
Stay away from this one. It's a loser.
There were two excellent aspects to this particular showing of The Politics of Fur. The first was the very gracious speech made by Laura Nix, the director and screenwriter. The second positive aspect of the event was the presence of Katy Selverstone, who is the film's star. She is extremely beautiful on screen and in person.
That's about all I can say in praise of this movie. Ms. Selverstone plays Una, a entertainment industry wheeler-dealer who "puts people together" and apparently reaps immense financial benefits from doing so. She is given the "gift" of a tough young rock singer, who has not talent, no personality, no intellect, and--for me--no redeeming virtue. The rest of the story unfolds in a tedious and predictable fashion.
The most interesting aspect of this film came from a laughable mistake. In one scene, we are presented with seemingly endless views of Ms. Selverstone's very dirty feet. Obviously, this scene was shot after the scene that could explain this out-of-character lack of hygiene. My question--Didn't anybody notice? If the director didn't notice, didn't the camera operator? (OK--it was low budget film. But couldn't they afford soap?)
Stay away from this one. It's a loser.
