in order to enjoy fur  an imaginary portrait of diane arbus and stephen shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the american photographer and diane arbus. paradoxically and it the very use of diane arbus name and knowledge to her life and work and that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale. what becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful waspish and glamorous nicole kidman as the anti glamorous jewish diane arbus and is that shainberg do not get arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks. what follows is a kind of pretty and trivial beauty and the beast fantasy biopic with robert downey jr as kidman hairy fictional love interest. however and it not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film and but the director misogynistic stance that diane arbus and one of the art world most singular and original woman photographers and was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. while his previous film secretary was a study of female masochism and his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely  and flys in the face of the real life diane arbus courage and tenacity and fearlessness in single handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders. imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star madonna life with guy richie as her svengali and the man behind her career and and you will get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is represent it can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject and or just choose to ignore all the facts. it a shame because once you remove all reference to diane arbus and this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to secretary. negative . 
in order to enjoy fur  an imaginary portrait of diane arbus and stephen shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the american photographer and diane arbus. paradoxically and it the very use of diane arbus name and knowledge to her life and work and that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale. what becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful waspish and glamorous nicole kidman as the anti glamorous jewish diane arbus and is that shainberg do not get arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks. what follows is a kind of pretty and trivial beauty and the beast fantasy biopic with robert downey jr as kidman hairy fictional love interest. however and it not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film and but the director misogynistic stance that diane arbus and one of the art world most singular and original woman photographers and was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. while his previous film secretary was a study of female masochism and his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely  and flys in the face of the real life diane arbus courage and tenacity and fearlessness in single handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders. imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star madonna life with guy richie as her svengali and the man behind her career and and you will get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is represent it can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject and or just choose to ignore all the facts. it a shame because once you remove all reference to diane arbus and this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to secretary. negative . ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
