In 1984, remaking a film in which a character prominently wears fur with the same character prominently wearing fur was not really a big deal. Unlike today, when a studio can reboot a character whose defining characteristic is wearing fur and… not have them wear any fur at all. Unfaithfully Yours (84) does switch up the fur, but I think it’s slightly improved over the original.

Unfaithfully Yours – Fur Fashion Stats

  • Fur/Feather/Misc Runtime: 11:08 minutes
  • Film Runtime:  96 minutes
  • On-Screen Ratio: 11.60%

Find-a-Fur: Unfaithfully Yours, 1984

(All times are approximate and are affected by the cut of the film.)

  • 04:15 – 05:40 – The Tanuki Coat
  • 07:45 – 10:35 – ”
  • 1:02:20 – ”
  • 1:04:20 – 05:45 – ”
  • 1:07:30 – ”
  • 1:16:55 – 18:15 – ”
  • 1:20:00 – ”
  • 1:26:20 – 33:30 – ”

Unfaithfully Yours – Fur Fashion Review

The film’s plot is pretty simple: a rich old guy marries a beautiful young woman and immediately assumes she’s cheating on him. He rushes to a good divorce attorney– I mean, it’s an 80s comedy, so he skips straight to attempted murder. But… humorously. 

This is a remake of a film of the same name from 1948, which I also note is the last two numbers reversed. In that version of the film, the young woman is played by Linda Darnell and wears a large white fox wrap in the second and third acts where her murder is attempted. It’s notable for being the only way you ever got fox in the ‘40s, as a wrap or stole.

In this version, the would-be murder victim is played by 80s sex symbol Nastassja Kinski, and the fur is tanuki, not fox. There is not much else to say about it other than she wears it on screen for about 11 minutes, which puts Unfaithfully Yours (84) into the 10% realm, which is a decent showing. I had hoped it might have another 20% club candidate here, but unsurprisingly, memories of seeing this from when I was nine were a little “hazy.”

3 responses to “Furs on Film – Unfaithfully Yours (1984)”

  1. “It’s notable for being the only way you ever got fox in the ‘40s, as a wrap or stole.”

    Why is that though?
    Weren’t they able to join them well back then? Or was it just too pricey?

    1. Poorly phrased. I was referring to the styles common in the 40s, where the extremely large fox coats of the 30s were no longer in fashion (tragically), and the only way you will generally see any fox at all is when it is used in a wrap or stole. For coats and strollers, shorter haired furs like mink were the norm for the next 30 years or so, in 40s, 50s and 60s, (although this blog certainly highlights a number of notable exceptions) until 70s finally brought large, long haired coats back into style.

  2. […] you were watching the 1984 version of Unfaithfully Yours and thinking: but it needs more tanuki, this is the film for you. Basically, what I’m saying is […]

Leave a Reply

Trending

Discover more from Fur Glamor

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading