Dirty Pictures (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Much Ado

[righter-2 · 8/10 · 6 June 2000]

This is a very engaging movie that centers around an individual's right to personal taste. It does a fine job in getting the viewer thinking. It begs definitions of community standards, personal freedoms, pornography, obscenity and first ammendment protection.

I share my grandfather's take on this subject by one of his favorite sayings: '"To each, his own," said the man who kissed the cow.' There are exhibits and shows I wouldn't go to see on a bet, but I recognize there are many that would. Fortunately, we have to right to boycott or walk out if we don't like what we see.

As far as the movie itself, it's a lot like Mapplethorpe's work. He dealt with lighting, composition and mood. Granted, some of his subjects were disturbing but the total impression was masterful. This film asks and allows us to overlook the surface matter (the actual story, direction and script) and deal with the deeper aspects of the piece. I suggest you give it a view.

As always, James Woods was wonderful.

WTFU in Cincinatti.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 12 October 2008]

Art can cause a lot of trouble. No doubt about it. In 1913, a ballet debuted in Paris, "The Rite of Spring," full of strange rhythms and telling the story of the barbaric sacrifice of a young virgin. The audience included such luminaries as Picasso, Cocteau, Proust, Ravel and Debussy. Some folks liked it, many didn't. There were hisses, boos, and catcalls. Objects were thrown at the stage. Fights broke out. The police were called. And the composer, Stravinsky, and the choreographer, Nijinsky, had to escape out the back way.

What that incident and the story shown in this movie have in common is that neither object of community scorn -- not the ballet and not the Mapplethorpe photographs -- were intended to promote social change, nor could they have, even if the artists had wanted them to. The Mapplethorpe exhibit at the Cincinatti gallery wasn't the equivalent of an hysterical call to arms by Commies or Nazis, and nothing like the shout of "fire" in a crowded theater.

Yet everyone in the community was divided on the issue. Dennis Barrie, who runs the gallery and booked the exhibit, is played by James Woods, who is better at half-comic loonies than upstanding champions of freedom of speech. Seven of the photos are disturbing enough. Among the pretty flowers with their unfolding petals are the genitalia of human beings, and the abuse of those organs. Some are outright disgusting -- a man urinating in another's mouth. Man, though, does Woods get into trouble. His family gets threatening phone calls at night, his kid is insulted and beaten at school, his wife has to resign from the PTA, none of his neighbors will talk to him, and Woods himself is arrested, brought to trial on obscenity charges, and acquitted.

I wasn't expecting much but actually the film isn't that bad. Both positions -- for and against Woods and his exhibit -- are shown, with their expectable fringe elements waving placards and dancing wildly up and down as they shout curses and encouragement. And there are some talking heads -- Barney Frank, William F. Buckley, and Salman Rushdie among them -- who are able to calmly articulate the reasoning behind the emotions displayed by the crowds.

Some clichés must be unavoidable in these kinds of films, and they do show up here. The anonymous jury members arguing (in Canadian accents). The family arguments between the rigid husband and the wife (Diana Scarwid, always good) who wants it all to just go away. The kids' troubles at school. The fruitcake calls about going to hell. The good guys with no vices; the bad guys looking subtly sinister. But the story isn't swamped by them. We stick pretty close to James Woods and his travails.

A more serious problem is that the movie presents the issue categorically. Either you're in one camp or the other. And, having done so, the writers and director don't leave us in much doubt about which side they're on. They're on the side of the angels of course.

And the movie doesn't get at the problem behind the problem, which isn't "obscenity" but "tolerance." William F. Buckley makes the point that even if Mapplethorpe's photographs were perfectly executed, there is no obligation to show them to the public. He's absolutely right. Nor does the public have an obligation to view them. The real question is whether we should deny others the right to view them. Photos HAVE prompted social and political change in the past. Think of Mathew Brady's photographs of Confederate dead at Antietam. No one had seriously imagined a Civil War battlefield strewn with hundreds of bloated bodies before. Or Dorothea Lange's photographs of impoverished Okie farmers during the Great Depression, which leveraged Washington into addressing their plight. Or a photo from Vietnam -- half a dozen scorched children running and screaming from a napalmed village, led by a naked young girl with her skin peeling. I would guess that compared to those photos, Mapplethorpe's pictures of fisting and homoeroticism don't pose much of a threat to social stability. Why not tolerate them? De gustibus non disputandum est. What's going to happen -- the homosexuals are going to rise up en masse and take over the world? We might be better off for it, as far as that goes. At least we'd all be well dressed.

You have to hand it to cable TV for making movies about newsworthy events like this one, even if it comes some years after the event has lost its value as gossip fodder. HBO does it head on, with skill and often wit. And PBS sometimes comes up with startlingly well-done docudramas like "Oppenheimer." Good for them.

An Interesting Watch! Woods is Excellent!

[namashi_1 · 7/10 · 11 April 2012]

A look at the 1990 trial of Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center director Dennis Barrie, who was accused of promoting pornography, 'Dirty Pictures' turns into An Interesting Watch! Also, The Always-Amazing James Woods delivers a yet another Excellent Performance!

'Dirty Pictures' Synopsis: A Cincinnati museum director goes on trial in 1990 for exhibiting sadomasochistic photographs taken by Robert Mapplethorpe.

'Dirty Pictures' may be not be flawless, but it sure is engaging & grasping. It talks about exploitation, freedom, sadomasochism & power. Ilene Chaiken's Screenplay is engaging & thought provoking. Frank Pierson's Direction is effective. Cinematography, Editing & Art Design, are fine.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned, Woods gives a yet another Excellent Performance! As Dennis Barrie, The Two-Time Academy-Award-Nominated Veteran Actor delivers a performance, that's so accurate & detailed, its hard to point out any flaws whatsoever! Diana Scarwid is competent. Craig T. Nelson does a fair job. Others fill the bill.

On the whole, 'Dirty Pictures' is worth a watch.

A case for artistic freedom

[mermatt · 28 May 2000]

This film deals with the same 1st Amendment rights issues as THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT. It presents the case of the Cincinnati art museum that displayed the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe. Intercut with the action of the film are comments from both the political right and left, including Mapplethorpe himself.

The song "Banned in the USA," a "Born in the USA" parody dealing with censorship, sums up the point -- that if some people protest against what other people want, that's fine, but if the protestors try to impose their own will through misapplication of law, that is not only censorship but also the first step towards dictatorship hiding under the guise of benevolent morality.

The cast is strong, especially James Woods as the museum director. The plot meanders back and forth in time, giving us background and consequences woven together into an intriguing story. The issues raised are important, and the dramatic presentation of these issues makes the film worthwhile.

Sceptical about the values of the United (States of America)

[ellisfamily · 6/10 · 8 December 2007]

By the standards of the 'prosecution' in this case, many of the earliest artistic objects unearthed by archaeologists would be considered "smutty" and unworthy of display in any museum or art gallery. Think about the "First Amendment" when you think of whay is written and painted on walls all the time since 1990, when the case began, or more

The film-making process shown necessarily displays many Mapplethorpe pieces. It's a pity that this should be the case, as they scandalise what might otherwise could be a 'family' movie.

That Rushdie and others are interviewed makes this as much a fiction of journalism as a fiction by a writer.

Beware the temptation to laud Barrie (James Woods) in "winning" over the Cincinnati prosecutor, who comes across (with the techniques of the 'anti' side) as sleezy, but well intentioned in a morally broken way.

That the Judge was held somehow responsible, and soon voted out of office, says much about the USA's system of justice and not much that's good about about it's elector's reasoning or intellect. But, in the end, voting is subjective -- and "local".

Bold and Sassy Cable TV Movies

[lambiepie-2 · 9/10 · 23 September 2006]

When I was little, CBS, NBC and ABC had the corner on "Made for TV films" which were shown weekly, monthly, twice a year, etc. Many of them dove and dealt with current events and showed cautionary tales. As a result, some of them were very good for the small budgets they had.

But somewhere along the line, Standards and Practices dictated that many of the more controversial themes had to be geared towards a general audience (Oh, the CHILDREN!!!). In my view, much of what was seen in many of these network films became antiseptics of very hard hitting, gut wrenching stories.

In walks cable stations such as HBO and Showtime that start producing its own movies for pay subscribers - showing warts and all - and let me tell you, they have been fantastic. I can't honestly say I've seen them all, but my very favorite, HBO's "Barbarians at the Gate" is the first one I saw and I knew the days of antiseptic network made for TV movies were over.

Frank Pierson directed what is actually an artistic no win situation -- and as far as I am concerned, he did a good job in telling the story without drawing a conclusion on itself. The story is a true story about a museum in Cincinnati that was to display the artist Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit and contained within that exhibit was pictures of sadomasochism and private parts. Mind you, that was not the work of the entire exhibit, but those particular pictures within that work was what caused the problem.

Dennis Barrie, played by the wonderful actor James Woods, is the museum curator that had to make a decision - well several decisions: To show or not to show the exhibit, to show all of the exhibit or parts of it, to show some of the exhibit to the general museum audience and block off the other parts to an audience over 21...and so on and so forth. What is at stake here - The First Amendment of Free speech? A man wanting to protect an artists' vision and rights over his family's welfare? A man wanting to be a martyr? A man wanting to corrupt Cincinnati? A man wanting PR? A man who secretly had a private fetish? All of these questions come up in this film - and what are the answers? Was Barrie right or wrong in what he did? Was the town right? His family right? The museum Board of Directors right? The government right? YOU decide.

Art is subjective and what I would see as art which is appealing and beautiful, the next person may definitely not. Take for example Andy Warhol and the Campbell Soup can, Yoko Ono and her famous "YES" painting, Georgia O'Keefe and her 'plants', Jean-Michel Basquiat and his Samo and Robert Mapplethorpe and his "dirty pictures". For me, I can look at quite a few works from these folks (and more) and say, "hmmm, that's a beautiful reflection of real life" while someone standing right next to me looks at the same thing, and is shocked and infuriated.

But then, such as in the case of artist Robert Mapplethorpe, I had only seen a limited view of his work. A section. That particular side of his work didn't bother me any, which is why I could not understand what the fuss was about. Then came this presentation of "Dirty Pictures" that let's you know all sides of what the 'fuss' is about.....and yes, as someone who will die to protect the first amendment and who loves the expression of art and freedom for artists; I was very, very, very uncomfortable by a few pictures contained within this exhibit.

But that's the beauty of this film. Film is art TOO, and this film goes "there" by presenting you the case, the struggle for the curator and his family, the wrenching of the city and the government who funded the museum and the question of "what is right to do?"

When this picture was presented in America, one of the biggest pieces of publicity surrounding it was "Are they going to show the pictures in question?" Ah, there's the rub. Do you want to see the questionable Mapplethorpe pictures to be able to draw your own conclusions? Did you draw a conclusion already? Does this made for cable film need to show you the "dirty pictures" to tell about you about the dirty pictures? And if they do show the pictures, aren't they doing the same that as Dennis Barrie?

Decisions, decisions, decisions. Very right and undoubtedly very wrong. It's your view. That's what makes this movie bold and sassy. A brash effort, a darn good telling of a "real life" story and a still controversial subject matter -- no matter what end of the spectrum you stand.

Cherubims, body parts and experts

[manuel-pestalozzi · 4/10 · 30 March 2006]

This movie missed a good occasion to make a substantial contribution in the discussion about censorship. It's about the law proceedings concerning a traveling exhibition with pictures of renowned photographer Robert Mapplethorpe in the year 1990. Some of the exhibits (they are presented in the movie) have a sexual content that a general public may deem shocking. In Washington State the exhibit was not allowed to be shown, in Cincinnati, Ohio, the sheriff started a lawsuit against the curator of the museum in which the exhibition was made accessible to the public in the said town.

The movie gives too much attention to the hysteria on both sides. The accusers are shown as dimwits who want to start a dictatorship, the defendants as ultra sensitive art experts who see themselves as martyrs for a noble cause. „I'm not Larry Flynt", whines the curator of the museum. Being compared with the publisher of pornographic magazines is apparently the worst that could happen to him. And exactly at this point I would have wanted an expose about what art is in our present days – but there is no response at all to that statement. Nobody tells the viewers how one should differ. After all there never was a society in which so many pictures are shoved in people's faces on a daily basis as ours. A picture in itself has ceased to be art a long time ago. All a good photographer has to do, basically, is excluding any unwanted chance elements in a picture. Once you release the shutter you'll get something.

Unfortunately the movie does not treat the art issue in a satisfying manner. It fails to deliver new food for thought. It does not make the acceptance of image content an issue. The curator argues that in old churches you find naked cherubims without anybody complaining – so why should the public be offended by Mapplethorpe taking a picture of a naked boy? I thought that was an extremely bad comparison that should have provoked protest. The presence of cherubims in a church has to do with a specific location. And it has a specific context (which has nothing to do with a democratic society, by the way). I think that's what is missing in displaying contemporary art, a perceptible context (star architects alone won't do the trick). Liberty in expression seems to me insufficient as a purpose for art, if you agree that art needs a public. And the question of censorship should not in every case be ridiculed (how to go about it, that is another story).

Dirty Pictures is a docudrama. It recounts real events from a predictable, uninspired perspective. Instead of including comments of intellectuals (thus strengthening the avantgarde expert angle) including, of all people, Salman Rushide (what on earth has he got to do with graphic art??) the movie should have focused more on the deliberations of the jury who decided in favor of the museum. The opinion of a section of ordinary people would have interested me more.

Let me finish with a short anecdote: Early this year the Kunsthaus of the town of Zurich showed a big retrospective of the Zurich born painter Henry Fuseli (1741-1825) who emigrated to England, became famous with his paintings of scenes from Shakespeare plays and his Gothic nightmare series. He also was at a time president of the Royal Academy in London. Unexpectedly I was confronted with a series of explicit pornographic etchings which were just part of the exhibition, without being specially marked or separated from the rest. I assume Fuseli made them „on private commissions" – not for artistic purposes but to earn a few extra bucks. I could accept their being included for historical reasons – the exhibition had the intention to show the time and life of the man. I didn't read or hear any comment concerning their presence in the much publicized exhibition.

USA – The Land of Freedom? At Least, not in Cincinnati, 1990 for Robert Mapplethorpe´s work.

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 5 November 2003]

In 1990, in Cincinnati (USA), a director of an Art Museum, Dennis Barrie (the outstanding James Wood, one of the best American actors) decides to expose the pictures of Robert Mapplethorpe. This is the trigger to be prosecuted, go on a civil trial and destroy his private life. The presentation of this movie, showing the position of both sides, questioning what is pornography through the discussion of the jury, is in my opinion very neutral and positive, leaving a chance for the viewer reflecting in a very controversial theme. Another great point in this film is the comments of personalities and intellectuals, such as Salmon Rushdie, or Susan Sarandon. Inclusive, Robert Mapplethorpe had shot photos of the son of this great actress. However, it is funny the label of USA being `The Land of Freedom and Opportunity' showing the power of conservative persons in the end of the Twentieth Century, no matter they were the majority or minority part of the society. In the end of the movie, there is a statement about the real intention of the trial that is scary. USA had had its apartheid until the 60´s fortunately resolved in the present days. I believe it is one of the few countries where there is no Communist Party, maybe due to the serious restrictions in the past (McCarthyism, for example, has been showed in many movies, including `Citizen Cohn', where James Wood is the main character). If a person wants or needs to visit America, has to submit an application for an expensive VISA, on the contrary of most of the countries, but, anyway these are their internal society rules and are to be very respected. Especially in the present days, with threatens everywhere. What I was not aware and is completely new for me was about such a case of restriction to Arts. Arts are universal and belong to the citizens of planet Earth and should not be censored. I do not know the real intention of Dennis Barrie in exposing the photographs of Mapplethorpe after a previous prohibition in another American town, but anyway the exhibition was placed in a private and paid close place, with restriction to teenagers and children. Therefore, you would go there only if you liked it somehow. I myself am not fan of this type of theme, but I have visited some museums in Amsterdam and Hamburg, with expensive tickets, just for curiosity. The viewer will not be disappointed with this film. My vote is nine.

Would the trial end differently in our totalitarian society?

[alicecbr · 10 May 2003]

As one very familiar with the trashing of the Bill of Rights here in Boston, I was intrigued by this movie..made in 2000 of events of 1991. The right to show Mapplethorpe's somewhat repulsive pictures (some of them) was upheld by a jury in Cincinnati. It sent me rushing out to google Dennis Barrie and discover that he is now the curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. We need ANOTHER movie made now in our current return to McCarthyism to play out the theme of freedom's denial again....disobeying the unconstitutional Patriot Act with today's Supreme Court 'will leave one in jail for years', it appears.

The use of the jurors in deliberation was excellent as we are shown the varying views that led to the acquittal of Mr. Barrie. However, I wish we could have been shown the views of the children now grown, in terms of how they viewed the persecution THEY received, which is vividly shown. As a dissident in a small town, my grandsons have received abuse and taunts for my anti-war stand and protests, so I know that our work to keep the flame of freedom bright never stops but often hurts those not directly in the battle.

From civil rights to artistic expression to war-mongering, the battle lines seem to have been drawn against the same ignorant, bigoted people for all of my 65 years. The use of the far-right Christian to tell you that the Barries divorced, that the judge and prosecutor were dumped, that Barrie lost his job a year or so later was an excellent mechanism to show us more of the truth, and to underscore the point that "freedom is not free". My still aching knees from being dumped out of a paddy wagon onto a concrete floor and dragged into a holding cell in the Harrison Ave. jail in Boston a month ago for protesting this slaughter of the Iraqis and illegal invasion of Iraq attest to the truth of that.

An excellent movie, one I nearly didn't buy because of it's 'unpleasant' title. Wonder how many movies never get the honors they deserve because of their unpleasant title or subject matter.

What Is Wrong? What Exactly Is It? And Who Decides?

[TheAnimalMother · 8/10 · 31 January 2024]

More people need to see this film. It's an important one.

This film was nominated for a number of awards and won the Golden Globe for Best Miniseries or Motion Picture Made for Television.

The right to personal freedom is something that many have given their lives for over the course of history. This film really helps people understand that our freedoms are constantly under attack, continuously in jeopardy. You don't have to agree with what your neighbor may enjoy, and they you. This is the necessary understanding it takes to defend and uphold personal freedom. In allowing your fellow citizens to be free in their choices within the law, you are also defending your own freedom. This understanding, this knowledge of respecting your fellow citizens right to chose, even if you do not like their choice is the very basis of the 1st Amendment of the Untied States. Freedom of speech and beliefs, and the right to free expression itself, is essentially protected under this very idea/amendment. Nonetheless, everyday, in one way or another it's very relevance, value and existence is challenged in society.

As it is said in the film, we lose our freedom only a little at a time. If people do not fight for it continuously. The closed minded, scared and the obsessive control freak type of people, will eventually little by little take away all the freedoms that so many have given their lives for. People have fought wars to maintain the freedom we have to do what we want within our own homes, and to say and believe what we want in a public space. Not only the fearful, but also the ruthlessly greedy are constantly on the march to rob human beings of these very important aspects of life. At this point, most of us take it for granted, and if too many of us do. We will inevitably become like many other countries around the world, where your right to what you do in private is not nearly so valued, nor your right to free public expression. Instead of being looked at as a human being of unknown potential. You could be looked at as a possible threat to societal order. Many countries function not a lot differently than prisons in truth. From courageous historical figures, to modern soldiers and the children of today and tomorrow. We all owe it to them, those who value our personal right to grow as we see fit within the normal confines of the law to appreciate what we have. To stand up for your fellow neighbors right to be who they are and do what they do, as long as it's within the law of course. Law itself in the countries that value personal freedom, is truly built mostly upon an old sacred understanding. If a person is doing something that forcefully goes against another person's will, and if it effects them beyond reason, then it is illegal. Reasonable boundaries are set at what people can do to another in any circumstance. This is essentially the basis of law between human to human interactions in reasonably free countries. The importance of these things is brought to great light in this film about a true story in the American art world. If you can stand the 'dirty pictures', this is a very important film to see.

As a film, it's not perfect. It feels somewhat like a film in parts, because there are a few fairly typical clichés/scenes, and it is somewhat predictable a person could even say. Nonetheless, the story itself is so important and in my view very well told, in that it hits almost every important point about it's main topic. In this way, the film is great. I always base the vast majority of my film ratings upon the stories first and foremost. I don't need to see a perfectly lit and shot film in order for me to highly rate it. The film overall just needs to be effective in what it's setting out to say or do. Some films defy standard formulas entirely, and even reason itself, but nonetheless story for me is the main and most important ingredient in the vast majority of films. Here, we have mostly a very strong story that needs to be seen and talked about by mature adults. Chaplin is actually a great example. He was a very standard film director, almost everything was just point and shoot. But one of the things that made him special, is that he was an extremely talented and effective storyteller. The way his films look matters little, because the stories themselves are often so brilliant, relevant and/or important.

One last point, James Woods gives a great performance here.

8.5/10.

Well made movie that shows both sides of the argument.

[batuk · 8/10 · 13 June 2001]

This movie opens the gates to what has been one of the most contreversial topics in the last half century. I agree and disagree with both sides on some of the issues. In my opinion this movie was well made that shows both sides of the issue and gives people representing each side a fair chance and explaining thier side. (albeit in my opinion leaning a little to the left :) )

Great food for thought with a little formula thrown in

[Zen Bones · 29 May 2000]

Like most of the Showtime exclusive movies this one is very gutsy and makes no qualms about where it stands on the controversial issues it features.

The controversy in this case is art verses obscenity, and where or indeed if, censorship should fit in. It focuses mainly on the arrest of Dennis Barrie, the curator of Cincinnati's largest museum. He was arrested for booking a Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit despite the fact that it had already stirred up controversy elsewhere.

The film has its negative points. It tries so hard to focus on the censorship issue that it overdoses on the morality of all of those who back the anti-censorship laws. There are endless scenes of Barrie's normal, happy home life just to show he's not a fan of "degenerate art" but an upstanding citizen who just believes in defending the constitution (although his constant argument is that art is the only thing he believes in). And there is the familiar melodrama with the wife who must decide whether she should stand by her man. But James Woods and Diana Scarwid are so natural and engaging that I kind of enjoyed hanging out with them anyway! Unfortunately the rest of the cast are extremely stereotyped, especially when the film gets into the courtroom.

The other negative points have to do with the way the fans of Mapplethorpe were depicted. Either as militant "degenerates" or as eggheaded art critics who spout artbabble on cue. All of the backers of the exhibition, including Barrie, and of course all of the jury members (as we know jury members are symbolically the voice of the country as a whole), show their disgust and indignation over Mapplethorpe's work. Thus the film is left with the point being that no matter how warped and disgusting and offensive "art" may be, it has a right to be exhibited. It is a valid point but it sort of underlines the Dan Quayle theory of the "cultural elite" (ie: that contemporary art forms belong to a specific few and it's not something the "average" person can understand or appreciate). As an "average" person myself who happens to admire Robert Mapplethorpe's work, I know that is not true and I somewhat resent the fact that people like myself were not represented in this film.

This film does has many positive points though. The main ones being the intercutting of comments by such pundits as Salmon Rushdie, Barney Frank, and Fran Liebowitz. They offer great food for thought that only they could articulate so fruitfully! It also intercuts scenes from the original events which had surrounded the trial and the attempted closing down of the museum.

And despite the formula outline, there's a lot of witty and profound dialogue that packs a powerhouse of emotional grit and gives us a great deal to think about. See it with a friend (or friends/family) and you'll end up discussing it well into the night!

The prudishness of America

[hannelore · 10/10 · 29 January 2001]

If this movie doesn't demonstrate the limits of the "Country of the Unlimited Possibilities"... I (as an European) don't know. Sex is an important subject in this country, without talking about it. A big issue - and while everybody is able to small talk for hours - the words to talk about sex are missing.

They are even don't know: is it sex or something what?

A brilliant self-analyzing movie, shows up the dilemma of the people.

The movie sucks ... the subject matter doesn't

[yuri-17 · 6 March 2001]

As an European I can't help the temptation to comment on this movie. To be totally clear ... as a "movie", Dirty pictures isn't that good, as a documentary, it isn't either. What however is intriguing, is the subject matter ... a country that is so profound of it's first amendment, but on the other hand is so conservative makes me ask a lot of questions. Does the dogma "one's freedom ends where another individual's one start" still apply ? What is art , what is not ? And so on ... I can't answer to most of them, but it sure is interesting to think about.

James Woods: Hollywoods greatest actor?

[yeadur · 22 March 2001]

This admirable, intelligent if occasionally formulaic TVM (it deserved to be more widely screened) makes me ask why James Woods is not acknowledged as America's best film actor? Think about it: who is a serious contender? The equally prolific but perhaps more limited de Niro? Tom Hanks (come on!)? Tom Cruise (you must be joking!)? Jack Nicholson, perhaps, in his day, which isn't now, alas? The comparable Brian Dennehey: masterly, but I think Woods has the edge. Give the man an Oscar, please! ******

Maintaining integrity and committment when all else Hangs in balance

[edyoung · 12 December 2000]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** The film has its basis in the controversial art of Robert Mapplethorpe. Mapplethorpe's work had been supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Nevertheless, in the film, as was true in real life, there is a trial over the Cincinnati Center for Art gallery's exhibit of the Robert Mapplethorpe photography. The trial results from the fact that the moralistic half of the community opposed the exhibit as pornography and not art. The only protagonist for the exhibit is the gallery's director, Dennis Barrie. As the pressure from the community and its authorities escalates it causes even his staunchest supporters and his board of directors to waver. Finally, Cincinnati sues him and he faces a civil trial. An interesting inset of the film is the depiction of the Jury whose characters reflect the points of view of a cross-section of America which are interjected throughout the film to highlight the ethical and legal dilemmas. Another interesting facet is the cutaways showing celebrities and national leaders like Salmon Rushdie, Barney Frank, and Fran Liebowitz commenting on the ethical and legal aspects of the issue at trial. There is even an injection showing pressure from the US congress posing threats to future funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Various experts on the history and nature of art and what should be called art are called to testify. As the trial progresses, there are threats to his life and the lives of his wife and children. He even faces the possibility of jail since the Sheriff is out to get him, saying he is breaking city statues as well as federal law defining pornography. During the trial the Judge is even scene making derisive remarks which seem to be aimed at undermining Barries' case. His current job is threatened as well as the future of his career as an art gallery director. The threats continue to worsen during the trial and his children are harassed at school. His wife begins to weaken as she does not want to lose their home and way of life nor to have her children physically or psychologically harmed. When she weakens, she begins to pressure him to back down. He sees it as a no win situation unless he persists. He sees maintaining his position as maintaining his integrity and commitment to the values of freedom of expression in speech as well as art in spite of the fact that he would not even permit his own children to see the art. As the trial nears conclusion, his care for his family, especially wife, causes him to question the value of standing up for these values and maintaining his integrity at the risk of losing everything. He was, during the trial, offered a way out, which entailed an offer of $100,000 if he does not testify in his own defence. He finally decides to compromise his integrity and commitment. However, at the last moment his innocent youngest child asks if he is not going to stand up for himself and tell his side in court. Both he and his wife see the importance of maintaining his integrity and commitment for the sake of the character development of their children and this bolsters their belief that they are acting in behalf of artists, the general public, and the future of freedom of expression in America. He sticks to his position, wins, and is hailed as a hero.