Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel

Fifty years ago or so, I read a letter-to-the-editor in Playboy that went something like this: "Playboy is a magazine for yokels." Even though I was a subscriber, I sort of knew what the correspondent meant. There was something cheesy about the hip bachelor image that Hefner lived and espoused. Despite the great stories by Jean Shepard, the beautiful Vargas paintings, and the lovely naked girls-next-door, it struck me that the Playboy Philosophy was just too damned cornball in the end. The nighttime TV series "Playboy Penthouse" which aired around the same time was equally corny, what with the thirty-plus aged men in their Nehru jackets and medallions pretending to enjoy watching Spanky and Our Gang lip-synching a pop tune.

This puff-piece of a documentary is just as cheesy, just as corny, as the magazine was back then and would continue to be as the years progressed. "Entertainment for Yokels" should be the motto of the magazine and it sure would apply to this silly (albeit entertaining) film.

We are all very familiar with the iconic brand that is the Playboy bunny. We are also familiar with the image of Hugh Hefner: An ancient Lothario; mannequin for a smoking jacket; pipe, and gallons of young, beautiful women, adoring him, as in the "reality-TV" horror that was The Girls of the Playboy Mansion. Some are unaware of his many political activities that he was involved in, in each decade since the 1950's. His involvement with the breaking of many socially draconian taboos and laws of sex, sexuality and the representation of these: Freedom of press and speech: The civil-rights movement: The anti Vietnam protesters of the late 1960's and early '70's: The Reaganomics of the 1980's and it's religious-extremist attitude towards "pornography". Hefner, according to this film, was active (if not systematic) in all of these 'historical' events that have instigated social change, not only in America, but throughout the western world. Perhaps this statement is too strong.

This documentary, directed by Brigitte Berman (who had previously made the Academy award winning film, Artie Shaw: Time is All You've Got (1986)), tells the story of Hefner, not just as a magazine producer, but as a political activist. beginning with the publication of the magazine Playboy, the film charts Hefner's rise as an advocate of literature and for political polemics, published in a monthly men's paper that also riskily showed the naked female forms. Alongside the playmate-of-the-month's and centre-fold's there contained abridged, monthly sections of books by such writers as Ray Bradbury and Ian Fleming; interviews with political activists/thinkers such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcom X. The magazine was breaking taboos set by a repressive society. Historically Hefner was also embroiled in the HUAC (House UnAmerican Activities Committee), who's McCarthyism was seen as a dent in America's freedom and an infringement of the first amendment. We also discover that Hefner supported Lenny Bruce (at a time when it was seen as career suicide to do so) through his trials for obscenities on stage.

Whilst the film focuses on these more flattering aspects of Hefner's life, it does skirt around many issues thrown at him by groups against his "objectification" of women. It does not fully explore the feminist and journalistic backlash that was aimed at him. I felt the film would benefit by exploring these issues, and present a less biased (less Hefner-centric) argument in the film, and it's issues of (particularly) sex and sexuality and all its representations. The film uses some very bizarre talking heads: Gene Simmons (well I guess he's probably met him, and probably reads Playboy) and George Lucas?? Hang on a minute! (Lucas oozes about as much sexuality as a brick oozes Virgina's). Aside from a few under-explored avenues of Hefner's career, this is still a flawed but entertaining documentary. We are shown that Hefner is not myopic in his outlook. He has been politically active and has given to many worthy causes. But, as he now is (seen by millions on reality TV), we just see an old man still unable to be monogamous, and surrounding himself in fresh, young girls, which are pushed aside annually for new meat. (Am I criticising that? Pfft!).

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

For one thing I think this Hugh Hefner documentary is quite complete regarding the content, after watching it I think I learned all there is to know about Hugh Hefner; Hefner really open up when he's interviewed, there's plenty of archive footage, newspapers clippings and Playboy Magazine excerpts in it that are shown to shown to the viewers... But I can't get over this feeling that more could have been done, in my opinion this documentary is cold, there's absolutely no emotions in it... When we compare it to a masterpiece like Hollywood producer Robert Evans 2002 biography "The Kid Stays In The Picture" we can understand that a lot more could have been done to make this a real powerful work of art... In the Robert Evans documentary there's plenty of beautiful powerful music, the pictures are vivid and look as if they were created by a real painter it's a real eye candy and there's a narrator who guide us through the whole picture, all this help make that an unforgettable documentary... In this Hugh Hefner dodumentary there's plenty of peoples interviewed but there's nothing to glue them together, the viewer is left assembling the pieces of the puzzle bhy himself which demand a lot of concentration, I think doing it that way cases the viewer to make extra efforts to understand the story... If a narrator would have presented us on a gold platter what is important to remember in the story like they did in the Robert Evans biography watching would have been somewhat less difficult... I may seem picky but as goes the saying "the devil is in the details"... Also they presented us a lot of interviews bits with various peoples but no one was really important, who cares about what Pat Boones or Gene Simmons have to say about Playboy, in my opinion Hugh Hefner would have deserved interviews with former presidents, Clint Eastwood and David Letterman for example... Overall I would say this Hugh Hefner documentary is well researched and worth watching, but it's a shame nobody did the real official Playboy worthy documentary that Hugh Hefner deserved before he dies... This is more a cheap made-for-TV movie rather than a professional Michael Moore-like feature...

I had the chance to assist a projection in Boston where Director Brigitte Berman was present, coming from Europe and being in my late 20ies there was not much I knew about Hefner besides it's contribution to the sexual revolution of America and the rest of the world.

As a consequence, the movie was full of revelations for me, jumping from one fight for freedom from Hefner and his team to another. The director beautifully manages to catch the mindset of Playboy's manager soul behind the bunnies, at a much deeper level.

What especially stroke me was the ability of the director to constantly depict the paradoxes between Hefners' primal/liberal way of thinking about sexuality and it's philosophical fights for everyone's freedom and culture. You get to discover a man pursuing his dreams through is entire life and get to discover a revolutionary mindset where pleasure and great achievements are not necessarily unrelated.

Hefner is not yet in any of our (at least Europeans) history books but like him or not, he deserves to be and I would advise anybody, who like me, is missing that piece of history to run see this documentary.

Playboy's PR department could not have produced a more fawning, laudatory "documentary". Hefner is portrayed as a champion of civil rights and a messianic defender of the 1st Amendment. More recent documentaries depict someone whose motivations were not so selfless.