Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel

I admit I only watched bits and pieces of this, well, whatever it is - documentary? Tribute? Position paper? The problem I have with these things - much like PBS' anti-creationist propaganda or Bill Maher - is that they pick some of the lamest opponents to make it look like they are presenting a complete picture, when really they're just straw dogs. And I don't want to be completely hypocritical, I looked at my share of Playboys in my time. I agree with some of Hef's beliefs and disagree with others. So the question is, is Hef a modern martyr for his beliefs or does he just pose as the coolest guy in town? Sorry, but I've always seen Hef as an opportunist who likes women a lot and has interesting views on behavior with women, sort of the ultimate urban alpha male who spends at least part of his time justifying his inappropriate lifestyle. This movie didn't change my mind. I really wasn't offended, I just hope people don't watch this and think Hef is the Pope. He's not, but he sure is one rich guy with a cool image and a lot of girls.

Love it or hate it, Playboy magazine changed the way people in America viewed sex and sexuality. Certainly, it objectified women, but they were not alone in doing so. Advertising has done an excellent job of that through the years.

But, Hugh Hefner was a lot more than a magazine. He was an entertainer that did more to promote jazz than anyone I know. He was also a man who did more to promote equality among the races that most anyone in America.

Entertainment was prime with Hefner, but his social activism against those, like Gene McCarthy and Charles Keating, who would impose their particular brand of morality on others.

He was at the forefront of women's issues, racial issues, free speech issues and more.

One of a kind and a fascinating man to listen to.

This is a gushing unbalanced Canadian documentary praising the Playboy founder Hugh Hefner.

It hits on all the highlights from the beginning. It's mostly about Playboy and its influence.

There are a lot of famous talking heads, some of which are kind of surprising.

But the rebuttal talking heads are really limited and sticking to the well worn arguments.

It covers a lot of history. But it's one sided. Maybe the filmmaker should ask for a second opinion.

"To objectify women, or to not objectify women" - Is this the question one asks of Mr. Hugh Hefner, the ultimate, most-admired playboy of them all?

For the most part - This well-researched, bio-documentary, chronicling the mega-success of Hugh Hefner (and his naughty-but-nice men's magazine, Playboy), was a very intriguing look at an iconic pop culture figure who has certainly had his fair share of controversial highs and lows.

The first hour of this documentary was, of course, the best. It diligently covered the first 20 years (1953-1973) of astounding success for Playboy magazine - A truly phenomenal magazine that was specifically geared to the hip, swinging bachelor (who apparently lurks inside most men).

Competently directed by Canadian film-maker, Brigitte Berman, this enjoyable documentary not only featured lots of excellent vintage footage, and interviews with scores of celebrities, but Hugh Hefner, himself (82 at the time and clearly on his best behaviour) offered the viewer the "real" story behind the money, the power, and, yes, the sex of Playboy magazine.

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...