[go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendrier de sortiesLes 250 meilleurs filmsLes films les plus populairesRechercher des films par genreMeilleur box officeHoraires et billetsActualités du cinémaPleins feux sur le cinéma indien
    Ce qui est diffusé à la télévision et en streamingLes 250 meilleures sériesÉmissions de télévision les plus populairesParcourir les séries TV par genreActualités télévisées
    Que regarderLes dernières bandes-annoncesProgrammes IMDb OriginalChoix d’IMDbCoup de projecteur sur IMDbGuide de divertissement pour la famillePodcasts IMDb
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestivalsTous les événements
    Né aujourd'huiLes célébrités les plus populairesActualités des célébrités
    Centre d'aideZone des contributeursSondages
Pour les professionnels de l'industrie
  • Langue
  • Entièrement prise en charge
  • English (United States)
    Partiellement prise en charge
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Liste de favoris
Se connecter
  • Entièrement prise en charge
  • English (United States)
    Partiellement prise en charge
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Utiliser l'appli
  • Distribution et équipe technique
  • Avis des utilisateurs
  • Anecdotes
IMDbPro

Oeuvre indécente

Titre original : Dirty Pictures
  • Téléfilm
  • 2000
  • R
  • 1h 44min
NOTE IMDb
6,5/10
894
MA NOTE
Oeuvre indécente (2000)
Drame

Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA Cincinnati museum director goes on trial in 1990 for exhibiting sadomasochistic photographs taken by Robert Mapplethorpe.A Cincinnati museum director goes on trial in 1990 for exhibiting sadomasochistic photographs taken by Robert Mapplethorpe.A Cincinnati museum director goes on trial in 1990 for exhibiting sadomasochistic photographs taken by Robert Mapplethorpe.

  • Réalisation
    • Frank Pierson
  • Scénario
    • Ilene Chaiken
  • Casting principal
    • James Woods
    • Ann Marin
    • Craig T. Nelson
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
  • NOTE IMDb
    6,5/10
    894
    MA NOTE
    • Réalisation
      • Frank Pierson
    • Scénario
      • Ilene Chaiken
    • Casting principal
      • James Woods
      • Ann Marin
      • Craig T. Nelson
    • 16avis d'utilisateurs
    • 31avis des critiques
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
  • Voir les informations de production sur IMDbPro
    • Nommé pour 2 Primetime Emmys
      • 4 victoires et 6 nominations au total

    Photos11

    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    Voir l'affiche
    + 3
    Voir l'affiche

    Rôles principaux60

    Modifier
    James Woods
    James Woods
    • Dennis Barrie
    Ann Marin
    • Teacher
    Craig T. Nelson
    Craig T. Nelson
    • Sheriff Simon Leis
    Diana Scarwid
    Diana Scarwid
    • Dianne Barrie
    Leon Pownall
    Leon Pownall
    • Mr. Prouty
    Matt North
    • Monty Lobb
    David Huband
    David Huband
    • H. Louis Sirkin
    Judah Katz
    Judah Katz
    • Mark Mizibov
    Rachael Crawford
    Rachael Crawford
    • Ann Bosworth
    Marnie McPhail
    Marnie McPhail
    • Reising
    R.D. Reid
    • Judge Albanese
    Allegra Fulton
    Allegra Fulton
    • Angela
    Michele Muzzi
    • Brenda
    Martin Roach
    Martin Roach
    • Ed
    Tony De Santis
    Tony De Santis
    • Floyd
    Kenneth McGregor
    • Gil
    Jeff Pustil
    • Harry
    Sally Cahill
    Sally Cahill
    • Liz
    • Réalisation
      • Frank Pierson
    • Scénario
      • Ilene Chaiken
    • Toute la distribution et toute l’équipe technique
    • Production, box office et plus encore chez IMDbPro

    Avis des utilisateurs16

    6,5894
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Avis à la une

    yuri-17

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

    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.
    mermatt

    A case for artistic freedom

    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.
    9claudio_carvalho

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

    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.
    8TheAnimalMother

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

    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.
    alicecbr

    Would the trial end differently in our totalitarian society?

    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.

    Vous aimerez aussi

    Le persécuteur
    7,0
    Le persécuteur
    Masquerade
    6,1
    Masquerade
    The Boys
    5,8
    The Boys
    Killer: journal d'un assassin
    6,3
    Killer: journal d'un assassin
    Les révoltés d'Attica
    6,6
    Les révoltés d'Attica
    Dirty Pictures
    7,0
    Dirty Pictures
    In Love and War
    5,6
    In Love and War
    The Pledge
    6,7
    The Pledge
    L'homme au masque de fer
    6,5
    L'homme au masque de fer
    La griffe de l'assassin
    6,0
    La griffe de l'assassin
    Curse of the Starving Class
    5,5
    Curse of the Starving Class
    Fast-Walking
    6,3
    Fast-Walking

    Histoire

    Modifier

    Le saviez-vous

    Modifier
    • Anecdotes
      First Showtime production to win a Golden Globe.
    • Bandes originales
      Banned in the USA
      Performed by 2 Live Crew

      New Lyrics by Luther Campbell, Mr. Mixx, Fresh Kid Ice and Brother Marquis

      Written by Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP) Used by permission

      The 2 Live Crew appears courtesy of Lil' Joe Records Inc.

    Meilleurs choix

    Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
    Se connecter

    Détails

    Modifier
    • Date de sortie
      • 27 mai 2000 (États-Unis)
    • Pays d’origine
      • États-Unis
    • Langue
      • Anglais
    • Aussi connu sous le nom de
      • Dirty Pictures
    • Lieux de tournage
      • Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Sociétés de production
      • MGM Television
      • The Manheim Company
    • Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro

    Spécifications techniques

    Modifier
    • Durée
      • 1h 44min(104 min)
    • Couleur
      • Color
    • Mixage
      • Dolby Digital
    • Rapport de forme
      • 1.85 : 1

    Contribuer à cette page

    Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
    • En savoir plus sur la contribution
    Modifier la page

    Découvrir

    Récemment consultés

    Activez les cookies du navigateur pour utiliser cette fonctionnalité. En savoir plus
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    Identifiez-vous pour accéder à davantage de ressourcesIdentifiez-vous pour accéder à davantage de ressources
    Suivez IMDb sur les réseaux sociaux
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    Pour Android et iOS
    Obtenir l'application IMDb
    • Aide
    • Index du site
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • Licence de données IMDb
    • Salle de presse
    • Annonces
    • Emplois
    • Conditions d'utilisation
    • Politique de confidentialité
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, une société Amazon

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.