उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 :) )

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.

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.

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.

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! ******