Dirty Pictures

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! ******

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.

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.

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.

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.