Oeuvre indécente

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.

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.

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.