Oeuvre indécente

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! ******

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 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.

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.

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.