IslandGuru Who payed the critics

WiseRatFlames An unexpected masterpiece

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

namashi_1 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.

manuel-pestalozzi 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.

yuri-17 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.

edyoung ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** The film has its basis in the controversial art of Robert Mapplethorpe. Mapplethorpe's work had been supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Nevertheless, in the film, as was true in real life, there is a trial over the Cincinnati Center for Art gallery's exhibit of the Robert Mapplethorpe photography. The trial results from the fact that the moralistic half of the community opposed the exhibit as pornography and not art. The only protagonist for the exhibit is the gallery's director, Dennis Barrie. As the pressure from the community and its authorities escalates it causes even his staunchest supporters and his board of directors to waver. Finally, Cincinnati sues him and he faces a civil trial. An interesting inset of the film is the depiction of the Jury whose characters reflect the points of view of a cross-section of America which are interjected throughout the film to highlight the ethical and legal dilemmas. Another interesting facet is the cutaways showing celebrities and national leaders like Salmon Rushdie, Barney Frank, and Fran Liebowitz commenting on the ethical and legal aspects of the issue at trial. There is even an injection showing pressure from the US congress posing threats to future funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Various experts on the history and nature of art and what should be called art are called to testify. As the trial progresses, there are threats to his life and the lives of his wife and children. He even faces the possibility of jail since the Sheriff is out to get him, saying he is breaking city statues as well as federal law defining pornography. During the trial the Judge is even scene making derisive remarks which seem to be aimed at undermining Barries' case. His current job is threatened as well as the future of his career as an art gallery director. The threats continue to worsen during the trial and his children are harassed at school. His wife begins to weaken as she does not want to lose their home and way of life nor to have her children physically or psychologically harmed. When she weakens, she begins to pressure him to back down. He sees it as a no win situation unless he persists. He sees maintaining his position as maintaining his integrity and commitment to the values of freedom of expression in speech as well as art in spite of the fact that he would not even permit his own children to see the art. As the trial nears conclusion, his care for his family, especially wife, causes him to question the value of standing up for these values and maintaining his integrity at the risk of losing everything. He was, during the trial, offered a way out, which entailed an offer of $100,000 if he does not testify in his own defence. He finally decides to compromise his integrity and commitment. However, at the last moment his innocent youngest child asks if he is not going to stand up for himself and tell his side in court. Both he and his wife see the importance of maintaining his integrity and commitment for the sake of the character development of their children and this bolsters their belief that they are acting in behalf of artists, the general public, and the future of freedom of expression in America. He sticks to his position, wins, and is hailed as a hero.