lambiepie-2 When I was little, CBS, NBC and ABC had the corner on "Made for TV films" which were shown weekly, monthly, twice a year, etc. Many of them dove and dealt with current events and showed cautionary tales. As a result, some of them were very good for the small budgets they had. But somewhere along the line, Standards and Practices dictated that many of the more controversial themes had to be geared towards a general audience (Oh, the CHILDREN!!!). In my view, much of what was seen in many of these network films became antiseptics of very hard hitting, gut wrenching stories.In walks cable stations such as HBO and Showtime that start producing its own movies for pay subscribers - showing warts and all - and let me tell you, they have been fantastic. I can't honestly say I've seen them all, but my very favorite, HBO's "Barbarians at the Gate" is the first one I saw and I knew the days of antiseptic network made for TV movies were over.Frank Pierson directed what is actually an artistic no win situation -- and as far as I am concerned, he did a good job in telling the story without drawing a conclusion on itself. The story is a true story about a museum in Cincinnati that was to display the artist Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit and contained within that exhibit was pictures of sadomasochism and private parts. Mind you, that was not the work of the entire exhibit, but those particular pictures within that work was what caused the problem.Dennis Barrie, played by the wonderful actor James Woods, is the museum curator that had to make a decision - well several decisions: To show or not to show the exhibit, to show all of the exhibit or parts of it, to show some of the exhibit to the general museum audience and block off the other parts to an audience over 21...and so on and so forth. What is at stake here - The First Amendment of Free speech? A man wanting to protect an artists' vision and rights over his family's welfare? A man wanting to be a martyr? A man wanting to corrupt Cincinnati? A man wanting PR? A man who secretly had a private fetish? All of these questions come up in this film - and what are the answers? Was Barrie right or wrong in what he did? Was the town right? His family right? The museum Board of Directors right? The government right? YOU decide. Art is subjective and what I would see as art which is appealing and beautiful, the next person may definitely not. Take for example Andy Warhol and the Campbell Soup can, Yoko Ono and her famous "YES" painting, Georgia O'Keefe and her 'plants', Jean-Michel Basquiat and his Samo and Robert Mapplethorpe and his "dirty pictures". For me, I can look at quite a few works from these folks (and more) and say, "hmmm, that's a beautiful reflection of real life" while someone standing right next to me looks at the same thing, and is shocked and infuriated.But then, such as in the case of artist Robert Mapplethorpe, I had only seen a limited view of his work. A section. That particular side of his work didn't bother me any, which is why I could not understand what the fuss was about. Then came this presentation of "Dirty Pictures" that let's you know all sides of what the 'fuss' is about.....and yes, as someone who will die to protect the first amendment and who loves the expression of art and freedom for artists; I was very, very, very uncomfortable by a few pictures contained within this exhibit. But that's the beauty of this film. Film is art TOO, and this film goes "there" by presenting you the case, the struggle for the curator and his family, the wrenching of the city and the government who funded the museum and the question of "what is right to do?" When this picture was presented in America, one of the biggest pieces of publicity surrounding it was "Are they going to show the pictures in question?" Ah, there's the rub. Do you want to see the questionable Mapplethorpe pictures to be able to draw your own conclusions? Did you draw a conclusion already? Does this made for cable film need to show you the "dirty pictures" to tell about you about the dirty pictures? And if they do show the pictures, aren't they doing the same that as Dennis Barrie?Decisions, decisions, decisions. Very right and undoubtedly very wrong. It's your view. That's what makes this movie bold and sassy. A brash effort, a darn good telling of a "real life" story and a still controversial subject matter -- no matter what end of the spectrum you stand.

Claudio Carvalho 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.

alicecbr 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.

Zen Bones 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!