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.

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.

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.

If this movie doesn't demonstrate the limits of the "Country of the Unlimited Possibilities"... I (as an European) don't know. Sex is an important subject in this country, without talking about it. A big issue - and while everybody is able to small talk for hours - the words to talk about sex are missing.They are even don't know: is it sex or something what?A brilliant self-analyzing movie, shows up the dilemma of the people.