Murder is illegal, but if you capture it on camera, you get a Pulitzer Prize. Hustler is an obscene magazine, but if you make a movie about it, you get a Golden Globe. Or even two.
In general, I decided to somehow cunning Foreman to concoct high art from the evaluation frames. Well, the subject justifies. I will immediately say that such an aesthetic is far from my puritanical tastes, and it was disgusting to look at it (and the judicial circus in the third quarter frankly infuriated). But, as Larry Flint himself would surely agree (who endorsed the film with a personal presence in the frame), accuracy is paramount. And the film masterfully promises it. And then it ends, and you think, wait a minute, is that the guy who had five wives? And where did the first three go? . . .
So, the film with a very serious look touches on a very serious topic: freedom of speech. The debate about pornography – one of the most poignant in this context – provokes debates about the purposes, meanings, boundaries of the First Amendment and similar principles. Foreman in the subject, quotes really quoted credo supporters and opponents of different restrictions, in this respect the film is informative, etc. But I do not leave the feeling that despite all the balance, something is very wrong with the master’s idea.
As if he were not looking from the outside, listening to a very ambiguous story, but proclaiming the moral triumph of Romeo of modern times, to the grave of a devotee to his fourth wife. How can you judge him? “If the First Amendment protects me, it protects you.” Taking such a thorough tone, Foreman for some reason does not help the viewer to doubt this colorful lie. But take any period of tightening political censorship, McCarthyism, CIA activity since 2001, anything from another country, past or future, regardless. So let’s say a communist or a pacifist or someone the Founding Fathers really thought about when they pushed the First Amendment. ... forget it, friends, no one will interfere with uncomfortable political views! There is nothing to worry about, because in a free democratic country, one millionaire pornographer has already been acquitted!
I'm not trying to resolve the debate here about the legal status of pornography. All I'm saying is that if the film does anything to protect pornography and Larry Flint personally, it's more likely to mix free speech with dirt. In any case, it helps many people who want it.
Foreman could hardly have failed to understand that the constitution is primarily about politics, and much less about sex. And yet, despite his deceptive tone, he is far more concerned with sex than with the constitution. He's all running around with one simple idea - it's better to mate than kill. The idea of norms, but the only scene from "The Cuckoo ..." - with Billy Bibbit - Foreman could put a bold point in it. I'm not talking about Amadeus.
Anyway, they were working on the movie. Author's handwriting, actors, thoughtful dialogues. Harrelson, as usual, is good, about Norton and do not talk, and Courtney Love in his place looks convincing and frightening. Some court scenes quite aptly capture elements of American constitutional rhetoric. But, in my opinion, the distance and balanced criticism in relation to the ideologies of the main character was much lacking.
P.S. It so happened that I watched Flint almost on the same day as Trumbo, about a famous screenwriter on the Hollywood Blacklist. In that film, on the contrary, there are many problems: the straightforwardness of the script, the distortion of some historical images, the abuse of personality scale typical of popular cinema. But no matter how confidently the venerable Foreman avoided such problems, it is “Trumbo” that shows what freedom of speech is and its absence. And Larry Flint shows silly pictures of Santa Claus.
A superb court drama about an anti-hero who suddenly becomes a defender of civil liberties, albeit out of self-interest. The film does not have a standard saying “based on real events”. This is a case where the reality of events for viewers was self-evident. In addition, the film was shot shortly after the last events shown in the film. The original title of the film is presented as the standard designation of the trial "plaintiff vs. defendant". For the needs of the drama, some events were arranged, some were omitted, and others were emphasized. Cinema transports us to those harsh times when the attitude of American society towards nudity and sexuality changed. If in the first half of the twentieth century there were strict laws on “obscenity”, according to which it was possible to sit down for a long time for the dissemination of images of not very dressed women (to say nothing more). Enthusiasts like Margaret Sanger have been prosecuted since the 1910s for even distributing medical information about sexuality. But when Larry Flint was making money off his strip clubs, the sexual revolution had already begun. However, there were many who wanted to roll back, to go back to the good old days of the Victorian order. In the ’70s and ’80s, serious and now quite forgotten passions were boiling, in which even the Reagan administration participated, preparing an initiative to ban pornography nationwide. Such a new dry law, only more spicy. But faced with public reactions and lacking the support of Congress and the Supreme Court, the Reagan administration threw the idea on the far shelf to the great displeasure of religious conservatives. Larry Flint was a bad fit for the role of a public hero fighting for the right cause. Poorly educated, vulgar, scandalous, with dubious business. He is at the center of a debate about the limits of free speech. This is one of the main advantages of the film. It is easy to take the side of someone who is sympathetic. It is much more difficult to take the side of an unpleasant person when principles demand it. The idea of the film is transparent and presented brilliantly. Everything comes at a price, and so does freedom of speech. Freedom of speech seems like a wonderful thing when we imagine how it will be used to spread information about how to make the world a better place... so that everyone will feel good, angels will sing from the sky, pink unicorns will luxuriate in the courtyard, and everyone will be given happiness in cars. But freedom of speech also means being able to say things that are extremely unpleasant to us. Otherwise, any information about how we can get unicorns with all the other baggage can be limited under any honest or hypocritical pretext. The People vs. Larry Flint is a feature film by Milos Forman. With characteristic conflict and messages. And characteristically well staged. The subject of Foreman was obviously close as a native of their socialist countries, where these freedoms were treated strictly negatively. Contrary to what is reported in the film, the man who shot Larry Flint was arrested and convicted. He was a strange man with no other occupation. He has committed several racially motivated murders. He disliked the relationship between whites and blacks so much that he killed interracial couples. In Flint, he shot because Hustler magazine published pictures of sex between whites and blacks. He was executed for murder in 2013. Flint spoke out against the death penalty.
The People vs. Larry Flint movie gives us food for thought. A lot of food, because the problem of this film is multifaceted.
To begin with, Flint is not a fictional character, but a real character, and he, as a person, was a hero of his time in his country. The sexual revolution in the United States affected the masses, and Larry was one of her associates. He was the first person to create the first porn magazine. Undoubtedly, at that time there was already a famous “Playboy”, however, compared to “Hustler”, it was a light erotic fiction.
Naturally, the moral public was against such innovations, and throughout the film we see Larry fighting for the right to express his initiative. This conflict of the film is an allegory of the real situation in America in the 70-80s. Advertising sex, the spread of drugs against morality and here just raises the question – was America right when allowed the victory of freedom – freedom of speech.
However, when there is complete freedom of speech, there will be chaos, chaos, when people simply will not be able to listen to each other, when everyone realizes their right to speak and to act. For a fully democratic society and its core component, freedom of speech, we must live in an ideal society where people are also perfect. Therefore, freedom of speech in its full extent is a myth that everyone wants to believe.
But in the United States, the possibility of this very freedom of speech became the main drug of the era, on which young people and all subsequent generations quickly became addicted. The country is proud of it, it is its main pride.
The film causes cognitive dissonance in me, to be honest. On the one hand, I support Flint’s aspiration and agree with him that “Sex is better than war.” That's hard to disagree with. And if you look at it from a democratic American perspective, a character like Larry Flint was necessary for the country at the time. But on the other hand, I despise him. Freedom of speech in this context affected not even a generation, but the development of the country. Moral decline, decaying, rotting society, lack of spiritual values - only sex and money - all this makes to some extent to hate Flint and similar "heroes".
Well, it's not a bad movie, but it's basically a court battle genre. It seemed a little played, the main character behaved as if unnecessarily relaxed and at the same time strained. It's too long. But you can look at the mood. I recommend reading the book too!
Biographical film by Milos Forman about one of the revolutionaries of the media market and publishing business Larry Flint, who with his pornographic magazine “Hustler” “blowed up” the US public. According to interesting facts, Foreman’s project almost exactly reflects a certain stage of Flint’s life. There are certain episodes that differ from history (such as the mass of Flint’s lawyers in reality and their collective image from Edward Norton, who acted as the sole defender of pornography). However, these moments are not defining and radically changing the essence of events, and therefore quite appropriate in the film-biography.
Woody Harrelson, already well-known at that time due to the main roles in “White People Can’t Jump” and “Money Train” (in both films he played with Weisley Snipes), as well as playing the main role in Stone’s “Natural Born Killers”, has already grown to such a status that would allow you to invest your own funds in his work. Together with Foreman and Courtney Love, they made payments on Love's insurance, which the film studio refused to cover. Perhaps, when a representative of the film industry (actor/actress/director – does not matter) invests in a project, it can only say one thing: he/she is interested in this project. In this regard, this person will make 100% effort to do their work with quality and inspiration. This can be said about Harrelson himself, who in the 2.5 hours that the film is going on, appeared in a variety of images of Larry Flint, showing the facets of his character from a licentious and obscene pornognat, to a psychopathic person confined to a wheelchair, to a loving husband (strange as it may sound, taking into account all the orgies in which he participated), experiencing personal loss.
It is no coincidence that Harrelson received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, a Golden Globe nomination and a Screen Actors Guild Award. And although the actor did not take any of the awards, the nominations became a kind of recognition and allowed to declare Harrelson as an excellent actor who can play a variety of characters with a variety of characters. His characters are always damn charismatic, whether they are positive or negative. “Seven Lives”, “Seven Psychopaths”, “Ed from the TV”, “Thin Red Line”, “Zombieland”, “The Hunger Games”, “Northern Country”, “Bash the Bone”, “Old Men Don’t Place Here” and of course “Three Billboards on the Border of Ebbing, Missouri” (+ Another Oscar nomination for “Bilboards”) – as can be seen from the filmography – Woody Harrelson skillfully copes with all kinds of genres, not being an actor of one role / image.
Supporters of the fact that the porn industry (here specifically we are talking about print publications) decomposes society is groundless and there are many arguments that everything with the prefix “18+” should not fall into the wrong hands, offend the feelings of different segments of the population or the feelings of people of different faiths. And for some, Milos Forman's film will be presented as an excuse for Larry Flint and the business he built. But I don’t think that the director, making the film, wanted to show everything in this light. Here you can rather see the desire of Foreman to tell that a society shaken by Vietnam, popular unrest, the fight against drugs in the city streets, needed an emotional shake-up, a kind of psychological unloading and "Hustler" became a powerful weapon for that. I don’t know how it was then, in the 70s and 80s, but the appearance of something new on the shelves, stirred up people and in fact the magazine found both supporters and opponents.
If we take into account the cartoons that were published there and about which the film is told, it is more difficult here, because it was Hustler that could cause psychological harm to individual layers / people. Again. I do not know with what regularity something like this was published, what kind of publications were published, but cartoons in a French publication a few years ago led to very sad consequences. In the case of Larry Flint, everything was about the same, because the man who shot him, who turned out to be a racist, was outraged by individual episodes that the magazine covered. Whatever you say, but the word is still not a sparrow and you should be careful what you say, write and publish.
The film is good from the point of view of the biography of Larry Flint himself, it demonstrates the unbridledness and freedom that reigned in the minds and behavior of people of that time. New experiments of a sexual nature, permissiveness, drugs, a mass of nudity as integral attributes of the world of Larry Flint and his colleagues - Milos Forman managed to present everything to the viewer in a high-quality format. Plus, Woody Harrelson as the main decoration of the film, who gave the picture his charisma.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
In 1997, the highest award of the Berlin Film Festival “Golden Bear” went to the biographical tape of the Czech-American director and screenwriter Miloš Forman about the American tycoon Larry Flint. The picture received a warm welcome and many positive reviews, both from film critics and ordinary viewers. At the same time, a fierce discussion began around the film, because the tape caused great controversy in American society.
The film tells about the life of the scandalous American mogul of the porn industry Larry Flint. Being the owner of a small strip club, he founded the magazine "Hustler", which was supposed to be a small advertisement for his institution, but as a result became the basis for a multimillion-dollar publishing house. We are shown in detail significant events in the life of this scandalous man. But the authors particularly focus on two episodes. This is a peculiar relationship of the hero with his beloved Althea Lage, and also describes in detail the historical case of the magazine “Hustler” against Jerry Falwell. There is almost no fiction in the film, and for the most part everything is presented reliably.
The film explores the subject of freedom of speech and censorship. Many were outraged that such a scandalous figure of a porn magnate was exposed as a fighter for rights and freedoms. But this was the whole point, for it does not matter what the person’s views and principles of life. Civil rights are the same for everyone. And to prove his case, Larry Flint went through many lawsuits. Other problems were also raised. It reflects the topic of drugs, AIDS, and whether there are limits to moral norms. Here very successfully combines life drama and black comedy.
But it wasn't without flaws. The film sometimes becomes boring, constant dialogue at times boring. The tape does not fully reveal the personality of the main character, because his life principles seem to many unnecessarily immoral, but without them we do not get a full portrait of this person.
The main role was played by the brilliant Woody Harrelson, an actor of amazing talent and unsurpassed charisma. This is definitely one of his best films. He perfectly dissolved in the image of a porn magnate, managing to convey his cynicism, scandal and honesty. The role of the beloved went to shocking Courtney Love. Many doubted the correctness of this choice, but she brilliantly coped with the goal. Having earned absolute recognition and nominations for various awards. It's her best career role. In the background, wonderful actors are involved, where Edward Norton is most remembered.
People vs. Larry Flint is a specific and relevant movie for all time. It successfully combines elements of the film - biography, court drama, lyrical melodrama and black comedy. The picture reveals a deep layer of social problems and dissects American society with its foundations and moral principles. The tape is not perfect, it has enough minuses, but it looks with interest and retains attention.
Someday I will stop waiting, but it will be a different story.
Do you know what surprises me every time I go on a bike? How famous directors manage to turn interesting stories about truly extraordinary people into mortal boredom. “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Born on the Fourth of July,” and now “The People vs. Larry Flint” has added to my list of big movie disappointments.
Larry Flint is an interesting person. A man who for a decade has completely upended society’s perceptions of sex (and not clown antics in court). His life is enough for ten interesting films. How could you make such a mess of him?
The movie is about nothing. The torn scenario is more like a patchwork of emotionally unrelated pieces. It feels like Foreman shot a mini-series, and then stung it to two hours and all the interesting things remained behind the scenes.
Larry is actually a smart man and a good businessman who has achieved everything in his life. In the film, a jerk and a jerk whose actions can be described in one word “fuck?”. We are not shown a strong-willed leader, hysterical cries of “I am the master here” are not enough. Cinematic Larry is more like a capricious heir, appearing at a freebie firm only to mock the board of directors - the people who actually work and feed him, the narcotic. And Woody Harrelson's charisma doesn't work because she's not here. Larry does absolutely everything with a "brick" face - rejoices in success, hates enemies, mourns his wife. It seems that the hero is paralyzed not legs, but facial muscles.
Althea is an unexpectedly beautiful and fit Courtney Love. But ... again, past the image. The real Mrs. Flint was a drug addict and died of her own stupidity, but this did not prevent her from being a competent businesswoman and working on a par with her husband.
The love line, don't be ridiculous. I don’t know what the relationship was in reality, but in the film we were shown the usual couple “Rich Dad – Beautiful Doll”. Larry plays with her between work and the courts, and Althea walks around the office with an important look and shouts at the employees who laugh at her. And, by the way, since the movie Larry loved his wife so much, why didn’t he intervene to let him take drugs?
We're not going to be shown the very famous trial in which Mr. Flint miraculously didn't thunder on the bars for 25 years. All we will see is a sluggish battle between a cynical millionaire businessman and a prude preacher (popularly a millionaire), who fought for the right to pull money from the wallets of American citizens.
All of these flaws could have been ignored if the film had been directed by another director. But for Foreman it's a complete fiasco.
If the First Amendment protects a sack of shit like me, it protects you too. Because I am the worst.”
Larry Flint is an icon of the American sexual revolution. The life of the eccentric publisher of the porn magazine Hustler was full not only of noisy drug parties, but also of an endless war with hypocrisy. In a series of court battles, imprisonments and personal tragedies, he relentlessly pursued his ideals, changing culture and society forever.
The character of Larry Flint can be treated in completely different ways. For some, he became a hero of the 70s, the personification of the new society of America and a fighter for justice. For others, a villain, a nouveau riche upstart and just a pervert. Whatever it was, Larry Flint in any case deserved respect, because his ideals always paid for both personal freedom and health. Absolutely justified choice of person for careful study both in documentary and artistic form.
The biopic of such a prominent fighter against Puritanism could initially seem like an impossible task - the story of Larry Flint was complex and in many ways contradictory. But the famous director Milos Forman did not stop, and he perfectly coped with all his tasks. For a two-hour timekeeping before the viewer in the most concise form appeared decades of bright life freedom-loving millionaire. Foreman talks about it without embellishment: a poor childhood, a rampant life, disgraced business, love and drug addiction. The personality of the hero here is unnecessarily not romanticized, because Flint is cruelly mistaken, constantly turns a blind eye to important problems and neglects those who have the courage to disagree with his opinion. However, the inner core on the screen is shown magnificently - Flint is an indomitable businessman and an active citizen, fighting not only for dollars, but also for his principles.
Woody Harrelson in the title role deserves the warmest compliments, because his character came out surprisingly alive. It is quite simple to empathize with him, since laughing and sadness at such a high level of acting turns out without thinking. Violent dialogue, coupled with Harrelson’s unique facial expressions, become a real pleasure. Courtney Love in the lead female role may raise questions at first, but when her character reaches the proper level of the Fall, all the nitpicking disappears by itself. The wild life helped her organically fit into a familiar image. Funny fact that the film was attended by the great and terrible Larry Flint, who played the episodic role of a cruel judge. The symbolism of this decision is at least beautiful.
The People vs. Larry Flint is a very important and profound story about the power of personality. A witty and well-staged film about the era in which the modern attitude of society to previously forbidden topics was formed.
8 out of 10
Perhaps each of us at least once in his life thought about what would do something special and perhaps even write his name in history, which would retell the story of our lives to future generations. However, not many people get the chance and opportunity to achieve this. The main character of this film director Milosh Forman - Larry Flint can be safely called this very lucky.
The plot of this film directed by Milosh Forman tells about the life of the infamous Larry Flint. The author of one of the most popular pornographic magazines Hustler in history and a real fighter for freedom of speech and human rights in the conditions of not the most perfect system. This film covers a huge number of events from the life of Flint. Acquaintance with the love of his life Althea, the first steps of creating one of the most successful adult magazines, numerous lawsuits and imprisonments, gaining faith in God and its loss, attempted murder and paralysis and much, much more, which found just perfect reflection on the screen. Allowing you not just to see, but literally feel everything that you can only read on the Internet.
Apart from light fiction, and the inability to reflect all events exactly as they actually happened due to censorship, the picture is actually a documentary depiction of Flint’s life on a wide screen. Especially considering that the script of the picture was written from the words of Flint and it feels very strong. Letting Flint see not only the scandalous provocateur that the media described him as, but a true fighter for freedom of speech, justice and equality. A fighter for the fact that sex and everything related to it did not cause shame and was perceived very calmly. A fighter for the fact that it was wars that caused anger, not an instinctive craving for sexuality. You can differently relate to the “legacy”, but Flint certainly wrote his name in the story and doubts about this after watching this tape simply does not remain.
The director of this film Miloš Forman I can absolutely deserve to call one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema. Perhaps his filmography does not include several dozen works. But the love of viewers and devoted moviegoers Forman deserved a long time and only the film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" perpetuates the name of the director. Another worthy and strong work of the author can be noted and this film.
Despite such a provocative and frank topic raised in the film, Forman made the most chaste and restrained film, which does not emphasize the abundance of naked bodies and other “adult content”. However, from the very first shots, bribing with an indescribable atmosphere and a very personal approach to the story, which keeps the viewer in a state of fading heart on the most final credits.
Magnificently his role was performed by the brilliant Woody Harrelson, who managed to adequately reveal the depth of such ambiguous, provocative and complex character. Courtney Love deserves respect, who certainly performed one of the best roles in her career. It is impossible not to mention Edward Norton and the entire cast as a whole, who simply supplemented the film with his wonderful performance. Separately, I would like to note Larry Flint himself, who ironically embodied on the screen the image of a judge who sentenced him once to 25 years in prison.
8 out of 10
People vs. Larry Flint is a very odious, eccentric, provocative and certainly strong film that perfectly tells the rich and ambiguous story of the life of the scandalous Larry Flint. Along the way, raising on the screen a whole bunch of different topics that have not lost their relevance even so many years later.
Dedicated to the bright memory of Milos Forman. Magnificent director and talented playwright, who forever wrote his name in the history of cinema and the hearts of the audience with his worthy works. Rest in peace Milos Forman and may the earth rest in peace.
We do not live in a society in which this film would receive unequivocal recognition or unambiguous non-recognition. He got his Golden Bear, got his share of love from liberal viewers, got his share of hate from anti-pornographic feminists and extreme conservatives. It could not have been otherwise.
First of all, we need to clarify the following. American cinema has long come to the point of view that if a person is very important, then you need to make a film about it. Larry Flint’s personality is hard to deny, because he is the man who published the most successful pornographic magazine. Therefore, a biographical film was made about him, filmed during his lifetime, in which he himself took part. To do what Larry Flint did in those years, you had to be a little unusual, ambiguous. At the level of principles, at the level of mental state, but, nevertheless, one had to be such a person for this. Larry Flint is not an angel. It is difficult to admire him, watching how he openly uses violence against Altea in one of the very first scenes. It is difficult to admire him, looking at how he is stressed revelling in his wealth and the power that he has. It is difficult to admire him when he ignores what she tells him about how she was raped in a Christian orphanage. However, this character in the film is not static, but evolving. The film does not encourage us to admire them, the film introduces us to what he was in those years (because he is still alive, many years after the biopic was released). Of course, that's also very conditional. The film skirts some themes, such as Larry Flint's children. From the film it may seem that he does not have them at all, in fact, he had them, and a lot. And one of his daughters, Tonya Flint-Vega, became an anti-pornography activist herself. A lot of people would love to see the film explore that theme, but I think there’s so much in the film that would keep the film from claiming that Larry Flint is overly positive. Everyone has vices, but in Larry Flint’s conflict with Jerry Falwell, who promotes that AIDS is God’s judgment that punishes libertines, the creators are on the side of Larry Flint, who deals with very different propaganda. “Sex should be more decent than war.”
And it turns out that what a person carries to the mass, still turns out to be eclipsed by what he does in the circle of his close people.
Humanity cannot develop without sexual freedom. Sexual freedom has two essential aspects. The first aspect is the right to personal sexual integrity. No one has the right to rape or rape anyone. The second aspect is the right to free and consensual sex. When you struggle with one aspect, another begins to collapse. So, in this film, what Altea has to go through in the porn business is actually less stressful for her than what she had to go through as a child. As the lawyer rightly says, if we build walls around everything that seems obscene to us, then at one point walls will grow where we did not expect to see it.
So why does Larry Flint, inside his pornographic business empire, seek to maximise himself as an authoritarian leader? Because in conservative America, he's fighting against the system, and it's draining his power. He does not receive the necessary dose of empathy in his empire. Therefore, in his small corner he wants to reveal himself as a strong man with power.
Milos Forman’s The People vs. Larry Flint will remain an iconic film in the history of American cinema. Its impact on society has been very constructive. Of course, people for whom war is more decent than sex have not disappeared from it, but they have definitely diminished. That’s why the film was made, and it did its job. And its creators cannot be thanked for it.
The People vs. Larry Flint is a film directed by Milos Forman about the life of a man with the worst taste in the world, but who was, at first glance, free. The film is about a man who wants to make a lot of money. A film about the essence of glorious American democracy, equality and freedom.
Larry Flint is an ambitious man who published the most scandalous and depraved magazine of all time, Hustler. He loved sex and girls, so one day he decided to pursue his idea. Why not? He will do what he wants and get a lot of money for it. However, his actions provoked a rather contradictory reaction of the American society. Some adored and encouraged his activities, others were ready to slap him like a fly that only does that shit and spread dirt.
Larry Flint gave society what it couldn't afford. He showed people the true essence of sexuality in all its manifestations. It is most clearly expressed in eroticism and porn. At first glance, they look alike. However, there is an important difference: porn shows sexuality from the bad side, vulgarizes it, and eroticism is aimed at showing the beauty of human (animal) nature and passions. Giving free rein to his sexuality, a person learns the depth of his essence and the nature of his sensations. He knows freedom. This is why sexuality is so important to people. But not everyone can admit it. That is why the elite, the “cream” of American society condemned the activities of Larry Flint and tried to eradicate it by any means. And here we are faced with a paradox: America, shouting to the whole world about its democracy, the struggle for freedom, here, out of the blue, denies and condemns this very freedom of speech. Then where's the logic? It turns out that this is no longer equality and pluralism, but some kind of democracy-werewolf.
Thus, when it comes to absolute freedom, morality immediately rejects it, because it contradicts established principles and norms that have developed historically. That is, any political regime, democracy or totalitarianism, will try to restrain absolute freedom because it is dangerous, unreliable, uncontrollable, as can be observed in the example of Mr. Flint, who was absolutely free and did everything he wanted.
Let’s take a look at what this freedom has done. The end showed that his passions had so taken hold of him that he was burned out and left devastated from within. Freedom is not always a good thing. Human nature is arranged in such a way that the more a person is free, the more he destroys himself. Therefore, it is necessary to always listen to the voice of reason and treat life more practical.
As for the technical side of the picture, the script, the director’s work, and the music are great. The selection of actors deserves the highest praise. Woody Harrelson perfectly conveyed the image of the main character. During the film, you can see some courage in his game. The naked eye can see that this role is close to him, and by type he is perfect.
Now a few words about Courtney Love. A lot of people think it didn’t play a role. I agree with this statement because I know her biography. No one could play Althea like she did. Kourtney is great in this role because she was essentially herself. But there is no denying that her every appearance on the screen was simply enchanting. It gave the film even more expressiveness and liveliness.
As a result, we have a high-quality, harmonious film that pleases the eye and makes you think. Everyone will get something from him. Someone Larry Flint and his wife Althea will inspire new achievements, and someone will disappoint their way of life. Perhaps there are those who will be able to see in their actions the golden mean.
Larry Flint, the publisher of the erotic magazine Hustler, has been repeatedly prosecuted. Hardly anyone could have imagined that he would be elected as the defender of freedom of speech famous Milos Forman.
Bayopik is a genre in which Foreman has already tried himself in Amadeus, but for some reason he was not perceived as a biography of Mozart and Salieri. Larry Flint is almost a classic personal story. And, unlike Amadeus, who reeks of publicity – despite the efforts of Woody Harrelson, his Flint is a clearly positive figure in the film (especially since the pornographer himself in the film lit up as one of the judges), and his opponents, on the contrary, are caricatured, and the idea of freedom of speech, although presented fascinatingly, is still filed almost head-on. Foreman didn't sell out to the Hollywood dramatic mainstream, but he clearly resorted to his forms. It is unlikely that this was caused by external reasons related to some censorship, since there was a seven-year hiatus in his filmography before Larry. However, as if not paying attention to the actual artistic merits of the film, both the Berlin Festival and the Golden Globe and even the Oscar noted the director’s provocation with awards and nominations. After all, it is not every day that a huckster earning on the exploitation of a naked female body, almost convincingly and even in the traditional heroic forms of Hollywood biopic, is declared a defender of civil rights.
A separate respect for Cobain’s widow, who doesn’t help much with the main action, but somehow adds a movie of expression and Edward Norton, who, as a mediator between the world of porn and norms, returns meaning to freedom of speech.
One of the most pressing topics for discussion in our information age is the question: what can and cannot be published? Where does freedom of speech end and censorship begin? “People vs. Larry Flint” is a rather funny and ornate way to answer this question and find out what is behind the innocuous idealist’s desire to publish what everyone already knows (that is, show people sex). The director Milosh Forman, in a serious, then very stupid and hyperbolized manner, covers the main events in the life and career of the famous pornographer Larry Flint (performed by Woody Harrelson), through the prism of the perception of his ideas by society. Spiritually rich people never valued pornography, and naturally, the most “moral” members of society started a war with Larry, in which he proudly entered. To Larry’s credit, he waged a war against the people by legal means, defending his right to publish his journal in court and uttering the iconic phrase: “If the First Amendment protects a scumbag like me, it will protect you all.” Because I am the worst of you.
Strictly speaking, he's right. But with all this, this biographical drama still reveals Larry primarily as a feeling person, full of boundless love for his wife (Courtney Love) and a fighter with ostentatious bigotry.
The only drawback of the film: a slight compression, in some of the most important moments for revealing the identity of Larry Flint. In my opinion, this did not allow Milos Foreman to “break away” in the full and judicial law enforcement system of the United States (for example, the killer who attempted on Larry was not sought as diligently as they tried to drag the publisher behind bars), and will focus only on satire on American freedoms concerning freedom of speech.
Output: Not just sketches from the life of a porn giant, but also a wonderful banter on such phenomena as bigotry; ostentatious religiosity; “freedom of speech” and “censorship”; as well as ridiculing the very social activists who constantly offer to think about the moral and spiritual education of children. After watching, the viewer is asked to decide for himself, which side he is on: on the side of the “people” or, nevertheless, Larry Flint?
8 out of 10
To be honest, when I sat down to watch the movie Milosh Forman, I didn’t even read the description. It was enough for me to look at the cast, the name of the director, the rating on Movie Search and the ratio of reviews to the film to understand that the film is at least not bad. But what I saw in the film itself, I definitely didn't expect to see!
My title of the review Two Camps is perfect for both the characters shown in the film and the audience who watched the film. Before this film, I didn’t know there was a man like Larry Flint, I knew about his magazine, but I first heard about him in the film. Larry Flint is really an unusual person and it is difficult to form a holistic opinion about him, as well as about the film itself. As well as the characters of the film, someone supported and respected Flint, his antics, deeds and actions, and someone hated him, condemned and made him an enemy of the people. The audience has the same story. I’m not arguing that movies should probably be made about other people, but without such personalities, the world would be much more boring. Larry Flint is a so-called anti-hero who was engaged in a not quite decent business and in his own way fought the judicial system. Speaking of his most important brainchild magazine Hustler, here too, everything is controversial. It seems that you can understand one side of the magazine, so the other is ready to burn it.
I completely agree with the choice of actor for the role of Larry Flint. Woody Harrelson One of the few actors who literally with his crazy charisma and skill can play such a complex character and he coped with it 100%. In some places, his hero evokes sincere hatred, somewhere pity, and somewhere purely human respect. I liked the young Edward Norton in the role of a lawyer Larry. Norton could not stretch and look worthy in such a large project, especially at that time this was one of his first serious roles.
In general, a rather ambiguous and controversial film turned out in Milosh Forman. Choosing a rather bold story about an unusual person, Forman was once again able to adequately show his vision and tell about such a person as Larry Flint.
8 out of 10
Biography pornognat Flint could be a collection of abominations, but the genius Milos Forman approved for the role of Althea Courtney Love. And it turned out to be a love story. Like a blend of cheap whiskey added a few drops of an expensive drink, and its aroma suddenly blocked the smell of stew.
I am amazed at the moment when Larry, in a wheelchair, arrives at Hustler’s office and gives his wife Althea a ceremony of honors. She, a downed drug addict, whom employees in his absence squeamishly shake hands.
She was with him. He thanked her...
Larry's fight with the American society for the right to supply its members with pornography (haha) on this background pales.
What is remembered is a provocative speech at the outset, interspersed with footage of war crimes and arguments about what is more immoral: the trade in sex or death.
About a man with the dirtiest taste, but perhaps the freest.
"All I'm guilty of is that I have bad taste." - Larry Flint. (quoted from the film)
The main disadvantage of biographies, they can be checked for the presence of inconsistencies. But this does not reduce the sharpness, can keep the viewer. This is especially true in this case.
The meaning of the word “freedom” in a large sense, in the understanding of cinema, is well known to the director of “Flight over the Cuckoo’s Nest” Miloš Forman. He took up the material about an honest man who began to raise his capital on open pornography (Oh my God, who is it now!?), by the way, the first photos published in the first issue of Hustler are also an illegal invasion of privacy. They were photos of strip club employees. As they say, "Why not?" Having started his career and gained momentum, he did not even think that his magazine would become an irritation to high society, which was mainly composed of politicians and other bohemians. Freedom of speech in the United States is so free. It hasn’t changed much, it just got dumber.
So no, you have to be able to talk about the movie itself. In view of the fact that it was decided to shoot an almost complete biography of Larry Flint, about which the film itself will be told very little, the most important part is a court case, and by the way, Larry Flint pulled the courts a lot, judging by his real biography. Because of his character, stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise, it was even more difficult.
The film itself, although integral in its presentation, the main scourge and minus here is the script. The whole story is thrown at the beginning, but then it finds one channel and follows it for the rest of the time. Thanks to the acting talent of Woody Harelsen and Edward Norton, we will be presented with an indicator of trust in lawyers. The winding atmosphere of the eighties, lack of spirituality, complete freedom in choosing occupations for life - what they wanted to display and it almost came out. Most importantly, the movie “The People vs. Larry Flint” is interesting to watch not only due to promiscuity. It also showed that Larry Flint wanted to change journalism. There's a scene about it where Larry criticizes in front of Playboy friends, it's really expensive. In addition, there is also a place of religious stupidity, and many other prejudices.
Special thanks to Courtney Love. She's a hundred percent fit for her role, the real Althea Flint. Here’s a quote from Hustler magazine:
What about The Wizard of the Emerald City? Suppose Ellie is lying somewhere in Kansas, and Iron Woodcutter, Scarecrow, and Lion are all using her together. Maybe even Totoshka.
Going to success, he bravely acted then and now, probably, too, is not discouraged. The sad fact is that due to an attempt on him, he is forced to move in a wheelchair. Although I think that having a solid fortune in his pocket, and having managed to prove that he has the right to this place, he quite deserved it.
Associations: “Buggie Night” and “Sid and Nancy”
Enjoy your visit.
Watching this film, there was a dual and contradictory feeling inside, as if I was torn from within by the monopoly of one sign, and from all sides.
The plot tells about the same Larry Flint, who “went against the system” and began to publish his famous magazine, and further life vicissitudes.
It is immediately clear that the film is about a negative character in the eyes of the public, and in general this usually does not define the film itself, because well, everyone likes the “bad guys”, because they are “not like everyone else.”
First, we're shown a scene from Larry's childhood that looks like it's a different movie, and that we just got shown. Apparently, such a receiver that the viewer looked and saw the motivation of the main character, what subsequently moves them through life. But it looks like an oil company spilling oil in the ocean will shoot an advertisement where its representatives apologise against the kittens and say how sorry they are - a vulgar, cheap trick that causes even more disgust.
But there are bright sides to this film, at least for me.
In particular, there sound quite healthy and reasoned thoughts. I won’t go into too much detail, but the truth, uttered by a vile man like Larry Flint, remains true.
But the rest of it went up. First, the presentation of the film, the video. When I watched it, I had the feeling that there was a whole movie, it was cut, and what was left was shown. The feeling of insufficiency, the plot is like crumpled. We are thrown here and there for no apparent reason, no cause-and-effect relationship, just because there it is. There is no dynamism, there are some snags.
The film does not look like a single picture. And all this exacerbates the other shortcomings.
Second. I don’t know how it really happened, but the main character is disgusting to the point of impossibility. At first, it didn’t catch your eye, and it didn’t show, but in the second half of the film, he just annoys with his antics, impulsive actions. His drug-addicted wife, a love I never believed for a second - no adequacy at all. Coupled with, it's disgusting. And maybe that was the ultimate goal of the actors, to evoke those feelings. And they are, in general, good, to the actors no complaints. What's happening is outrageous. They try to explain to us that he allegedly “shakes the system” in retaliation, and he has a lot of money and everything he can do, including dismissing everyone from his magazine, everyone who fed him, and paying for those tons of heroin poured into him and his beloved. If he's so smart with a bag of money, when you couldn't tear off drugs, you couldn't put your wife in rehab to get off the needle. No, he kept irritating everyone and sending air kisses to his vegetable wife, who had been pumped up with the whole Mendeleev table, so that he could then let her cry. Another cheap trick, designed to cause sympathy and pity in the viewer, to ennoble an already openly nasty, nauseating person, allegedly “look what a drama, he is so bad, but he can also love.”
And in general, there is a very fat love line, with allegedly the only love and wife of Larry, who is supposedly the love of his life (it is shown to us this way), but there is no attention from either the side of Larry or the director at all. She suffocates, throws her pills quietly, falls ill with AIDS - and to hell with her, that's how she dies, then we'll show. Something like that. Even if we assume that she is really his one, then the drama of this woman, whose husband is now half-married, is not shown.
Well, at least in the film, in the person of the lawyer Larry, there is a barely visible line condemning his behavior, the idea that he behaves not like a pig and maybe people would start listening to him, despite all the dirty jokes about a woodcutter, Santa or a local preacher.
Despite all the dirt, for a couple of good thoughts
6 out of 10
“The People vs. Larry Flint” is a film that shows us not the life of the protagonist, over which you can think, cry or laugh, but the essence of American democracy, freedom, equality, etc. Of course, the main character should not be a simple guy, but a person with ambition, courage and perseverance. About people like Larry Flint made a lot of films, take the same Harvey Milk – a man who only after 40 began to fight for their rights and their freedom of speech.
Larry Flint is a man, as I mentioned, with ambition, who wants to make a living honestly, and he wants to make big money. Since childhood, he works a little unconventional way, and who encroaches on his goods will get a pot on the head, and later through litigation. He had ideas and put them into practice. He started strip clubs, he likes girls, he likes sex and he decided to create a magazine that would print naked women and men, he decided to create a competition Playboy. True, some ideas in this magazine I did not like, but all creative people have failures. Like no, but in the film we show how he had a hard time and how he had to pay for his ideas.
I liked the movie, it’s a biographical film about a businessman, and it’s probably boring to watch court proceedings (which is an integral part of the film), but it shows us the very American democracy that is so much talked about and it’s natural that you should never give up, even if your ideas did not please anyone. Actors who played the main characters (Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love) played very well, okay Harrelson, he was already an actor with experience, but Courtney Love surprised me, she is a musician, not an actress, but after reading about the heroine she played (Althea Flint) I immediately realized that there was no falsehood in her play. Althea herself was a rebel, just like Courtney Love herself in life. I am very happy with her performance.
This film gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand, he does not like it, on the other hand, he cannot not like it. On the one hand, the film is boring, on the other hand, it is so impressive that memories will last for many years.
I didn’t like the work done on the painting. There is not enough emotion in the film, the plot provides freedom of action, but despite all the fools of the hero there is no chic, no entertainment. Music, acting – similar moments, which the modern viewer evaluates, are performed at a low level. Sometimes boredom is replaced by disgust, which further alienates the viewer. What's catching is the very idea of the film. Therefore, I will have to do this not grateful thing, namely the storytelling.
The essence of the film is that the man who created the porn magazine, is presented to the public as a reformer, a public figure, and is compared almost to Washington itself. The plot of the film is divided into two parts, in the first he fights for the freedom of choice of people, in the second for freedom of speech. No matter how pompous these words sounded, in my opinion, the director still coped well with this.
More specifically, in the first half it is clear that the magazine was forbidden to publish. Larry Flint was jailed for 25 years. In the future, they won the case, and Flint began to earn even more money, proclaiming himself a true freedom fighter, giving people the freedom to read or not read his magazine.
The second half is much more interesting. One issue of the magazine tells the incest of a famous religious figure of 60 years with his mother. Reverend Falwell sues, and the jury of course grants his claim. Flint then appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, where he wins the trial under the pretext that the Reverend public figure, and in any free society, such persons are criticized. The nation develops through criticism, and it is unacceptable to ban criticism in a democratic state because it threatens democracy. Simply put, no matter what criticism there is neither the court nor the person being criticized, and even in general a person cannot censor this condemnation.
In my opinion, this is a weak picture, overrated. If the film wasn’t based on resonant real events, it wouldn’t have caught my eye. Therefore, if a number is important for someone, then I put 6, and then thanks to the impression of the last trial.
By 1996, Milosh Forman proved everything for a long time, so his approach to a very controversial and provocative topic - to the film adaptation of the life of porn king Larry Flint, the hero of the seventies, the era of the sexual revolution, drugs and cultural cataclysms - should be perceived not as a desire to prove something to someone, but rather as a chance to show others that over time, the sense of style, the sense of time, the sharpness of perception do not blunt. Foreman was pretty good at it.
For all the greatness of Foreman, this film, first of all, does, of course, not he, the director, and the cast, mostly sparkling Woody Harrelson, which I always quite strongly sympathize with, but often saw episodic, and here - the main role - and what! Harrellon vividly portrayed an ironic, sarcastic, satirical and truly crooked hero. His constant smile, charm, courage, multiplied by arrogance and penetration, allowed him not only to make a name for himself, but also to change the face of one of the most powerful countries in the world. Not many, even the most brainy guys of different eras, it was given.
I am not quite close to all this erotic subject, but I do not consider myself a prude, so I do not condemn the hobbies and needs of others. Watching this film, I paid attention not to what product punched its way into people’s homes, won their love and recognition, but how and through what mechanisms Flint did all this.
Special mention should be made of court sessions. Foreman, enlisting Harrelson’s support, mocked the US judicial system. And Larry Flint, who is not a close character to me, suddenly hooked me with the fact that he did not give up, even when he became disabled, losing many of his real treasures. He was covered with tape in the courts, and he came to the hearings in the army helmet or typing water in his mouth in a literal, not figurative sense. Yes, this is a story about the struggle for the most American ideals - freedom of speech, freedom of interests and views.
I will also note the good performance of the very young Edward Norton and the uncouth Courtney Love.
A potential viewer of the picture, seeing the extravagant, softening the stabbing and cutting corners - frivolous, frankly - vulgar poster of this work of cinema, immediately find it necessary to imagine that the concept of this film will not result in anything more than a story about viscous dirty intentions and actions of a useless marginal and libertine, a certain Larry Flint. Oh, yeah, Milos, yeah, provocateur. If a fellow potential viewer is not lazy to look into any informational Internet resource and run a glance at the biographical article about Mr. Flint, then the fact that the good gentleman is almost a national symbol of the era will come to his attention. Not a sex symbol, and not a hero of his time – by all means; just a wayward character who had the wit and courage to turn circumstances in his favor and become a freedom fighter – a new-found human rights activist, an idealist and simply a historically and socially significant person for America. That's the movie.
In the past - one of the most prominent young representatives of the Czechoslovak new wave, in the present - one of the most excellent masters of his craft, which is busily seated on the director's chairs. Miloš Forman, after raised three meters above the ozone layer of the Earth, the bar (such, I will not be afraid of this word, masterpieces, as the film adaptation of the novel by the American writer-beater Ken Kesey " Flying over the nest of the cuckle" and the sub-biographical giant "Her's level of its original quality and "Herb>>>>>>>>>>>> Mozar - the original quality and "Her. Artfully, the main thing. Eccentric heroes, a self-forgetting struggle in the name of freedom, something there about a mental hospital - familiar? It's all pan Forman!
So, Larry Flint. The mogul of the porn industry, the publisher of the infamous magazine for adults “Hustler”, a millionaire and just brazen. A boy who dreams of earning money honestly. He didn’t set out to become a superman, but when the opportunity to be a little bit of a victim of star-striped justice, a symbol, an idol — Larry asks himself in a silent exclamation — why the hell not? And without hesitation, he announces publicly, staring aplombly into the eyes of scurrying everywhere in an attempt to pollinate the fragrant flower of sensation before another to journalists, addressing all these lucky citizens of the United States: "I am going to prison to protect your freedom!" Just like that. And then better: a rebellious, breathtaking defense of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states freedom of speech. When I started publishing Hustler, I didn't even know the First Amendment existed. I just wanted to have fun and make money, recalls the real one, not the character of the film, Larry Flint. And the hero of our fairy tale, who sought to free from the shackles of incompetent justice the most dangerous weapon in the world - the word - was so convincing that it seemed as if he himself sincerely believed in what others, in his opinion, should believe. Perhaps he is the player in the “mafia” with a red “M” under the inverted map, who so selflessly proves that he is a peaceful citizen, that he himself sincerely believed in it – hence persistence, plausibility, apodicticity.
Apparently, by the will of fate, Flint’s role as a fighter for freedom of speech, as if a good suit sewn by the best of standards by a tailor, fell to the first to his liking. Sitting in it, meanwhile, figures of American culture, among which are listed Woody Allen and Gor Vidal, publish in the New York Times an open letter in support of the pornographer, which compares Larry Flint with a Soviet dissident. And the long-term trials in his case only contributed to the strengthening of the institution of human rights in America.
Larry Flint is one of the people who symbolize the American dream. The Crusader involuntarily. A fighter for justice. A warrior chained to a gilded wheelchair, a porno baron, an eccentric rude cynic who swirls in a combustible cocktail of litigation, desperate drug love and the political background harmoniously combined with all this. There was even room for a temporary morbid fascination with religion and an awkward attempt to connect it with the cause of a lifetime. We are free citizens (that is not what they say in Russia, but let’s omit the clumsy nuances) – so let everyone decide for himself whether to watch or not to watch this biopic of the Czech director, very accurately and masterfully conveying the entire vague concept of the life of such a person – undoubtedly a person – as Larry Flint.
Everyone is free to make their own choices.
While California is tacitly but unanimously recognized as the citadel of evil and debauchery, the lair of the “media devil” who juggles the souls of the young and innocent, eager to break through all the circles of hell to get to the deceitful oasis of Hollywood, Kentucky, like a “gray cardinal”, lurks there in the east and whips a lash soaked in the best corn whiskey, on the back of a pious public. There, “in the clubs of tobacco smoke” the world was a supporter of pornographic thought and an ardent defender of freedom of speech – Larry Flint. Even as a ten-year-old boy, Larry wanted to earn honesty, which, in fact, he did, selling moonshine to the delight of his neighbors. It is a pity that there was no special concept of “what is good and what is bad” from Larry.
Hustler magazine grew out of an advertising booklet for a strip club as briskly as Larry Flint grew out of a young moonshineer. A lucky coincidence in the form of photos of naked Jackie O and now “Hustler” fell like the first snow on the shelves of every newspaper kiosk, every grocery, splits at the same time “the world” in two: those who consider the phenomenon of the magazine to the people – a miracle, and those who regard it as a natural disaster. Of course, Larry Flint was right to accuse opponents of bigotry and double standards. But does that really mean that everyone in the neighborhood needs to be poked in the genitals? Mr. Flint said yes and was engaged to the court forever.
By contrasting his individual freedom of speech and the right to say what he wants in whatever form he wants with the golden morality of the majority, Larry Flint shows disrespect to almost all of America, as candid as the photos he publishes. And then a reasonable question arises: what exactly did the creators want to demonstrate this biopic?
The beauty, though questionable, of biographies is that for all their dryness of narrative, they can be “read” differently, depending on the hands the story has fallen into. It is as if the same event is playing out in different dimensions. Milosha Forman is like a storm, throwing from one shore to the other. He persistently imposes different layers of events on each other, which are designed to create an even more vivid image of Flint. But the fuller and more picturesque Larry Flint is, the more ghostly everything is, every word, this stolen word from Alan Isaacman's speech, every breath, this stolen minute of Althea's life. Who shot the lawyer and his client? How did Althea Flint get AIDS? The answers to these questions are hardly important, as are the minor characters who, like aperitifs and snacks, are designed to tease the appetite before the main course. And not everyone will taste the dish.
The People vs. Larry Flint is the story of the world’s biggest egotist. Throughout the film, there was a feeling that all the crazy antics, all the provocative words, everything that was regarded as a struggle for freedom of speech and the press, in fact, was only flirting with his own vanity. Running to money, fame, the main “hero” finally got the opportunity to cover the gaping void under the deliberate activity of the activist. Larry Flint, as a monument to freedom of choice and speech, is like Woody Harrelson, like Larry Flint, is nothing more than an actor playing his part. A showman whose stage is the courtroom. A preacher whose scripture is “Hustler.” A man who just wanted to be remembered.
Milos Forman made a film that shows only one side of the coin - the side of the pornognat. And he could probably be accused of one-sidedness, if not for the lack of categoricalness in the narrative. Yes, Woody Harrelson occupies all screen time, his Larry Flint in his own words carves his way through the dense jungle of human prejudice. But isn’t Alan Isaacman’s timid, subtle, almost enveloping speeches the most important part of the film? That we are all censors and should be free to choose what we need and what we don’t need. The lack of pressure from the director, through pompous drama, malicious injustice, pure and bright love, is attractive. The viewer is given the opportunity to choose for himself: he is still “against” Larry Flint or “for”.
The story of Larry Flint, an implacable champion of the Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, is tempting not only for human rights activists. Milos Forman made the hero of his next biopic an ambiguous and very vulnerable from the point of view of morality: a millionaire who suffered a lot from the authorities, living in Beverly Hills and publishing almost three dozen frivolous magazines.
The events of the film recreate the “stages of the long way” of the disgraced tycoon and cover the 15-year (from 1972 to 1987) period of self-affirmation of the future king of the porn business, who began his path to fame as the owner of a state strip club in Ohio. Larry’s first advertising avenue, designed to promote a nightclub, was subsequently transformed into a thick paint magazine, called “Hustler”. It was he who initiated the powerful “evil empire” – the publishing porn industry, which became an insurmountable cost to the right to speak freely in the United States.
Flint’s motto, which is also one of his main alibis during numerous lawsuits: “Americans have a right to bad taste”, still covers the representatives of this business. Flint's ideas proved durable, and not just across the ocean. A few years later, these words were almost literally repeated by the then director of NTV Malashenko, justifying the appearance of some frank programs on his channel.
And the scandal with the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” on the same channel only duplicated the situation with the story of Flint, who reasoned that the ordinary American has every right to either read “Hustler” or throw it in the trash. Only, in contrast to NTV’s “loss” to the Russian Orthodox Church, which achieved that the disgraced picture of Scorsese was replaced at the last moment, the vital activity of the “bad boy” Larry and years of litigation in his case only contributed to the strengthening of the institution of human rights in America.
In the controversial figure of the pornognat (as they say, on the courage performed by Woody Harrelson), you can find a roll call even with citizen Kane, and with the comedian-talker Lenny Bruce, both with a mythical and quite real figure of the not very distant past. But a picture with such a polemical idea and progressive views looks too conservative in form and even odious in spirit, singing a kind of First Amendment anthem.
The only truly revolutionary and even provocative is the advertising poster of the film, which caused the scandal during the advertising campaign in Europe. On a street poster that provoked serious protests of religious figures, and then replicated on videotapes, screen Flint was depicted crucified on a giant vagina. Unfortunately, the film itself, whose philosophy boils down to the formula “Flint is a pig, but freedom is sacred,” clearly lacks adequate imaginative solutions.
Everything has always been and will be relative, and even more so the values that replace each other over time and are the causes of conflicts.
People tend to get into frames, so a lot of them simply do not want to perceive what is beyond.
Larry Flint didn’t fight for American rights, and the film shows the irony with which he just saved his carcass. Shaw. Spectacle.
The desire to do something, to be remembered - that's the goal.
Colorful heroes, of course, that not everything was so beautiful.
Flint himself went a little deeper - so in general, as for idealization - he put his hand to the film, so it is not surprising that the great "mud dealer" wished to remain handsome in the eyes of other generations (at least in his youth). The archive of photos perfectly demonstrates that even before he was shot and disabled, our Larry was quite fat, round, but the publisher of a porn magazine should be a sex icon. Because Flint I would put 10 for the right commercial move.
But the film with all his impressions and a share of boredom put
Why image is more important than thirst or blind justice
A young biology teacher, correcting cracked glasses on the nose, most impartially and purposefully skeptical every year somewhere in March (temporary orientation depends on the number of quarantined students in time) tells paragraphs forty-first and forty-second about puberty and the process of reproduction, with disgusting hopelessness watching shy-uninhibited children, letting greasy jokes on an unspoken topic. In the case “People against teaching conservatism”, the latter always wins, which creates an authoritative precedent for all sorts of bored intellectuals who decide to ennoble with their attention topics that are not customary to discuss over morning coffee.
Milos Forman is that educational worker: purely about dirty, unspoken about spicy. The conservatism of teachers is shaded by concern for moral and moral undertakings in their wards, but the Czech director’s pedigree anxiety about the morality of the audience’s uncloaked age barely covers up the puritanical squeamishness with which he pulls dirty underwear of the porn business out of the glossy glossy basket with his greasy fingers. Potentially subtle and witty satire on the hypocrisy of American philistines degenerated to the state of edifying self-repeating tambourine about amazing stubbornness, presented under the significant title of life credo. Walking on the verge of good taste and outright vulgarity in the company of a sex dealer is akin to an oily stain on the lapel of a reputational jacket. Diligently choosing terms, Foreman reads his pronaphthalene lecture, leading it to a suddenly dull American trial, from which the usual wit of the parties disappeared, narrowing down to the final student speech of Edward Norton, confusedly demonstrating the essence of legislation strikingly similar to the notorious breath, too defiant to show it in all its glory.
The universal justification for what is happening is the a priori eccentricity of the hero, significantly saving Foreman time for his unlyrically boring digressions, and it is also designed to at least sketchily designate Larry Flint against the background of a barely distinguishable people - the very same thing that a formidable mountain rises in the distance beyond the defiant versus, and crumbles as it approaches into small pebbles. Hanja, gently nurtured by the director in the founder of Hustler, looks at the others with the eyes of a beaten Woody Harrelson, and the daring arrogance and timely ingenuity (whether it’s a joke: shamelessly take advantage of the idea of a compatriot-bunny and pass it off as his know-how with the addition of piquantly illegal details, in fairness) are diligently obscured, as if not for the sake of their demonstration a magazine was started, endless court hearings were shot and an equally endlessly long film in which Courtney Love’s image is still without a man. And Foreman, as usual, has nothing to do with it - he does not doubt the victory of his lawyer - the director's authority - in the case "The People v. Milos Foreman", which will not even be brought due to the imperfection of the art justice system. Directorial indifference is a terrible crime with its seeming harmlessness, and it is time to find a tenacious prosecutor who is ready to pay attention to criminal inaction.
Who are you to argue with God? Or the First Amendment to Larry Flint's Bible.
When I was going to write a review of the film, I was hesitant about whether it should be green or red. And that’s not because I doubted whether the movie was good or bad, it was good. Almost everything is good in it - the play of actors, the script, directing, relevance, etc., only one thing is bad in it - historical untruth. Larry Flint hardly ever fought for American rights, fought for his rights, and used his personal capital to exercise his right in prudish America. This truth was not shown in the painting. Instead, he is extolled as a defender of American rights, like the white Martin Luther, but far from it. Larry Flint did not believe in the triumph of justice, justice, truth, he believed in money that can lead to triumph over his own system.
Perhaps, after reading this review, someone will think about the question - to watch or not to watch? I say, look, but look carefully. America of the seventies, perhaps, is still better than modern Russia in the legal aspect of protecting the rights of individuals to self-expression, freedom of thought and speech. Don’t assume that Larry Flint is actually a hero, don’t assume that the story in the film is the ultimate truth. Have a good time.