The distressing Mr. Flynt

[ckaratnytsky at nypl.org]

     Queries David C:
     
     >What I really want to know, and I don't think anyone has fessed up 
     >to it, is whether anyone has actually seen this movie?  And is it any 
     >good/though-provoking aside from all the questions of how honest it 
     >is about its real-life protagonist?
     
     Fessing up:  I saw it just the other day.  Sorry, Adam, I was more 
     impressed with the gusto of Courtney Love's characterization, I guess 
     you could call it, than anything else.  I don't think she's a real 
     actress (yet?).  Indeed, my sources tell me that her performance was 
     saved by Foreman (and his editor) in the cutting room.  Love was 
     unable, apparently, to sustain a scene for any sizable amount of time 
     and you'll notice that there's a lot of back and forth cutting, in 
     presumably intimate moments, between she and whoever her partner 
     happens to be -- usually Harrelson.  (She and Harrelson never share the 
     screen, for example, in the bathtub when they talk about getting 
     married.  That should have been an extended take, I think.)  I loved 
     Donna Hanover as Ruth Carter Stapleton (sister, of lust-in-his-heart 
     Jimmy, bless him, at least for that), but, as a whole, I didn't think 
     that the film was one of Foreman's better efforts.  (Anybody remember 
     The Fireman's Ball?  Lovely.)
     
     The film was thought-provoking in the sense that it created the 
     impetus for me to have an extend discussion with a member of the 
     opposite sex about the (stereotypical?) male interest in pornography  
     -- to which, I, C-word user, swinger of chandeliers -- in other words, 
     no prude, not faint-hearted -- must admit an almost absolute inability 
     to fathom or accept.  (Help here, gentlemen?  I did my bit for the 
     C-word.)  Otherwise, the film was a set-up, a stacked deck in re the 
     First Amendment issues and a superficial exploration of the mind and 
     character of Flynt -- who he was and what drove him remained, 
     essentially, a mystery.
     
     Anyway, Gloria Steinem's Op-Ed piece in the NYT 7 January put it all 
     in perspective:  Larry Flynt is/was mainly interested in making a buck 
     by exploiting women.  Hang on to your seat, here's the awesome Gloria:
     
     "...no, I am not grateful to Mr. Flynt for protecting my freedom, as 
     the film and its enthusiasts suggest I should be.  No more than I 
     would be to a racist or fascist publisher whose speech is protected by 
     the Constitution....
     
     Suppose Mr. Flynt  specialized in such images as a young 
     African-American man trussed up like a deer and tied to the luggage 
     rack of a white man's car.  Or a nude white man being fed into a meat 
     grinder.  (Those are some of the milder ways in which Hustler portrays 
     women.)
     
     Would Oliver Stone [steady, Steely!]--who rarely lets powerful men 
     emerge unscathed--bowdlerize and flatter that kind of man, too?  Would 
     Woody Harrelson, who supports animal rights and protests the cutting 
     of trees, pose happily next to that Larry Flynt?  Would Milos Foreman 
     defend that film by citing his memories of censorship under the 
     Nazis?"
     
     This being said, yes, Johnny M., I will drag, haul, tow, and otherwise 
     pull for love.
     
     Chris (yes, *that* Chris)