I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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

Art can cause a lot of trouble. No doubt about it. In 1913, a ballet debuted in Paris, "The Rite of Spring," full of strange rhythms and telling the story of the barbaric sacrifice of a young virgin. The audience included such luminaries as Picasso, Cocteau, Proust, Ravel and Debussy. Some folks liked it, many didn't. There were hisses, boos, and catcalls. Objects were thrown at the stage. Fights broke out. The police were called. And the composer, Stravinsky, and the choreographer, Nijinsky, had to escape out the back way.What that incident and the story shown in this movie have in common is that neither object of community scorn -- not the ballet and not the Mapplethorpe photographs -- were intended to promote social change, nor could they have, even if the artists had wanted them to. The Mapplethorpe exhibit at the Cincinatti gallery wasn't the equivalent of an hysterical call to arms by Commies or Nazis, and nothing like the shout of "fire" in a crowded theater.Yet everyone in the community was divided on the issue. Dennis Barrie, who runs the gallery and booked the exhibit, is played by James Woods, who is better at half-comic loonies than upstanding champions of freedom of speech. Seven of the photos are disturbing enough. Among the pretty flowers with their unfolding petals are the genitalia of human beings, and the abuse of those organs. Some are outright disgusting -- a man urinating in another's mouth. Man, though, does Woods get into trouble. His family gets threatening phone calls at night, his kid is insulted and beaten at school, his wife has to resign from the PTA, none of his neighbors will talk to him, and Woods himself is arrested, brought to trial on obscenity charges, and acquitted.I wasn't expecting much but actually the film isn't that bad. Both positions -- for and against Woods and his exhibit -- are shown, with their expectable fringe elements waving placards and dancing wildly up and down as they shout curses and encouragement. And there are some talking heads -- Barney Frank, William F. Buckley, and Salman Rushdie among them -- who are able to calmly articulate the reasoning behind the emotions displayed by the crowds.Some clichés must be unavoidable in these kinds of films, and they do show up here. The anonymous jury members arguing (in Canadian accents). The family arguments between the rigid husband and the wife (Diana Scarwid, always good) who wants it all to just go away. The kids' troubles at school. The fruitcake calls about going to hell. The good guys with no vices; the bad guys looking subtly sinister. But the story isn't swamped by them. We stick pretty close to James Woods and his travails.A more serious problem is that the movie presents the issue categorically. Either you're in one camp or the other. And, having done so, the writers and director don't leave us in much doubt about which side they're on. They're on the side of the angels of course.And the movie doesn't get at the problem behind the problem, which isn't "obscenity" but "tolerance." William F. Buckley makes the point that even if Mapplethorpe's photographs were perfectly executed, there is no obligation to show them to the public. He's absolutely right. Nor does the public have an obligation to view them. The real question is whether we should deny others the right to view them. Photos HAVE prompted social and political change in the past. Think of Mathew Brady's photographs of Confederate dead at Antietam. No one had seriously imagined a Civil War battlefield strewn with hundreds of bloated bodies before. Or Dorothea Lange's photographs of impoverished Okie farmers during the Great Depression, which leveraged Washington into addressing their plight. Or a photo from Vietnam -- half a dozen scorched children running and screaming from a napalmed village, led by a naked young girl with her skin peeling. I would guess that compared to those photos, Mapplethorpe's pictures of fisting and homoeroticism don't pose much of a threat to social stability. Why not tolerate them? De gustibus non disputandum est. What's going to happen -- the homosexuals are going to rise up en masse and take over the world? We might be better off for it, as far as that goes. At least we'd all be well dressed.You have to hand it to cable TV for making movies about newsworthy events like this one, even if it comes some years after the event has lost its value as gossip fodder. HBO does it head on, with skill and often wit. And PBS sometimes comes up with startlingly well-done docudramas like "Oppenheimer." Good for them.

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 admirable, intelligent if occasionally formulaic TVM (it deserved to be more widely screened) makes me ask why James Woods is not acknowledged as America's best film actor? Think about it: who is a serious contender? The equally prolific but perhaps more limited de Niro? Tom Hanks (come on!)? Tom Cruise (you must be joking!)? Jack Nicholson, perhaps, in his day, which isn't now, alas? The comparable Brian Dennehey: masterly, but I think Woods has the edge. Give the man an Oscar, please! ******

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