I read "When I Grow Up I Want to Be a Playboy Bunny" when I was about 13 and agreed with Gloria Steinem's clever insights during her undercover operation in America's sex and porn industry, which these days may have earned her a lawsuit similar to the one Food Lion threw at ABC. And so it was with great relish that I read her recent editorial in the New York Times, "Hollywood Cleans Up Hustler," in which she directs her scathing criticism at the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt," produced by Oliver Stone and directed by Milos Forman.
According to Ms. Steinem, "'The People vs. Larry Flynt' claims that the creator of Hustler magazine (Larry Flynt) is a champion of the First Amendment and deserves our respect. That isn't true. First, we need to make clear that a pornographer is not a hero, no more than a publisher of Ku Klux Klan books or a Nazi on the Internet would be." She goes on to say that, "Hustler is shown as tacky at worst, and maybe even admirable for pushing the limits. What's left out are the magazine's images of women being beaten, tortured and raped, women subject to degradations from bestiality to sexual slavery."
Before I had the opportunity to see the movie myself, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with her. Of course, Hustler degrades women and neither the magazine nor its creator should be glorified by the film industry. After spending several hours in the Nugget last Friday, I realized I had been mistaken. Simply put, Steinem is wrong.
If Oliver Stone and Milos Forman tried to clean up Hustler, they failed miserably. "The People vs. Larry Flynt" treats viewers to images including massive orgies, women in meat-grinders and the ravages of chemical addiction and AIDS. The character of Larry Flynt, played by Woody Harrelson, is not portrayed as a hero, but rather as a tragic character who not only is aware of his own weaknesses and flaws, but takes pride in them.
Throughout the course of the film, Flynt shows little to no respect for the court system, the one institution that could help him protect his rights. His lawyer shows disgust both for Flynt's profession and his foolish stubbornness. Flynt is anything but a hero. But even the publisher of Hustler, even a man who spits and curses at judges and juries is protected by the First Amendment.
The film is not a glorification of Flynt but of the principle he sought to uphold. In the case that eventually brought Flynt before the Supreme Court, Rev. Jerry Falwell sued Flynt over an advertisement in Hustler depicting Falwell in a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother. Rev. Falwell claimed to have suffered "emotional distress" as a result of the parody. In an unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the freedom of speech over the emotional concerns of public figures whose lives are the subject of criticism or parody.
By attacking Oliver Stone, Milos Forman and Columbia Pictures, not to mention the actors whose performances earned the film five Golden Globe nominations and potential Oscar nominations, Steinem missed her mark. The film does not glorify Hustler; it shows it for what it is -- pornography. The film does not make judgments about the content of Hustler but it certainly gives its viewers enough information about the magazine and its contents to judge for themselves. Instead, "The People vs. Larry Flynt" glorifies the First Amendment which, as Flynt himself said on the steps of the Supreme Court, can protect anyone if it protects a scum like him. In order for the First Amendment to mean anything, it must protect those words and images that we find most offensive, most indefensible.
In her editorial, Steinem asked, "What if the film praised an anti-Semitic publisher? ... Would Donna Hanover Giuliani, a New York television personality; Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor; Judge D'Army Bailey of the Memphis Circuit Court and James Carville, the political consultant, have agreed to do cameos? I don't think so." Well, I don't know about you, but, personally, I wouldn't put anything past Hollywood. If "The People vs. Larry Flynt" is guilty of anything, it is of making us think twice about stereotypes, assumptions and easy judgments.
