The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)
Larry Flynt is the hedonistically obnoxious, but indomitable, publisher of Hustler magazine. The film recounts his struggle to make an honest living publishing his girlie magazine and how it changes into a battle to protect the freedom of speech for all people.
- Miloš Forman
- Scott Alexander
- Larry Karaszewski
Rating: 6.968/10 by 1138 users
Alternative Title:
Larry Flynt - Skandalernas man - SE
Larry Flynt - El nombre del escándalo - AR
Մարդիկ Ընդդեմ Լարրի Ֆլինտի - AM
Country:
United States of America
Language:
English
Runtime: 02 hour 10 minutes
Budget: $36,000,000
Revenue: $20,300,385
Plot Keyword: pornography, airplane, free love, court case, aids, sentence, poison, drug addiction, eroticism, group sex, last judgment, wheelchair, baptism, vulgar, millionaire, disabled
**Larry Flynt: the man, the monster, the hero and the pervert.** After seeing this film, I had the feeling that I should start this text with a warning: we should not mix our opinion about Larry Flynt with our assessment of the film. I loved the film, but I'm the first to admit that I don't feel any sympathy for the biographed person. Regardless of my opinion, sex sells, people are attracted to anything that has a forbidden aroma and, even today, the magazine “Hustler” is a success, with a television channel dedicated to adult content. The real Larry Flynt proved to be a provocative and materialistic man: he made a fortune off the exploitation of pornographic magazines and used all means to shock people, ridicule the conservatives who criticized him, and confront society and the judicial system. He demanded to be respected, but was incapable of respecting anyone who criticized him; He used the First Amendment to defend his right to publish what he wanted, forgetting that same document when he heard criticism of what he published. Dear reader, I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the same right that protected Mr. Flynt also protected everyone who expressed a negative opinion about him within the limits of urbanity. And if it is true that freedom of expression is crucial to the democratic system, it is also true that it is not an absolute value, it must be limited in a way that protects the rights and freedoms of other people. Unfortunately, the world is full of people like Larry Flynt, who demand the right to say whatever they want, but are unable to tolerate an opinion contrary to theirs. Of course, I also don't feel any sympathy for the professional activity of Mr. Flynt, a sexist man who profited from the objectification of sex and the female body, and I am disgusted by the business he created around that magazine. However, the film is fantastic. Milos Forman, who accustomed us to great works full of style and personality, surprises us once again with a film that does not shy away from provoking its audience, putting its finger on the wounds that hurt the most. The director made skillful use of cinematography, environments, filming locations, sets and costumes in order to construct a narrative that explores very well Flynt's controversial and contradictory nature. For several moments, I was afraid that the script would make the mistake of beatifying or cleaning up Flynt's image. However, I truly believe that Forman managed to avoid this and give the audience a neutral narrative, where he reveals the best and worst of this complex man. The film is reasonably discreet in its use of effects and the way it was edited, but it has a strong cast solidly based on the participation of Woody Harrelson. Looking at the finished film, I don't think I could imagine another actor better suited for the character in question. Harrelson gave himself body and soul to this project and produced one of the most consistent and powerful works of his film career, rightly deserving of an Oscar nomination. Courtney Love is perfect for the role she played, especially because the actress knew perfectly well the effects of substance abuse and was uninhibited enough to naturally face the nude scenes she was subjected to (something I tend to condemn, but I can understand, considering the film and the character) In turn, Edward Norton (at the time, experiencing a particularly radiant moment in his professional career) and Brett Harrelson make a frankly positive contribution. Richard Paul and James Cromwell also do a decent job, but they don't have the space or time to add much and seem somewhat wasted.
