Milos Forman has directed some great films about men who cannot conform to their surroundings. He and Jack Nicholson won Oscars for "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" in the 1970s. He and F. Murray Abraham won Oscars for "Amadeus" in the 1980s. He and Woody Harrelson now attempt to make non-conformists out of us again with "The People vs. Larry Flynt."
Clearly, Forman has impressive credentials. He also has a character with a life so surreal, it can only be based on fact, as well as the screen writing duo of Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, who previously collaborated on the ingeniously quirky "Ed Wood."
Why then is "The People vs. Larry Flynt" unsatisfying and manipulative? I do not mean to say that "The People vs. Larry Flynt" is a bad movie. It is a very entertaining and well done film. But it lacks the power it could have had because Forman goes out of his way to imply that if you do not admire and respect Larry Flynt (Woody Harrelson), not only are you un-American, you are closed-minded and repressive.
The film begins with Flynt's childhood in Kentucky. He has the requisite excuse for any bad things he may do later in life because it is made very clear that he had a horrible childhood. His father once tried to shoot him in a drunken rage.
The film then jumps forward to Flynt in the 1970s. He and his brother, Jimmy (Brett Harrelson, Woody Harrelson's true-life brother) own and operate a chain of strip clubs in Cincinnati, Ohio. Their newsletter, filled with nude photos of their strippers, soon becomes "Hustler," the porn mag that out-raunched "Playboy" and "Penthouse."
But before Flynt gains success with "Hustler" by printing nude photos of Jackie Kennedy, he meets the love of his life, Althea Leasure (Courtney Love). Of course, she has also had a horrific childhood: her father murdered the rest of her family, and after she was orphaned, she was sexually abused by nuns. She steals Larry's heart when she tells him that "you're not the only one who's slept with all the women in your clubs."
Flynt and Leasure make a perfect couple. Leasure is the creative force behind much of the magazine's early years, including a cartoon depicting Dorothy getting "gang banged" by the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, the Scarecrow and Toto. When they decide to get married, Flynt questions a monogamous relationship to which Leasure responds "how could you think I meant monogamy?"
Flynt spends much of the rest of the film in and out of courtrooms and jails. He is defended by a young and idealistic lawyer, Allan Isaacman (Edward Norton). Isaacman remains Flynt's lawyer through his endless courtroom antics and is even wounded by an assassin's bullet that leaves Flynt paralyzed from the waist down.
Flynt goes over the line yet again when he publishes a cartoon describing the Reverend Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse. The film reaches its climax when this case is taken to the Supreme Court. In a fantastic scene, Norton shines as the young lawyer who has finally made it to the big time.
However, the power of this scene is muted. Flynt states that "if the Constitution protects a scum bag like me, it protects all of you." And Larry Flynt is a scum bag, the worst our society has to offer.
But his landmark case is a shining example of the power of our Constitution and the First Amendment. This film would have been so much more powerful if we could have seen this disparity more clearly.
One problem is Harrelson. His performance becomes an audience exercise in withstanding his multiple efforts to charm. Harrelson, along with Forman, work very hard to make Flynt sympathetic.
They downplay Flynt's addiction to morphine and stress the fact that he quit. They only hint at the rampant sexual escapades of Flynt and his wife. Instead of coming off as disgusting and childish, Flynt seems funny and smart.
It is Love as Leasure who holds the film together. As a woman who ends up an addict dying of AIDS, her performance amazes.
She walks an incredible line that keeps us from neither sympathizing with her or condemning her. In short, she forces us to see her as a living human being.
"The People vs. Larry Flynt" is a very good movie.
But it should have been better. In the final scene, Flynt, informed of his court victory, lies in his bed watching videos of his wife stripping.
Instead of pointing out this irony, Forman wants us to believe that his hero has beaten the system for the love of a woman.
The film got it backwards. It was not Flynt, but our court system which succeeded. Similarly, in this film it is not Forman and Harrelson, but Norton and Love who succeed.
