That’s Too Much Freedom

By Brendan Feeney

This is the first of many courtroom scenes depicted in the film. Upon first viewing, with no prior knowledge of the subject, the proceedings seem outrageous -- with the judge, prosecutor, and jury all aligned together and biased against Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. However, as is standard procedure throughout this film, the scene itself is framed to glorify Flynt, straying from the “real” in an effort to dramatically enhance the “reel.”

[2] This scene focuses heavily on one of the film’s major themes: the freedoms granted to us by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and how those rights are supposed to be protected by the American judicial system. This is what director Milos Forman was primarily interested in. He was not so much interested in Larry Flynt as a person or Larry Flynt as a business man, but Larry Flynt as a symbol of American freedom. Forman, who had previously lived under two totalitarian regimes, appreciated this element of the story over any of the others contained in the script. In his powerful closing argument, Alan Isaacman asserts that “if we start throwing up walls against what some of us think is obscene, we may very well wake up one morning and realize that walls have been thrown up in all kinds of places we never expected…and that’s not freedom.” It would seem that Forman could attest to this quotation personally, having seen the dangers that total censorship can create.

[3] If this scene is supposed to highlight the freedoms we enjoy and the duty of our judicial system to protect these freedoms, then we are left feeling extremely frustrated by its end. The repugnantly arrogant Judge Morrissey and the radical anti-pornography team of Leis and Keating seem to team up in a way, leaving Flynt and Isaacman without a prayer. It’s as if the case was decided from the very beginning, the trial being held only to go through the legal motions. First Morrissey denies twenty-seven different adult magazines as relevant evidence. As Isaacman is presenting them, Leis objects, and Morrissey sustains it without hearing any justification for the objection. He tells Isaacman that the magazines are irrelevant to the case, with no further explanation as to why. The noticeably frustrated Isaacman is left with no choice. Perhaps this happened in the actual trial, perhaps it didn’t. The fact of the matter remains that the “reel” portrays this scene in such a fashion. If the focal point of the film is our grand old judicial system, what does the scene say about this particular Cincinnati court? It says that they are ignoring Flynt’s rights, and this makes him into a martyr. Now he is going to prison to protect other people’s freedoms. This scene foreshadows Flynt’s uphill struggle with the judicial system. It also sets the basis for his content, which becomes evident in future scenes where he shows up to court wearing a “Fuck This Court” tee-shirt, an American flag diaper, and an army helmet. He also goes so far as to bark at the press and throw oranges at the judge.

[4] The movement of the camera plays a large role in the kind of message the audience is supposed to take from this scene. It is primarily made up of close shots of those speaking and reaction shots of those listening, with very few wide angle shots depicting the entire courtroom. The reaction shots are the most interesting. For example, there is a shot of Keating looking pleased as the judge denies the adult magazines from being admitted as evidence. There is a shot of Isaacman nodding in satisfaction after Larry denounces People magazine for using “a couple of four letter words.” There is a shot of Judge Morrissey looking slightly embarrassed as Larry jokes that Budweiser doesn’t get nationally banned if a kid gets caught drinking in a tavern. You can even hear stifled laughter in the background. So what is the purpose of these shots? They are, in effect, telling the audience what to believe. They are coaxing the audience to agree with certain people and disagree with others. They are setting up the defense as freedom fighters and the prosecution as Fascist zealots. In other words, they influence the viewer’s opinion by framing certain characters (Flynt, Isaacman) as right and others (Morrissey, Leis) as wrong.

[5] Another interesting camera technique occurs during Leis’ examination of Flynt. The camera moves seamlessly between the two characters, as each battles to make his point clear. While each character is speaking, he completely dominates the frame, while the other character is off camera. This technique was most likely used by the filmmakers to force the viewer to focus completely on the oration of the character in frame. First you are presented with Leis’ opinion, then with Flynt’s, then back to Leis’, and so forth. This fosters a sort of power struggle. Each man is trying to outwit the other. Suddenly it is no longer about what they are saying, but how they are saying it. This technique is meant purely to create an emotion. It has little to do with communicating fact. It forces the viewer to choose a side. And, since Larry is portrayed as charming and witty, and is ultimately given the last words in the examination showdown, it is extremely difficult not to side with him.

[6] Forman, along with screenwriter’s Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, have a way of using humor throughout the film to distract the viewer from the actual facts. This scene is no exception, especially when Flynt is on the stand. He is very coy with Leis as he describes the cartoon in question. When asked what Santa Claus is doing in the cartoon, Flynt replies, “He’s talking to Mrs. Claus and, uh, holding in his hand what appears to be a large, erect penis.” This response is laughable, as if Flynt were viewing the cartoon for the first time. He is also rather witty and flippant with his responses, proclaiming that “if a kid gets caught drinking in a tavern we don’t ban Budweiser across the nation.” He is being cute, and it’s not meant to affect the jury, it’s meant to affect the viewing audience. The filmmakers intentionally chose a charming an attractive man, Woody Harrelson, to play the role of Larry Flynt. The real Flynt, an eighth grade dropout, was not nearly as quick-witted, nor did he look anything like Harrelson. One can see this first hand, as Judge Morrissey in this scene is played by Larry Flynt himself. By hiring an A-list movie star with good looks and charming qualities, the filmmakers were able to create a Flynt who was far more influential in the “reel” than he was in the “real.”

[7] Leis, in his opening statement, describes Hustler as depicting men and women, women and women, and even Santa Claus “posed in a lewd and shameful manner.” Isaacman, when attempting to enter twenty seven other adult magazines into evidence, describes them as being “virtually identical to Hustler magazine.” A viewer who has never seen the contents of Hustler may take these statements to be fact. However, if a viewer were familiar with the magazine at all, he would think these statements ludicrous. This is the major criticism of the film -- it does not depict the extreme vulgarity and offensiveness of Hustler. As of 1977, the year of the trial, Hustler had become the first adult magazine to feature a picture of a woman’s open vagina. It had also contained pictures of women being chained, raped, beaten, mutilated, burned, and even urinated upon. This scene would also lead audiences to believe that a picture of Santa Claus with an erect penis is the most offensive cartoon that Hustler ever published, as Leis and Keating seem to be up in arms about it. Also not true, Hustler published cartoons far more offensive in nature, including a “Chester the Molester” series that revealed proven strategies for molesting children. However, images like these could not possibly be depicted in a film with an R-rating, so they were simply glossed over.

[8] This scene is also very clever in what it chooses to depict from the trial. Let’s consider what we actually get to see: Leis’ opening statement, Isaacman attempting to submit evidence, Leis questioning Flynt, and Isaacman’s closing argument. Leis’ opening statement is given about thirty seconds, Isaacman’s submission attempt about a minute, and the rest is comprised of Leis’ questioning and Isaacman’s closing statement. Obviously, these were not the only elements of the actual trial. So why depict these specific instances, and why give the defense the majority of the speaking time within the scene? Once again, this is the filmmakers attempting to manipulate the opinions of the audience. This is especially true considering we start with the prosecution’s statements but end seeing only the defense’s closing argument. Leis’ opening statement is brief, and he comes off as being a bit of a square. After all, so what if Hustler magazine contains men and women posed together in a lewd and shameful manner? He seems far too uptight. But then we finish with the powerful closing argument of the defense, performed brilliantly by Edward Norton. By leaving us with this grand message, the filmmakers ensure that the audience will side with freedom, regardless of the contents of Hustler magazine. They also, quite ingeniously, end the courtroom proceedings with Flynt being given the maximum sentence of twenty five years, then seamlessly moving into the next scene, five months in the future, without a single mention of the fact that Flynt only spent six days in jail.

[9] In reality, the disputed notion of this trial was whether or not community’s could set their own standards, and what criteria should be used to judge whether something is obscene or not. However, to align with the themes and ideals of the film, the trial becomes an indictment of the judicial system with regards to infringing upon first amendment rights. The film took a few too many liberties with this particular scene. Isaacman was not even Flynt’s lawyer during this trial, Harold Fahringer was. In his speech, Isaacman warns that throwing up walls against certain things is not freedom. On the other hand, manipulating opinions to make a certain situation seem like it was something else entirely, that’s too much freedom.