Larry Flynt is the Most Unlikely Boring Guy

The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996) contains a rare narrative style in that it uses a biopic format to convey a theme larger than just one person. The film profiles Larry Flynt (played by Woody Harrelson), the founder of Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt Publications, whose controversial periodicals kept him in legal battles for decades. Most of the story is centered on these court cases and the circumstances surrounding them with just enough details concerning Flynt’s personal life to allow the film to be considered a biographical dramatization. Through these personal details combined with the chronological structure of the plot (the film begins during Flynt’s childhood and progresses to present day) The People vs. Larry Flynt appears to adhere to the standard biopic format. Beyond these aspects however, the film could be considered a fictionalized account of the battle against censorship in America during the 1970s-80s.  This may be due to the fact that there just isn’t enough compelling material within Flynt to fill a profile. Consequently, the film has trouble painting him as anything more than a guy who made a bunch of money selling nude photos.

The film opens up with a scene in which a pre-adolescent Flynt and his brother (Brett Harrelson) producing and distributing moonshine in their home state of Kentucky. The scene is meant to establish not only the origins of Flynt’s character but also his ambition within the realm of business and capitalism. This aspect of his character is the one most focused on throughout the film. Although Flynt masks this ambition with anti-censorship rants, it is clear to the audience that he is motivated solely by money and power. This thinly veiled deception is made evident to viewers through the stylistic choices Foreman has made in portraying Flynt’s interactions with people around him. To put it bluntly, Flynt is made out to be a very sleazy guy. Anything he says on the subject of values, specifically anti-censorship, cannot be taken seriously because he comes across like a morally bankrupt dickhead, doing anything to make a buck.

Flynt’s sleaze is countered by the character of his lawyer, Alan Issacman (Edward Norton), who appears to truly believe that battling censorship laws is a just cause and cites this as the reason he chooses to represent Flynt. Issacman is articulate where Flynt is borish, respectable where Flynt is abhorrent. In this way Issacman embodies the message of the film which is that freedom does not mean defending Flynt or his actions but instead defending his right to do what he does and the right of the people to choose whether or not to read his publication. Admittedly, it’s a standard, cliche, patriotic appeal but to be fair there aren’t that many pro-Flynt arguments to choose from.

I have no problem with Hustler Magazine or Larry Flynt Publications, I just feel that the guy really isn’t all that interesting or worthy of celebration. The film might have done better as a biopic of the life of Alan Issacman who, next to Flynt, is a much more fascinating guy.