A Modest Proposal for a Sequel to ‘Larry Flynt’
The other day I received my ballots for the annual awards nominations for both the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Writers Guild, and I realized that I could no longer put off seeing “The People vs. Larry Flynt.†I’m glad I stopped my irrational avoidance behavior, because while I was watching that movie, I came up with a film idea of my own that is sure to garner the same accolades as “Larry Flynt†for its contribution to upholding our freedoms.
My movie is set on an Alabama plantation in the mid-19th century and in episodic fashion follows the rise of a crude but colorful plantation owner, Larry Skinflynt, who becomes a millionaire and then must battle his way to the Supreme Court to reaffirm our basic constitutional rights. Being a plantation owner, Larry is, of course, a major slaveholder, which might be potentially alienating to today’s audience. But you don’t see his slaves doing any authentic plantation work, maybe just some light ironing. And you certainly don’t see them being horsewhipped or raped or bought and sold. The slaves mostly just walk through the frame every now and then, providing a general ambience of slavery that is mildly titillating. People watching the film might find themselves asking, “What’s so terrible about slavery?â€
The thing is, Larry really likes slaves. Early in the story, my movie makes clear that Larry has sex with all his slaves as a condition of their employment. In fact, Larry eventually marries his favorite possession, Althea, a zany girl who, like a lot of women in her circumstance (and like the Althea in “Larry Flyntâ€) endured a childhood of violence and rape and family loss that has left her traumatized in a particular way (called an “epiphanyâ€): She embraces her servitude and really digs being a slave. Althea helps the plantation owner think up imaginative ways to degrade people. She and Larry routinely have group sex with Larry’s slaves up in the Big House. (I just want to stop here and say that group sex isn’t the point of this movie. Upholding the Constitution of these United States is what really drives our story.)
Anyway, we watch as Larry’s off-screen exploitation of human misery enables his humble plantation to balloon into a mega-farm. Then comes the first dramatic event of the movie: A bunch of repressed, unattractive Abolitionists arrive (think “Grimke sistersâ€) and want to shut Larry down on moral grounds. Northerners paying immigrants extremely low wages is one thing; the South’s outright ownership of slaves is quite another.
Larry goes to court with an idealistic young lawyer (Edward Norton was so fantastic in “Larry Flynt,†I’m hoping he’ll reprise that role in my movie) who makes the point that while we may not like slavery, slavery is legal in Alabama, and its legality is protected by one of the mainstays of our Constitution: states’ rights. In Northern states, factories can use child labor and maltreat German and Irish immigrants; in Southern states, plantation owners are free to enslave people. The lawyer argues that the right of states to make their own laws unabridged by federal interference is part of the balance of power that makes our nation a republic and not some kind of federal dictatorship.
Larry wins that round, but the Abolitionists won’t go away. Larry keeps having to go to court to protect his empire and our constitutional rights. One of his enemies shoots him, which makes us feel sorry for Larry. There’s also a subplot about the slave-wife Althea. Like many young women in the slave profession, she turns to using laudanum to obliterate her hidden pain.
After she dies, Larry gets really mad at one of the Abolitionists for being so judgmental, and he just goes after the guy. (The studio wants me to have Larry challenge the Abolitionist to a duel, but I pointed out that this is the mid-19th century already, and Aaron Burr is so over.) Our plantation owner has to take on the Abolitionist in court--the Supreme Court, no less. Larry’s lawyer argues passionately and eloquently that Larry is just trying to exercise his constitutional rights. “What is the benefit to the people?†asks one of the justices. And Norton explains that while we ourselves may find slavery morally repugnant, what’s scarier is the idea of setting a precedent. If the government can make owning people illegal, it could regulate the personal ownership of just about anything, even narcotics or Uzis or plutonium. And we just wouldn’t want to live in that kind of world.
For budget reasons, we don’t see any of this next stuff in my movie, but after the plantation owner wins his case, there’s a civil war and lots of people die. Our nation is grotesquely divided over race, and our cities experience hate crimes and violent unrest well into the 21st century. But the inspiring thing in my movie is the affirmation of the Consti-tution, right? My plantation owner is free to own whatever he wants, just as Larry Flynt is free to go on profiting from human misery and contributing to a culture of pornography that advocates the sexual denigration of Americans who are women and girls.
I’m really excited about my movie. I think it’s going to win an award. As for fallout from “The People vs. Larry Flynt,†I’m kind of hoping for a civil war.
Only good movies
Get the Indie Focus newsletter, Mark Olsen's weekly guide to the world of cinema.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
