Lovelace (2013)

Linda Lovelace (1949- 2002) was one of the more unlikely celebrities of the early seventies. Her sole claim to fame was that she had starred in a pornographic film entitled "Deep Throat", a film which had for some reason become a media sensation and was screened across America in mainstream cinemas. Now I have never seen "Deep Throat", and would have little interest in doing so, so cannot speculate about just why it became such a phenomenon, but it was an undoubted success at the box office, where it may have taken as much as $600 million. (Exact figures are controversial because of claims that takings may have been exaggerated by the film's organised crime backers as part of a money- laundering scheme).Lovelace made a few more films in a similar vein, but none were a success, and faded from public view in the late seventies. In 1980, however, she returned to the popular consciousness with the publication of her autobiography, "Ordeal". Now a born-again Christian and an opponent of pornography, she claimed that she had been forced into making "Deep Throat" and its successors by her violent, abusive husband and manager Chuck Traynor, whom she had divorced during the interim. (Traynor subsequently married another porn star, Marilyn Chambers). In the film Lovelace is also referred to by her maiden name, Linda Boreman, and by the name of her second husband as Linda Marchiano, but for the sake of consistency I will refer to her as "Lovelace" throughout this review. Lovelace's allegations have been disputed, both by Traynor himself and by his associates, but this film takes them seriously. It is therefore divided into two parts. Part I tells the story of Lovelace's life as it might have appeared to an uncritical outside observer at the height of her fame. She appears to be a successful, confident young woman, happy in her chosen career as a porn actress and in her marriage. Part II tells the story that Linda was to tell in "Ordeal". In one respect Amanda Seyfried is perhaps miscast in this film; she is too attractive. For all her sex-symbol image, Lovelace was no great beauty. In all other respects, however, she is very good. I was not particularly taken with Seyfried in the first film in which I saw her, "Mamma Mia!", but most of her performances I have seen since then have impressed me a lot more, especially the one she gave in "Chloe". The structure of "Lovelace" means that she effectively has to give two different performances, and she copes with the challenge well. In Part I she makes Linda a curiously innocent figure, the happy-go-lucky girl next door who unexpectedly makes good. OK, she makes good as a porn queen, but this unorthodox choice of career never detracts from her essential niceness. In Part II she has to give a much more complex performance, showing how Linda was the victim of her abusive husband without ever making her seem too passive. Seyfried receives good support from Peter Sarsgaard as Chuck and from Sharon Stone as Linda's strict Catholic mother Dorothy. Stone's performance came as something of a revelation to me; in the early part of her career she had the image of one of the sexiest women in Hollywood, especially after the success of films like "Basic Instinct", so it was difficult to imagine her playing someone as sexless and puritanical as Dorothy Boreman. She clearly has a greater range as an actress than I had realised. The film implies, in fact, that Lovelace fell for Chuck, despite his obvious vulgarity and manipulative behaviour, precisely because he seemed to promise liberation from her austere, joyless upbringing. Much of the criticism of this film on this board has been directed at the supposed inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Lovelace's account of her life, but as I have never seen any of her films, never read any of her various autobiographies and have no idea whether or not she was telling the truth about Traynor and the making of "Deep Throat" I am not in a position to reach a judgement on these matters. As a portrayal of a deeply dysfunctional, abusive relationship, however, Seyfried and Sarsgaard do enough to make it convincing. Lovelace's allegations may, or may not, have been true; domestic abuse is undoubtedly all too real. This is a film that has the ring of truth. 7/10

I was prepared to write a more positive reaction to this movie, praising Linda Lovelace as a feminist heroine of sorts, but then I saw all of the negative reviews revealing that she wrote multiple autobiographies and changed her story every time. So as much as I would like to believe this version of the story, I am now inclined to think that this was an image-rescuing effort on the part of opponents to pornography who see this subculture as highly destructive to women. I am not saying that I disagree, but at the same time I surmise that not all porn stars are coerced to do what they do. Some are probably nymphomaniacs who enjoy what they are doing. Was Linda Lovelace the victim depicted in the second half of this biopic? Hard to say. I mean, she did agree to play the lead role in Deep Throat. No one was holding a gun to her head at that time. What really happened? Who really knows? Would the story be more appealing if things really happened this way? Or if she freely chose to be a porn star? Was her life in danger when she attempted to stop? It seems very convincing, but again I have no idea.The quality of this production is standard for made-for-television movies. Certainly watchable enough, but not the stuff of great art. The story makes a complete about-face half-way through, up to which it looks as though Linda is making choices for herself. Then there's a strange "revision of history" twist, where the abusive relationship with her partner (and manager) is reinserted into the narrative. Could be creative if more carefully constructed, but here it seems a bit sloppy.

Amanda Seyfried stars in this biopic of infamous porn-star Linda Lovelace, who became a household name in the seventies after displaying a remarkable talent for fellatio in hardcore skin-flick Deep Throat. The first half of Lovelace charts Linda's pre-porn years, her marriage to titty-bar owner Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard), the making of Deep Throat and her consequent rise to porn super-stardom, with Linda apparently lapping up the limelight and happily promoting her work; the second half reveals the supposed pain behind the porn, retelling matters according to Lovelace's best-seller Ordeal, in which she claims to have entered the adult industry against her will, having been forced to do so at gunpoint by her sleaze-bag husband.Linda Lovelace's assertion that she performed in Deep Throat under duress has long been the subject of conjecture, with feminist 'Women Against Porn' movement attempting to prove her case via polygraph test (which she apparently passed), and several of Linda's co-workers damning her stories by stating that she was more than happy in her line of work. The makers of Lovelace play it safe by opting for the politically correct route, adhering to Lovelace's version of events, taking a few liberties with the facts (Linda didn't leave the adult industry immediately after Deep Throat, as is suggested here), whilst happily glossing over the most unsavoury aspects of her past (there's absolutely no mention of the 8mm stag-loops in which she performed with a four-legged friend).This cautious approach is not all that surprising—this is, after all, a Hollywood movie and a sympathetic stance makes the subject matter more palatable for mainstream audiences—but I do feel that a more balanced and honest approach would have resulted in a more satisfying experience overall.

The story reveals the nature of the real life figure n such a nice way, depicting three separate perspectives of how people around her see her life; how people see the fun and glamor and sex, how they see the harsh domestic violence and forced submissions, and how they see the struggle Linda made to be rid of Chuck. The first part goes on as many other similar movies although with less sharp screenplay to expose more on it. The second part feels just right although the movie feels a little less confident about using the variation in camera angles. The last part unfortunately doesn't really get to be dramatized as much as the first two parts. This would be nice to hold the authenticity, but it's impact gets reduced compared to the first two parts. The acting in general is a decent work in overall. Amanda Seyfried did quite well on her part and confident about her body. Peter Sarsgaard repeats the charm he played in An Education, changing only his accent and his facial hair in doing so. Having great talents like James Franco, Sharon Stone, Juno Temple and Bobby Cannavale sure does increase the movie's acting parts, even if the actors only have less significant parts.