“Blue films,” stag films, have been around almost as long as film itself. It wasn’t long before our more prurient interests were recorded, and played back at special occasions when (mostly) men gathered. At some point, explicit fare reached exhibition houses, shown in seedy, darkly-lit micro theaters with sticky floors. Even the Supreme Court tackled the issue of pornography on a number of occasions. And the floors of their chambers are much cleaner.
But nothing popularized pornography in our culture more than the movie Deep Throat, which thrust celebrity on Linda Lovelace (real name Linda Boreman) because of this breakthrough film. It was an X-rated movie with a story, some humor, and was “viral” before people had computers. It was a legitimate film with sex between plot points. Couples went to see the film in droves, with the movie entering public consciousness to the point the Washington Post named their Watergate source in a perverted homage. It was the film that legitimized pornography and paved the road to the multi-billion dollars industry it has become.
Lovelace is a not the “authorized” bio-pic of her life, if one is inclined to believe her autobiography “Ordeal.” But in the time since its release, 8-minute stag loops have been uncovered that challenge this film, and her autobiography, which both maintain was her first and only x-rated adventure. The true story of Linda Lovelace is buried somewhere in the backstory of the seedy, drug and crime-filled industry as it blossomed in the 70’s.
Lovelace gained had already gained infamy in pre-production, with multiple cast changes plaguing the start of filming, including a period when Lindsey Lohan was cast in the lead – a role which was eventually passed along to Amanda Seyfried. The cast includes a list of well-known character actors like Hank Azaria and Eric Roberts.
The film tries to tell the story by bouncing around from one time period to another, including multiple flashbacks, and refuses any sense of linear progression. Although difficult at times to follow, time is sequenced out of order in what appears to be an attempt to tell the story of from two perspectives - the fame, and the shame.
Lovelace starts with Linda Boreman, in her young 20’s and living with her parents, meeting up with Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard). His easy charm and deft people skills manage to win over her conservative and hyper-protective mother (played by an aging Sharon Stone; at first. But Linda’s late night out past curfew with Chuck was the last straw for Mrs. Boreman, who kicks her daughter out.
Naturally, she moves in with Chuck, whose go-go bar has a porno theater in the back. His controlling nature infiltrates their relationship, becoming increasingly violent and manipulative once they marry, forcing Linda into prostitution at gunpoint. Even in their bed, his controlling nature forced her develop an unnatural gag reflex, which he documented on 8mm film. At an audition he arranged with a few porn producers, which Linda seems to think was for a legit movie, he shows the film – the producers are not only amazed at her oral specialty, but immediately begin writing a script around her unusual talent.
The film gets finished; it’s an unprecedented hit. Linda gets invited to the Playboy mansion for a screening, where a young Hugh (James Franco) courts her (to put it politely). She became an unusual celebrity as the first adult film actress to become a household name. But in time, her career flounders at the hands of her increasingly volatile manager/husband/pimp. Her refusal to do any more films only brings forth more abuse.
Her first attempt to escape the trifecta of mental, physical and emotional abuse by running back to her parents is of no comfort. Her mother kicks her out for a second time, telling her to obey her husband. She is finally freed when Anthony Romano (Chris Noth), Deep Throat’s financier, is so offended by the abuse he squirrels her away to safety. Six years after, she is living a new life in New York, denouncing the porno industry, becoming a voice for abused spouses and eventually reconciling with her family.
This is an odd little film in many ways. The story is presented through dichromatic good side/bad side glasses from the moment Chuck has the wide-eyed Linda in his marital clutches. For a large chunk movie's first half, everything is rose-tinted good times as her relationship with Chuck develops, as she is introduced into pornography, makes the film, and becomes a minor celebrity.
There is almost an innocence of fun at first, in spite of strong hints of ugliness lurking under the surface. Perhaps its difficult to portray the 70’s party/porn atmosphere without chasing the ghosts of Boogie Nights’ faithful homage, but at times the comparison here just can’t be helped – both in terms of the subject matter, the characters, and of course, the set and costume design.
But then the film, through disjointed time juxtapositions and odd flashbacks, begins to re-tell the story, but including the abuse and beatings, of being forced into prostitution, forced into making the film, and being pimped out because of her celebrity. Only then do we learn of her struggles and fears, of her own helplessness in the face of Chuck’s manipulations and violence. In one touching scene, Linda and her father John (Robert Patrick) have a heartfelt phone call that leaves both in tears, which seems to be her motivation to quit.
But the effect falls flat for the most part, rendering the film almost schizophrenic. In a segment where Linda meets Harry Reems (Adam Brodie), her “co-actor” for her first scene, he comments on what a great job they have, almost waxing poetically about being an adult actor for a moment. By the time the dark turn comes, its onset is confusing and at times convoluted, forcing the audience to remember too many plot points without enough setup. Its as jarring as downing a cup of orange juice after brushing your teeth with toothpaste. On one hand there is a girl who appears on all accounts to be having a princess experience, and then, well... there is the unseemly underbelly of the rest of it. And nowhere do the two easily meet. It leaves audience distrusting what they watch, not quite sure what they are being asked to follow.
To both directors’ credit, it appears there was a deliberate decision to avoid titillation, which is surprising (but perhaps necessary) for a film dealing with the prurient topics of porn and fellatio. Even the simulated sex scenes feature no real nudity, and the rare peeks have more to do with establishing the characters than sex. In fact, sexuality seems completely stripped from the film after the brief pre-marital happiness, banished to the end sequences where the act itself represents nothing but violence and control, the very antithesis of “making love.”
But maybe that was the point in examining poor Lovelace’s life; that she was a victim in every sense of the world. Depersonalized, objectified, and denied any sense of self from her family and lover, forced to live a lie through violence and deception, it’s a wonder Linda Boreman was able to return to a regular life, let alone a self-empowered woman. But as a biopic, it leaves something to be desired, as if it once had a focus, but couldn’t quite decide which kind of a story it wanted to tell.
Rating: 4 of 10 VHS tapes
Pain level: 2-3
Medication 10 mg cyclobenzeprene, 10 mg oxycodone
TO WATCH LOVELACE ON NETFLIX, CLICK HERE

No comments:
Post a Comment