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
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