लिंडा लवलेस की कहानी जिसे खुद के जीवन पर नियंत्रण लेने से पहले उसके पति के ही इशारे पर पोर्न उद्योग द्वारा इस्तेमाल और प्रताड़ित किया जाता है.लिंडा लवलेस की कहानी जिसे खुद के जीवन पर नियंत्रण लेने से पहले उसके पति के ही इशारे पर पोर्न उद्योग द्वारा इस्तेमाल और प्रताड़ित किया जाता है.लिंडा लवलेस की कहानी जिसे खुद के जीवन पर नियंत्रण लेने से पहले उसके पति के ही इशारे पर पोर्न उद्योग द्वारा इस्तेमाल और प्रताड़ित किया जाता है.
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 3 नामांकन
- Sammy Davis Jr.
- (as Ronald Pritchard)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Amanda Seyfried plays Linda, a shy and fairly innocent young girl who falls for Chuck (Peter Sarsgaard) , a mostly manipulative manager/pimp that eventually becomes Linda's husband. Lovelace begins shortly before Linda meets Chuck and establishes Linda's home life with her parents (played by Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone).
We first meet Chuck as he lays eyes on Linda at a roller skating rink where Linda does an impromptu dance in front of the live band. Chuck woos the younger Linda using his charm and the alluring freedom of his adult lifestyle to eventually bring Linda to a point where she moves out of her home.
The inexperienced Linda is comfortable enough to have Chuck film her giving him oral pleasure and Chuck takes his Super 8 home movie to Butchie Peraino and Gerry Damiano (Bobby Cannavale and Hank Azaria) who are so enthralled with Linda's oral sex talents that they immediately get producer Anthony Romano to provide the funds to make a film that will eventually become Deep Throat.
We get a few topless scenes of Seyfried emulating the famous porn star of the era and enjoying her fame until everything falls like a house of cards due to Chucks violent manner and his insistence that Linda have sex with multiple partners for the purposes of his own financial gain and notoriety.
The film takes us beyond the filming of Deep Throat and we watch as Linda copes with how the film put a strain on the relationship with her parents and through her book deal and talk show circuit appearances where she vehemently denounced pornography.
Laden with a talented cast, Lovelace fails to either have audiences find fault or fall in love with our title character. Everyone in the production come across as characters rather than actual people so it is hard for a viewing audience to attach themselves – good or bad – to any of the competent actors that make up the casting call.
Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman simply don't chisel away at the inner character or either Chuck or Linda with enough feeling to make this a well rounded bio-pic. Instead, it flat-lines with any pulse and does nothing more that attempt to be an exploitation flick about an exploitation flick. Even as the time is captured fairly well in the styles and moods of the early 70's, it ultimately fails in capturing much of anything else including our attention.
The final title cards might have been the most interesting revelations of the entire films. That Linda Lovelace died from injuries suffered in a car accident at age 53. That Chuck Traynor went on to marry another famous actress in the porn industry in his nuptials to Marilyn Chambers. And how the movie Deep Throat went on to become the most successful porn film of all-time raking in hundreds of millions while Linda collected less than $2,000 for her starring role.
If you have always been interested with the film Deep Throat or the incredible life of Linda Lovelace, you may want to seek out any of the documentaries or A&E specials on the topic. Because Lovelace will just leave you superficially satisfied.
www.killerreviews.com
Then, suddenly, we are thrown into the second film, a PG-13 Lifetime Network-like drama including violins playing. The second film retells the first film, showing the behind the scenes abuse Linda receives from her husband and portraying Linda as someone who is doing it all reluctantly and is trying to escape the porn business. The stark contrast between the second and first films would be more effective if the second film wasn't so formulaic--it even has a gift wrapped happy ending. I imagine the truth of Linda's life falls somewhere in the middle, with Linda's own bad judgment playing at least some part in her life's situation. Unfortunately, although Amanda Seyfried is lovely in the first film as the naive young newlywed getting caught up in the porn business, she isn't reinvented and just doesn't transcend in the more watered down drama of second film like, say, Charlize Theron was in the film Monster. There just aren't any great performance by anyone in the second film as a matter of fact and the scenes that are suppose to be brutal just aren't. When it comes to showing the ugly side of the porn biz this film peters out.
Lovelace, therefore, stands as a slightly above average and obviously heavily fictionalized biopic, when it could and should have been much more, if only some more guts were put into the second half of it.
With these Hollywood versions of such stories, it's always advisable to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, even this viewer, who's not particularly knowledgeable about the adult film industry, knows full well that Linda did a fair bit more than just that one classic. "Lovelace" the movie actually leaves out some things to focus on limited story threads. The filmmakers try to be clever with their narrative by jumping back and forth in time, but this could only be confusing for some in the audience.
It's worth a look just to watch Epstein, Friedman, and company give us a look into the porn filmmaking scene in the 1970s. Time and place are well captured, but the soundtrack tends to get annoying; we don't need these constant reminders of when the story largely takes place. The film IS very slick, and makes its points in approximately an hour and a half, so it doesn't overstay its welcome.
The strength lies in the talents of the ensemble cast. Amanda Seyfried is appealing as the not-so-innocent but still endearing Linda, while Sarsgaard, no stranger to creepy roles, is convincing as the slime ball husband. Stone gives a creditable performance in a severely deglamourized role, and Adam Brody is a hoot as porn legend Harry Reems. James Franco is charisma-free and miscast as Hugh Hefner.
There is enough compelling material here for one to realize that a more in-depth recounting of the tale would be appreciated.
Six out of 10.
Linda's lifestory is a chain of confabulation and reinvention, all lives are, a matter of how we view our selves after the fact and deciding on the value. She wrote apparently no less than three autobiographies, with the third one being the 'real' dark story of what happened to her.
So the 'rise' part of the film sees a wholly innocent, fresh young girl being enticed - so pure and shy she won't even take her top off as she sunbathes with a friend in her own backyard! Silly. But that is how she chooses to frame herself reminiscing in the bathtub.
The 'fall' shows those gaps of horrible abuse that were omitted in that first narration. But that is what she chooses to recall as years later she takes a polygraph test on the behest of the publisher of her memoirs. And that is how Linda has chosen to present her story in her own book, herself pure and corrupted by a crazed husband.
This is not to say that she's making everything up, just as we know she isn't completely honest. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle. We see the alleged rape at gunpoint, yet there's no mention of her seedier films which she had denied doing until proof showed up.
So a film worthy of the subject would show two Lindas at odds, a softer understanding of the effort of trying to decide just who you are: the one who (re)writes her story, and the one who is genuinely caught up in it.
Here we simply get Linda the victim. In the end, a cleansed Linda goes on TV to warn against abuse and to promote 'finding yourself'. The film tries to show this reinvention of self and memory by being itself reinvented halfway through, yet in the end plies the same manipulation. The film 'settles' on her story being real, and presents it to us as the life of Linda Lovelace, why, because it comes with positive value we'd rather remember.
The way this story was structured keeps it interesting and revelatory, and tonally the film is in accordance with her life. Things start off happy and there are lots of funny moments but soon enough things take a turn for the worse and that is where the true drama ensues.
Amanda Seyfried may not seem like the right choice for the role but she handles herself and the material with ease. She does a fabulous job evoking a wide range of emotions and brings her performance to a previously unseen level (at least, from what I've seen of hers). Peter Sarsgaard naturally exudes kindness and charm, we are seduced by it as she is, yet when the time calls for it he is rightly overpowering and terrifying.
Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman started off making documentaries that were both important and compelling. They made the switch to traditional narrative films with Howl which showcased their talent but Lovelace is further proof that they are multi-talented and continuing to grow in skill.
The film does leave out a few things, most likely for the sake of the narrative, Linda was forced to participate in several short pornography loops before she appeared in Deep Throat, including a bestiality film. She also made two movies after Deep Throat (including Deep Throat II).
The film has instant notoriety for its connection to Deep Throat and hopefully this will drive a bigger audience to it but it will likely gain some controversy as well for its association (in fact there was a small group protesting it at the premiere which is utterly ridiculous). I hope this film gets a large audience as marital abuse in its many forms is far too common a problem and needs to be brought to the forefront of discussion.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn an interview, Amanda Seyfried talked about why she had no issue with being naked in this and other films. "I don't know why I'm comfortable. Nudity: whatever! Sex: we all do it. There's a time and a place to be naked (laughs). There's no part in this movie that makes me think, 'Oh, wow, she's naked.' She's a porn star! We simulated some scenes but there's no graphic content in this movie, at all. I mean the graphic stuff is when he's raping me on my wedding night. You see my skirt go up over my head when I'm being gang raped, but it's like so perfectly done. 'Chloe' is so graphic. And this is not...(Peter Sarsgaard and I) are not shy about our private parts. We also weren't walking around with our genitals out; our bottom half genitals. That might have been a little strange for me. I don't really have any interest in people seeing my vagina. It's just a personal thing. I don't mind seeing other people's vaginas. I guess I'm just insecure in that way. Peter, same thing. He was always covered up in that way. I think it's just our mutual understanding of we needed to be naked a lot of points in the movie and it wasn't a big deal. It's like a costume. I don't know why I feel comfortable. To be honest, when I was younger, I was terrified of sex. I don't know what happened over the years. I now have an appreciation for it, for people who don't put so much heaviness on it. I also don't understand why it's censored in movies."
- गूफ़In a scene set in 1970, two characters discuss The French Connection (1971), which was released in 1971.
- भाव
Linda: You know I spent exactly seventeen days in the pornography industry and somehow these seventeen days are suppose to define who I am for the rest of my life, but I hope that people can see me for who I really am. I mean Linda Lovelace was a fictitious character. My name is Linda Marchiano. I can finally be myself. I'm a mother and a wife and that is where I found my joy.
- साउंडट्रैकI've Got to Use My Imagination
Written by Gerry Goffin and Barry Goldberg
Performed by Gladys Knight & The Pips
Copyright 1973 SCREEN GEMS-EMI MUSIC (BMI)
Courtesy of Buddah
by arrangements with Sony Music Entertainment
टॉप पसंद
- How long is Lovelace?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Lovelace: Garganta profunda
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Alex Theatre - 216 North Brand Boulevard, ग्लेनडेल, कैलिफोर्निया, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका(Deep Throat private screening)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $3,56,582
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $1,84,536
- 11 अग॰ 2013
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $15,85,583
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 33 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1