AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,7/10
7,1 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaAn examination of the infamous pornographic film Garganta Profunda (1972), covering aspects from the film's creation to its cultural impact.An examination of the infamous pornographic film Garganta Profunda (1972), covering aspects from the film's creation to its cultural impact.An examination of the infamous pornographic film Garganta Profunda (1972), covering aspects from the film's creation to its cultural impact.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 1 indicação no total
Linda Lovelace
- Self - Linda Lovelace
- (cenas de arquivo)
Dennis Hopper
- Narrator
- (narração)
Ruth Westheimer
- Self
- (as Dr. Ruth Westheimer)
Francis Ford Coppola
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
All I can say is wow, this was a great documentary. Because of the subject matter it isn't for everyone, and the fact that it has an actual X-rated scene in it doesn't help either. But if you can get past that, this is an insightful, fascinating look at adult films and our society. And there is a lot of humor in it as well. I wasn't surprised that several people in the audience walked out, since even I didn't realize how graphic the language/visuals would be. Showing how Deepthroat brought the "BJ" into the mainstream of adult films was interesting, and the interviews with the people actually making porn were very insightful.
Deep Throat changed America. It legitimized porn, creating a billion dollar industry in the process, and sent the sexual revolution to dizzying heights. Love it or hate it, Deep Throat was an historical event.
Inside Deep Throat looks back at that amazing phenomenon, it's causes and effects, and how it changed America and the lives of those who made it.
Interviews with Throat director Gerard Damiano & male lead Harry Reems give much insight into the porn biz of those bygone days, a dark world of sex & drug addiction, fly by night productions, and mafia money men. Sexperts Erica Jong, Dr. Ruth & Helen Gurley Brown offer their takes on how society reacted to and was affected by this new sexual openness, while 70s porn queens Georgina Spelvin & Andrea True offer quick sound bites that explain what drew people to the business.
The film covers many bases & covers them well. We see the hypocrisy of Jesus-inspired DAs, who waste millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous prosecutions of actors, theater managers, and anyone else they see as an easy target in their crusade to "clean up America".
Censorship and free speech issues are discussed by the likes of Norman Mailer, John Waters, Dick Cavett and others, while Gloria Steinen & Susan Brownmiller offer their views on how porn degrades women. Both sides are eloquent and make valid points.
We see the tragedy of Linda Lovelace's wasted life. Unable to escape the stigma of being the film's star, she joined forces with the Women's Movement in denouncing porn. Shortly before her death in a traffic accident, Lovelace briefly returned to the biz because she was flat broke.
Inside Deep Throat is a brilliant film. It takes a time, place and event, a cultural phenomenon of it's day, and puts it under a microscope. Future generations may look at Deep Throat the film and wonder what the big deal was.
Inside Deep Throat explains it all to them.
Inside Deep Throat looks back at that amazing phenomenon, it's causes and effects, and how it changed America and the lives of those who made it.
Interviews with Throat director Gerard Damiano & male lead Harry Reems give much insight into the porn biz of those bygone days, a dark world of sex & drug addiction, fly by night productions, and mafia money men. Sexperts Erica Jong, Dr. Ruth & Helen Gurley Brown offer their takes on how society reacted to and was affected by this new sexual openness, while 70s porn queens Georgina Spelvin & Andrea True offer quick sound bites that explain what drew people to the business.
The film covers many bases & covers them well. We see the hypocrisy of Jesus-inspired DAs, who waste millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous prosecutions of actors, theater managers, and anyone else they see as an easy target in their crusade to "clean up America".
Censorship and free speech issues are discussed by the likes of Norman Mailer, John Waters, Dick Cavett and others, while Gloria Steinen & Susan Brownmiller offer their views on how porn degrades women. Both sides are eloquent and make valid points.
We see the tragedy of Linda Lovelace's wasted life. Unable to escape the stigma of being the film's star, she joined forces with the Women's Movement in denouncing porn. Shortly before her death in a traffic accident, Lovelace briefly returned to the biz because she was flat broke.
Inside Deep Throat is a brilliant film. It takes a time, place and event, a cultural phenomenon of it's day, and puts it under a microscope. Future generations may look at Deep Throat the film and wonder what the big deal was.
Inside Deep Throat explains it all to them.
"Inside Deep Throat" is one of the most entertaining documentaries I've ever seen. This film doesn't cover all the aspects you may want to see about the porn-film-turned-cultural- phenomenon, but it is fun to watch -a thing you can't say about most documentaries. The tone is light-hearted, which will make people squeamish about seeing a film related to porn less threatened. It is however, one of the few films I've seen well deserving of the NC-17 rating.
The lessons to be learned from watching it are: The Christian Right is the American Taliban. The Republican Party spent too much taxpayer money and time deciding what you should and shouldn't see. Their silly "American values" platform has been around for decades. The silly obscenity laws are still around, though it'll be a big waste of taxpayer money to enforce them, as it was back then. The movie made so much money because it was banned and people were drawn to the controversy. The mafia was the biggest beneficiary, while most people involved in the film became victims of the movie's success.
I read somewhere the late Linda Lovelace said she realized the feminist crusaders used her more than the porn industry did. You can see a bit of that in this movie. In archive footage, Lovelace is being interviewed, but a feminist next to her doesn't let Lovelace speak and answers all the questions for her. Poor Lovelace was used to push whatever agenda she could be used for. In one part you see her defending the porn industry and free speech, the next you see her as the ultimate anti-porn crusader, and at an old age you see her posing nude for Playboy, defending her change of mind.
This will be a great DVD when it comes out. Many people won't agree with the points of view portrayed here, but we all can agree this is good storytelling.
The lessons to be learned from watching it are: The Christian Right is the American Taliban. The Republican Party spent too much taxpayer money and time deciding what you should and shouldn't see. Their silly "American values" platform has been around for decades. The silly obscenity laws are still around, though it'll be a big waste of taxpayer money to enforce them, as it was back then. The movie made so much money because it was banned and people were drawn to the controversy. The mafia was the biggest beneficiary, while most people involved in the film became victims of the movie's success.
I read somewhere the late Linda Lovelace said she realized the feminist crusaders used her more than the porn industry did. You can see a bit of that in this movie. In archive footage, Lovelace is being interviewed, but a feminist next to her doesn't let Lovelace speak and answers all the questions for her. Poor Lovelace was used to push whatever agenda she could be used for. In one part you see her defending the porn industry and free speech, the next you see her as the ultimate anti-porn crusader, and at an old age you see her posing nude for Playboy, defending her change of mind.
This will be a great DVD when it comes out. Many people won't agree with the points of view portrayed here, but we all can agree this is good storytelling.
To get the obvious out of the way, yes, the movie's rated NC-17. Yes, it earns it's rating, in part by graphically showing us how DEEP THROAT got it's name.
I have real misgivings about this movie, although ultimately I'll recommend it to those interested in the period or artistic subcultures more generally. It is very well made, with a lot of interesting archival footage. (I especially liked an interview on what sounded like "60 Minutes" with Jack Nicholson, Warren Beatty, and Harry Reems stuck there right between them.) This is a fascinating story, assuming you like the subject generally. And the filmmakers have dug out all sorts of interesting people, including Gerald Damiano himself (improbably whiling away his twilight years in what looks like Florida) and Harry Reems (who I think comes across really well.) My misgivings basically stem from this: the filmmakers want to simultaneously idealize a moment in time and, at the same time, draw political conclusions from the story. I don't think you can do that; I think that's a contradiction in terms. As such, the movie often comes across as very dishonest. Some of the dishonesty seems unconscious: if you're going to idealize the early Seventies adult film scene as brave busters of restrictive social mores, it seems strange to at the same time castigate those who would uphold them, since it's this very act of upholding them which gives your guys their ennobling quality, no? It's as if the filmmakers want to re-fight the DEEP THROAT wars again, without any sense of perspective.
But more seriously, I think the movie shows a lot of bad faith. It's one thing to properly make fun of a ridiculous evangelical prosecutor who spearheaded the DEEP THROAT trial; it's another to make fun of an FBI agent, who after all (as the movie reluctantly admits) was investigating the Mob's connections with DEEP THROAT. It's one thing to celebrate Hollywood's defense of the movie and Reems when he was in trial, but the movie makers rather glibly skate over the fact that Reems's descent into alcoholism was kicked off by his realization that Hollywood wouldn't hire him. As for Linda Lovelace, the movie has convinced me (rather unwillingly, frankly, and I'm not sure they intended to do it themselves) that she was at least pressured into performing in the movie. There's a still of her with bruises that's hard to gainsay.
Most importantly, the movie acknowledges that porno is a huge industry nowadays, but doesn't seem to want that realization to clutter up it's thesis that things are more repressive now. One could argue, after all, that the success of the current adult industry means that Damiano and friends have essentially won. The movie seems to want to say just the opposite, that these guys were doing more artful stuff that isn't represented by current fare, but leaving aside the question of whether that's true or not, the movie begins with a clip of Damiano himself admitting that the movie isn't that good. And the merits of DEEP THROAT seem linked to it's more-busting power, not anything intrinsic in the film itself.
I would have preferred either a straightforward idealization of that adult film era, with Waters, Jong et. al. commenting, or a straightforward examination of DEEP THROAT's sociological impact, which would have meant a more unsparing look at the realities, I fear. As it is, the movie makers try to straddle things too much. Still, if you're interested in the era, adult films or more generally "underground art" you'll probably want to check this out. Has a limited release, but I think will eventually play on HBO.
I have real misgivings about this movie, although ultimately I'll recommend it to those interested in the period or artistic subcultures more generally. It is very well made, with a lot of interesting archival footage. (I especially liked an interview on what sounded like "60 Minutes" with Jack Nicholson, Warren Beatty, and Harry Reems stuck there right between them.) This is a fascinating story, assuming you like the subject generally. And the filmmakers have dug out all sorts of interesting people, including Gerald Damiano himself (improbably whiling away his twilight years in what looks like Florida) and Harry Reems (who I think comes across really well.) My misgivings basically stem from this: the filmmakers want to simultaneously idealize a moment in time and, at the same time, draw political conclusions from the story. I don't think you can do that; I think that's a contradiction in terms. As such, the movie often comes across as very dishonest. Some of the dishonesty seems unconscious: if you're going to idealize the early Seventies adult film scene as brave busters of restrictive social mores, it seems strange to at the same time castigate those who would uphold them, since it's this very act of upholding them which gives your guys their ennobling quality, no? It's as if the filmmakers want to re-fight the DEEP THROAT wars again, without any sense of perspective.
But more seriously, I think the movie shows a lot of bad faith. It's one thing to properly make fun of a ridiculous evangelical prosecutor who spearheaded the DEEP THROAT trial; it's another to make fun of an FBI agent, who after all (as the movie reluctantly admits) was investigating the Mob's connections with DEEP THROAT. It's one thing to celebrate Hollywood's defense of the movie and Reems when he was in trial, but the movie makers rather glibly skate over the fact that Reems's descent into alcoholism was kicked off by his realization that Hollywood wouldn't hire him. As for Linda Lovelace, the movie has convinced me (rather unwillingly, frankly, and I'm not sure they intended to do it themselves) that she was at least pressured into performing in the movie. There's a still of her with bruises that's hard to gainsay.
Most importantly, the movie acknowledges that porno is a huge industry nowadays, but doesn't seem to want that realization to clutter up it's thesis that things are more repressive now. One could argue, after all, that the success of the current adult industry means that Damiano and friends have essentially won. The movie seems to want to say just the opposite, that these guys were doing more artful stuff that isn't represented by current fare, but leaving aside the question of whether that's true or not, the movie begins with a clip of Damiano himself admitting that the movie isn't that good. And the merits of DEEP THROAT seem linked to it's more-busting power, not anything intrinsic in the film itself.
I would have preferred either a straightforward idealization of that adult film era, with Waters, Jong et. al. commenting, or a straightforward examination of DEEP THROAT's sociological impact, which would have meant a more unsparing look at the realities, I fear. As it is, the movie makers try to straddle things too much. Still, if you're interested in the era, adult films or more generally "underground art" you'll probably want to check this out. Has a limited release, but I think will eventually play on HBO.
Deep Throat was filmed in less than six days at a cost of $25k. At the time, pornography was far from the mainstream and the easiest way to see sex was in sex education films and understandably there was moral outrage over this film. Despite bans and protests, the film went on to gross in excess of $600,000,000 and be one of the most profitable films ever made. This documentary looks back at how the film came about and the impact it had on society as it grew in success. However it also looks at the personal costs and benefits of those who were directly involved, from the stars to the director.
This film opens in an energetic fashion with lots of editing, cool music and animated effects, I like this style but I did wonder how the hell it was going to keep it up for 90 minutes or indeed how I was going to keep up with it. Fortunately the film only uses this approach until the title card and from then on it is comparatively more traditional, but still quite pacey. The story itself is interesting but perhaps is stronger for the link it makes to the wider impact of pornography on society as well as the impact on those involved in the specific film itself. It is not 100% successful at this because it seems to want to have its feet in several different camps. As a result it fudges the bits on modern society and relies heavily on Norman Mailer telling us how porn is different not because it is all about money and how the interest in artistic expression has been lost which is all very good while he says it in his unique, booming style but not when you think about 1970's pornography and wonder how much artistic creativity was involved versus the desire to make whacking material.
Despite this fudge though the film is mostly interesting and well structured, with contributions cutting over each other to good effect. In terms of bias though, it is clear that we are not on the side of the moral crusaders here. We get chances to hear them speak, which is fair enough if you take it as read that the film is not meant to be a debate of the right and wrong of pornography so much as it is a discussion starter on the subject. Hopper's narration is solid and the couple of celebrities who pop up are wisely hardly used in favour of those who were directly involved.
Overall this is an interesting documentary that is lively and interesting. Not the place to come to for a debate on the morality of pornography but it does a reasonable job of looking at the impact the film had at the time and, to some degree, the wider impact it had on society. However the potted focus on the film itself makes for an interesting and accessible film.
This film opens in an energetic fashion with lots of editing, cool music and animated effects, I like this style but I did wonder how the hell it was going to keep it up for 90 minutes or indeed how I was going to keep up with it. Fortunately the film only uses this approach until the title card and from then on it is comparatively more traditional, but still quite pacey. The story itself is interesting but perhaps is stronger for the link it makes to the wider impact of pornography on society as well as the impact on those involved in the specific film itself. It is not 100% successful at this because it seems to want to have its feet in several different camps. As a result it fudges the bits on modern society and relies heavily on Norman Mailer telling us how porn is different not because it is all about money and how the interest in artistic expression has been lost which is all very good while he says it in his unique, booming style but not when you think about 1970's pornography and wonder how much artistic creativity was involved versus the desire to make whacking material.
Despite this fudge though the film is mostly interesting and well structured, with contributions cutting over each other to good effect. In terms of bias though, it is clear that we are not on the side of the moral crusaders here. We get chances to hear them speak, which is fair enough if you take it as read that the film is not meant to be a debate of the right and wrong of pornography so much as it is a discussion starter on the subject. Hopper's narration is solid and the couple of celebrities who pop up are wisely hardly used in favour of those who were directly involved.
Overall this is an interesting documentary that is lively and interesting. Not the place to come to for a debate on the morality of pornography but it does a reasonable job of looking at the impact the film had at the time and, to some degree, the wider impact it had on society. However the potted focus on the film itself makes for an interesting and accessible film.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe film discusses how Garganta Profunda (1972) was actually distributed to theaters. Prints would be hand-delivered and employees would count heads of moviegoers and then collect the cash profits from the theaters. This process was known as sending "checkers and sweepers."
- Erros de gravaçãoEarly in the film, an unseen projectionist starts the film and we can see the projected image through the projection room window. He carelessly allows the leader to show on the screen. A frame marked "FOOT" is shown. Unless he is running the film backwards, this is wrong. The beginning of a film is marked "HEAD".
- Citações
Herself - Linda's Sister: [about Chuck Trainor] I curse the day she ever met Chuck Trainor. Unfortunately, he died before I could kill him. Lucky for him.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosDeep Throat Was Made For Just $25,000 It Grossed More Than $600 Million
- ConexõesFeatured in At the Movies: Episode #2.38 (2005)
- Trilhas sonorasCrime of the Century
Performed by Supertramp
Written by Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson
Courtesy of A&M Records
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Inside Deep Throat
- Locações de filme
- Paramount Studios - 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, Los Angeles, Califórnia, EUA(exterior shot of the famous Paramount Studios arch over the entrance to the studio lot)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 2.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 691.880
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 88.709
- 13 de fev. de 2005
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 709.832
- Tempo de duração1 hora 29 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
What is the French language plot outline for Por Dentro do Garganta Profunda (2005)?
Responda