Inside Deep Throat

i am an unashamed porn fan, not in the sense that i sit around all the time watching th stuff, but in the sense that i find the people involved in the making and distribution of the stuff to be very interesting, if not somewhat shady and bizarre people but none the less they have a story to share that not many people can lay claim to and so i like to give any material broaching the subject, particularly in its formative years, a listen.

so i haven't seen deep throat, and i don't really want to, if I'm going to watch people engaging in sexual acts i will buy something a little more intense and modern without all the premise of having a plot for arts sake. but this documentary is not about the film persae, it is about the people involved with it and how it affected their lives.

we see and hear from a lot of people who's lives have been both positively and negatively affected by this film over the years and it gives the viewer an insight into what really makes these people get involved in the business to begin with, and surprisingly enough its not just the money as there wasn't much money in it for the actors as such back in the 70s.

so i suggest that anybody that has an interest in rights and freedoms should really watch this as it gives a deeper appreciation of these simple gifts that we have to live by today and are so readily taken for granted.

if you like this kinda stuff also check out a film called Wadd which is about the life and death of john Holmes and also read How to make love like a porn star, the autobiography of Jenna Jameson.

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.

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.

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 was impressed with this marvelous doco after watching it yesterday and unlike Dick Cavett I remember watching the film in the heady days of the 70s in San Francisco-perhaps not as brave and revolutionary as watching it in Oklahoma City but a political statement none the less.

My thoughts about the film are coloured by this historical connection but that in no way diminishes the strengths of the film. After all these years to see the players in the flesh talking about such a phenomenon made for an enjoyable morning of film watching. You cannot view the film without seething anger at the religious conservatives that made virtually all the player's lives far more difficult than those lives should have been.

If there was a villain in the movie it would have been the Tennesee prosecutor who doubled as a lay preacher when he wasn't trying to make America into his own little brand of religious conservatism. Their kind of dead-head sociology and politics is still rampant in the States and the only difference is they've changed their target from sex to terrorism-or at least their definition of political terrorism.

The directors, Bailey and Barbato, have crafted a superb film inter-cutting old film clips with current interviews in order to create an excellent vision of all the threads between the personalities and opinions of the players. The hilarity of these characters come through when they speak with a forthrightness that generally ends up on the cutting room floor.

If you are an old guy like me-see the film for its historical look at a time that we can remember. If you are a young person interested in politics, look at the film to see the nature of the bad guys around us now but with new crusades to fight.