The story of Linda Lovelace, who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband before taking control of her life.The story of Linda Lovelace, who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband before taking control of her life.The story of Linda Lovelace, who is used and abused by the porn industry at the behest of her coercive husband before taking control of her life.
- Directors
- Writer
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 3 nominations total
- Sammy Davis Jr.
- (as Ronald Pritchard)
- Directors
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
And the manner in which the two views on the same girl are interconnected in the film is the strong point of the movie: the technique of show 'reality' while simultaneously depicting 'fiction' works well. The cast is strong: Amanda Seyfried does a star turn as Linda Lovelace (aka Linda Susan Boreman aka Mrs. Larry Marchiano) though much of Lovelace's life is omitted (her liver transplant, her messy divorces, her other films, etc); Peter Sarsgaard is excellent as the smarmy drug-addled Chuck Traynor, the man who convinced Lovelace to enter porn; Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick as her rigid parents; Juno Temple in the thankless role as Lovelace's only friend Patsy; and the porn guys - Chris Noth, Bobby Cannavale, Hank Azaria, Adam Brody as the well-endowed Harry Reems (though that of course is never filmed), Chloë Sevigny as a Feminist Journalist, James Franco as Hugh Hefner, fellow porn star Dolly as portrayed well by Debi Mazar, Wes Bentley, Eric Roberts, and Ron Pritchard as Sammy Davis Jr.! There are real taped interviews and comments by Johnny Carson, Bob Hope and Walter Cronkite which enhance the credibility.
The film closes with an interview after Lovelace has revealed her past in her best selling book ORDEAL - and at that point the film slides down the hill of Hallmark type feel good. An entertaining film about a name from the 20th century that deserves visiting despite the fact that it simply goes on too long.
Grady Harp
What I found when I researched Linda Susan Boreman (Lovelace) shocked me. The entire film is a fabrication. Fiction upon fiction with the sole aim of creating an emotionally compelling narrative.
Considering this, I cannot rate the movie other than as repugnant. It is profoundly disturbing that these people want to profit by further exploiting with a mockery the real suffering of real victims of real awful crimes.
"Lovelace" tells of how young and pretty Linda Boreman, from a strict Catholic family, unlikely met and married a sleazy guy named Chuck Traynor.
First, she goes along with Chuck's wild idea to make a her a porn actress, exploiting a certain extraordinary talent of hers which would be the central theme of a little porn flick entitled "Deep Throat." She actually enjoyed the heady success of this stardom as Linda Lovelace, for a while at least.
In a sudden change of pace, the second half of the movie showed how Linda was abused by her husband, physically, mentally, sexually, financially. She quietly suffered this torture until she could not take it anymore and fights to get her old life back.
The acting of Ms. Seyfried was quite good, as she was able to convince us that she was Linda despite being cast against type. She will get us on her side before the film ends. People who watch this film expecting her to reveal more skin will be disappointed, as this Linda kept it pretty clean on screen. The image painted of Linda was actually very sympathetic as well, like it was all Chuck's fault. Ms. Seyfried played the perfect naive victim.
Peter Sarsgaard was effectively creepy as Chuck from the start. You really cannot understand how Linda would marry a guy like this. He could have portrayed being more charming in the beginning to convince us. But he looked like a creep even in that scene where he first met with Linda's parents (portrayed by Robert Patrick and a completely unrecognizable Sharon Stone.)
I think the main problem of the film was in its story telling. There was a very abrupt and stark transformation from happy Linda in Act 1 and sad Linda in Act 2. I think the director was trying to be stylistic about this, not telling these details linearly, instead going back and forth in time. I think this could have been told more effectively another way.
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
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.
Did you know
- TriviaIn 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."
- GoofsIn a scene set in 1970, two characters discuss French Connection (1971), which was released in 1971.
- Quotes
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.
- SoundtracksI'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
- How long is Lovelace?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Lovelace: Garganta profunda
- Filming locations
- Alex Theatre - 216 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California, USA(Deep Throat private screening)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $10,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $356,582
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $184,536
- Aug 11, 2013
- Gross worldwide
- $1,585,583
- Runtime1 hour 33 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1