BEFORE: Peter Sarsgaard carries over from "The Magnificent Seven", and this might be a bit of an odd week - as I draw closer to the end of Year 9, it's something of a mixed bag, I'll admit. Some of December's films were chosen just so they would allow me to link to the upcoming "Star Wars" film.
But, that being said, I have been very curious about this film, the first of two films this week on the topic of porn actors. I happen to know, in the real world, someone who wrote a book about Linda Lovelace after interviewing her extensively, and he also served as a consultant on this film. I remember that two studios were developing films about her a few years ago, and this one got made and released, the other one, not so much. But it's been four years now and this film has not run on premium cable, and honestly, I grew tired of waiting for it.
When I saw it listed on Netflix a few months ago, I allowed myself to work it into my chain, hoping that it would still be there in December (you never know when films are going to disappear from Netflix, it turns out....). But I think I've confused the Netflix software, which now does not know what to make of me - in July I watched a bunch of animated films for kids, and now I'm watching a film about a real porn actress. That software that recommends titles probably just shrugs now when it looks through my viewing history. It's OK, both the IMDB and Amazon recommendation software have given up, they don't know what to recommend to me either.
Look, I get it - in the past week alone I went from an economic-based thriller to the dystopian future of "The Hunger Games", to a drama about a Southern teen, to a sci-fi action film, to a Western and then a porn biopic. Anyone trying to get a handle on my viewing habits, even some software, is not going to be able to keep up.
But, that being said, I have been very curious about this film, the first of two films this week on the topic of porn actors. I happen to know, in the real world, someone who wrote a book about Linda Lovelace after interviewing her extensively, and he also served as a consultant on this film. I remember that two studios were developing films about her a few years ago, and this one got made and released, the other one, not so much. But it's been four years now and this film has not run on premium cable, and honestly, I grew tired of waiting for it.
When I saw it listed on Netflix a few months ago, I allowed myself to work it into my chain, hoping that it would still be there in December (you never know when films are going to disappear from Netflix, it turns out....). But I think I've confused the Netflix software, which now does not know what to make of me - in July I watched a bunch of animated films for kids, and now I'm watching a film about a real porn actress. That software that recommends titles probably just shrugs now when it looks through my viewing history. It's OK, both the IMDB and Amazon recommendation software have given up, they don't know what to recommend to me either.
Look, I get it - in the past week alone I went from an economic-based thriller to the dystopian future of "The Hunger Games", to a drama about a Southern teen, to a sci-fi action film, to a Western and then a porn biopic. Anyone trying to get a handle on my viewing habits, even some software, is not going to be able to keep up.
THE PLOT: 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.
AFTER: The history of porn is a hot topic right now - I just finished watching the first season of HBO's "The Deuce" and it covers some of the same territory, how the industry grew in the 1970's from a few theaters and peep-shows screening plotless porn "loops" to a multi-million dollar industry, with a few select films, like "Deep Throat", attracting wider audiences and causing contoversy at the same time.
Obviously, it was a different era, with different roles for women and different attitudes toward sex. But at the same time that women were gaining ground in the workplace, the porn industry was setting them back, if you ask me. When Hugh Hefner died a couple of months ago, the verdict was split on whether magazines like Playboy were good or bad for feminism. Sure, they made a few women super-famous as centerfolds or Playmates of the Year, but at what cost? More damage was probably done in the long run by making male readers regard them as only sex objects, instead of sexual beings. Hefner was happy to run pictorials about women going to college or working as doctors or lawyers, provided they were all willing to get naked for him and the readers - that's not exactly helping the cause of feminism.
And if you ask me, that's why we're in the situation in the news now, with widespread sexual harassment among the men in power in Washington and Hollywood. I enjoy porn as much as the next guy, but I acknowledge that it has long-lasting, damaging effects, and these result from depicting one truth and one lie, which got spread more quickly with the inventions of home video and then the internet. The truth it tells is that women are sexual beings, with their own desires (it seems obvious now, but in past decades, many were told to hide or not acknowledge their feelings) and the lie it depicts is that all women, everywhere, are ready for sex at any time. This is the male fantasy that powers just about every x-rated film.
Add this fantasy to the Hollywood patriarchal power structure, which was primed to take advantage of young women already via the casting couch, and it's like throwing gasoline on a fire. I don't condone the actions of anyone guilty of sexual harassment or who took advantage of their positions of power or fame, I'm just saying I understand where the fantasy that perhaps propelled some of their actions came from. When a man watches porn movies for a few decades, in which no woman ever says "No" to anything in any way, that man's going to have a distorted view of sex, and it's very possible that he'll eventually get a distorted view of reality as well.
The odd thing about the X-rated film industry is that it's one of the rare places that women earn more money than men. But as the story of Linda Lovelace tells us, the pay's often not enough to make up for the hazards. This film depicts her coerced into porn by her husband, who also pimped her out when he could make a few extra bucks for doing so, and also beat her up for good measure. Even when she became famous (or infamous) for appearing in "Deep Throat", he kept controlling her actions and collecting her money to settle his debts. She couldn't even leave him, because her parents were of that generation that believed that marriage came first, and that wives should obey their husbands.
If I've got any beef with this film, it's the fact that there seem to be confusing timelines? I don't think the narrative is strictly non-linear here, but it doesn't seem to be 100% linear either. A couple times a graphic appears that says "Six years later", but then there's no warning when we're snapped back to the past - I'm fairly sure that the timeline didn't advance another 6 years each time, we seem to be toggling a bit back-and-forth between 1972 and 1978 (or so) but how about a little warning when we return to the earlier time?
Or is the conceit here that the film tells her story three times, adding more details with each pass, and therefore growing darker as we learn more about the domestic abuse? Sure, there's conflicting information in each version of her story, but this is a woman who wrote three different autobiographies, which conflicted with each other on some key details. So what can you do but tell ALL of her different stories, and let the audience judge for themselves? I guess....
Obviously, it was a different era, with different roles for women and different attitudes toward sex. But at the same time that women were gaining ground in the workplace, the porn industry was setting them back, if you ask me. When Hugh Hefner died a couple of months ago, the verdict was split on whether magazines like Playboy were good or bad for feminism. Sure, they made a few women super-famous as centerfolds or Playmates of the Year, but at what cost? More damage was probably done in the long run by making male readers regard them as only sex objects, instead of sexual beings. Hefner was happy to run pictorials about women going to college or working as doctors or lawyers, provided they were all willing to get naked for him and the readers - that's not exactly helping the cause of feminism.
And if you ask me, that's why we're in the situation in the news now, with widespread sexual harassment among the men in power in Washington and Hollywood. I enjoy porn as much as the next guy, but I acknowledge that it has long-lasting, damaging effects, and these result from depicting one truth and one lie, which got spread more quickly with the inventions of home video and then the internet. The truth it tells is that women are sexual beings, with their own desires (it seems obvious now, but in past decades, many were told to hide or not acknowledge their feelings) and the lie it depicts is that all women, everywhere, are ready for sex at any time. This is the male fantasy that powers just about every x-rated film.
Add this fantasy to the Hollywood patriarchal power structure, which was primed to take advantage of young women already via the casting couch, and it's like throwing gasoline on a fire. I don't condone the actions of anyone guilty of sexual harassment or who took advantage of their positions of power or fame, I'm just saying I understand where the fantasy that perhaps propelled some of their actions came from. When a man watches porn movies for a few decades, in which no woman ever says "No" to anything in any way, that man's going to have a distorted view of sex, and it's very possible that he'll eventually get a distorted view of reality as well.
The odd thing about the X-rated film industry is that it's one of the rare places that women earn more money than men. But as the story of Linda Lovelace tells us, the pay's often not enough to make up for the hazards. This film depicts her coerced into porn by her husband, who also pimped her out when he could make a few extra bucks for doing so, and also beat her up for good measure. Even when she became famous (or infamous) for appearing in "Deep Throat", he kept controlling her actions and collecting her money to settle his debts. She couldn't even leave him, because her parents were of that generation that believed that marriage came first, and that wives should obey their husbands.
If I've got any beef with this film, it's the fact that there seem to be confusing timelines? I don't think the narrative is strictly non-linear here, but it doesn't seem to be 100% linear either. A couple times a graphic appears that says "Six years later", but then there's no warning when we're snapped back to the past - I'm fairly sure that the timeline didn't advance another 6 years each time, we seem to be toggling a bit back-and-forth between 1972 and 1978 (or so) but how about a little warning when we return to the earlier time?
Or is the conceit here that the film tells her story three times, adding more details with each pass, and therefore growing darker as we learn more about the domestic abuse? Sure, there's conflicting information in each version of her story, but this is a woman who wrote three different autobiographies, which conflicted with each other on some key details. So what can you do but tell ALL of her different stories, and let the audience judge for themselves? I guess....
Also starring Amanda Seyfried (last seen in "Pan"), Sharon Stone (last seen in "Bobby"), Robert Patrick (last seen in "The Faculty"), Juno Temple (last seen in "Black Mass"), Chris Noth, Bobby Cannavale (last seen in "Danny Collins"), Hank Azaria (last heard in "The Smurfs 2"), Adam Brody (last seen in "Sleeping With Other People"), Chloe Sevigny (last seen in "Melinda and Melinda"), James Franco (last heard in "The Little Prince"), Debi Mazar (last seen in "Collateral"), Wes Bentley (last seen in "The Hunger Games"), Eric Roberts (last seen in "The Specialist"), Don McManus (last seen in "The Bonfire of the Vanities"), Ron Pritchard, Cory Hardrict (last seen in "American Sniper"), with archive footage of Johnny Carson, Walter Cronkite, Phil Donahue, Bob Hope.
RATING: 6 out of 10 photo shoots
No comments:
Post a Comment