Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Eagle
Delivering American University's news and views since 1925
Wednesday, May 1, 2024
The Eagle

Movie Review: Lovelace

Grade: C

Linda Lovelace, the luminary scion of the American adult industry, was just a mere teenager when she began her short lived career. But that career included one of the most famous and profitable films in the history of pornography that was the slyly titled with a Nixonian satirical edge: “Deep Throat.”

“Lovelace”is a film by the directors of the Allen Ginsberg’s biopic “Howl,” Rob Epstein and Jerry Friedman, that attempts to tell the rise and decline of Linda Boreman and her tenuous relationship with boyfriend Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard, “Blue Jasmine”). Boreman eventually donned the stage name Lovelace, for whom the film is named.

They begin with scenes depicting a kinder side of Lovelace’s story of her reveling in the fame. Linda expresses desires to become an actress in plays and then the films begins to delve into the more unpleasant aspects of the story; domestic violence, manipulation, coercion.

“Lovelace” is a film which posits Linda Lovelace as a contradiction. Those who know the story going in will feel the weight of the inevitability of every frame action “Lovelace” cloying on their nerves, but will leave disappointed by the anemic quality of its content. Why did the most famous adult actress of her time decide to end her promising career?

Well, it’s not entirely clear if going by the film. None of her exploits into her anti-porn crusaders are chronicled, nor are her experiences in her controversial “Dogarama” films.

The 70’s schmaltzy production design is admirably well dressed and the cinematography by Eric Alan Edwards (“The Change-Up”) gives the film a beat up look of a Super 8 camera.

Linda Lovelace’s story is all fairly interesting dramatic material and Seyfried was clever casting for her willingness to be an exhibitionst in a film such as Atom Egoyan’s erotic thriller “Chloe,” but the grey area of historical events still is clawing at the seams of the plot.

The question presented to the audience film is who is the real Linda Lovelace? But the answer is quite unclear and not wholly satisfying. We see a cleverly re-constructed version of the 1972 version of “Deep Throat.” It’s funnier and better produced, with Epstein and Friedman adding more of an indie quirk vibe to the proceeding, than the actual film which is just depressingly dull and decidedly amateurish.

While laudable for a spirited performance by Seyfried and treating the material with some degree of solemnity, Epstein and Friedman mined for some answers about Linda Lovelace, but came up with what appears to be a forgettable movie-of-the-week.

dkahen-kashi@theeagleonline.com


Section 202 host Gabrielle and friends go over some sports that aren’t in the sports media spotlight often, and review some sports based on their difficulty to play. 



Powered by Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2024 The Eagle, American Unversity Student Media