“Everyone that watches ‘Deep Throat’ is watching me being raped.”
― Linda Lovelace, in her 1980 book, Ordeal
― Linda Lovelace, in her 1980 book, Ordeal
“Yes, there’s a lot of nudity, but it’s a message movie about respecting women.”
 |
| Mariel Hemingway as Dorothy Stratten and Eric Roberts as Paul Snider in Bob Fosse's last film, the morbid and depressing, Star 80 |
Both films tell the story of unsophisticated small-town girls who come under the influential wing of sleazy, disarmingly charming - ultimately controlling and abusive - lovers/managers who pimp the women out to the sex industries. Hardcore porn in Linda Lovelace's case (nee, Linda Susan Boreman); the sanitized, mainstream-porn limbo of “men’s magazine” nude photography in the instance of Dorothy Stratten.
 |
| photo: The Times |
Given our culture’s ambiguous relationship with industries
that traffic in the commodification of sex, it’s perhaps not surprising that
whenever we choose to train a cinematic spotlight on pornography, it’s not by
way of celebration, but through the dramatic prism of a moral cautionary tale. (Although
one might think, in an industry raking in upwards of $1.8-billion annually, there
must be somebody celebrating
somewhere.)
Lovelace and Star 80 tell tragic true-life tales of
women suffering physical abuse at the hands of a professional Svengali. Stratten was ultimately murdered by hers, Lovelace broke free. But the air of sadness that always seemed an intractable part of Linda Lovelace's liberated, anti-porn countenance, hinted at a psychological scarring that prevented one from taking much comfort in her too-public emancipation. The message one gets from the trailers is clear: pornography is
dehumanizing. The analogy unassailable: the porn industry and mainstream show
business are not dissimilar in their treatment and exploitation of women.
But what about the films themselves? Is it possible to make a film about sexual exploitation
without inadvertently resorting to (and in effect, participating in and
sanctioning) the very kind of behavior it seeks to indict?
Read the complete article at HERE at Movieline.com
Copyright © Ken Anderson
Ken, I read your full article at Movieline. Excellent. Of course, neither "Star 80" nor "Lovelace" would've been made were they not based on sensational and lewd true tales. I don't see Hollywood rushing to tell Jane Goodall's story or Indira Gandhi's (though we might expect something on Huma Abedin). I very recently watched Bogdanovich's "They All Laughed" (1981), Dorothy Stratten's last film. I think she was about 20 when the film was made, very pretty, but not much of an actress. John Ritter portrayed the director's alter ego (though he was much younger than Bogdanovich), a man completely enthralled by Stratten's youth and comely charms. The movie (also Audrey Hepburn's last) seemed a hodgepodge and I was left feeling just sad about poor Dorothy Stratten's short, seedy life (Playmate of the Year has never seemed much of an achievement to me - and hanging around the Playboy Mansion meeting rich, much older and very horny men, no thank you). Linda Lovelace's story is even more depressing and only slightly less tragic because she wasn't murdered in extreme youth.
ReplyDeleteI've seen "Star 80" and thought it well done (Eric Roberts was especially memorable as Paul Snyder). I'm not sure if I'll see "Lovelace." I understand it tells Lovelace's story from her point of view. Since she apparently felt she was used as much by the feminist movement as the porn industry, I'm curious how that might be portrayed.
Thanks for an unblinking and thought-provoking look into a complex, multi-layered and troubling subject.
Hi Eve
ReplyDeleteI so agree with you on all you said about "They All Laughed." A film that was always less than funny (or charming) even before it acquired the grim overcast of Stratten's sad death. And you really nail the non-prestige of something like a Playmate of the Year "title" carries. It’s akin to why I’ve always laughed at the term “porn-star.” One word seems to negate the other.
I too am curious about "Lovelace", but will likely give it a pass, as Hollywood seems to revel in repeating the same formulas when it comes to stories about victimized women. They don’t really get into what makes these kinds of women tick, yet they always seem to understand the users. While making "Star 80," Fosse always confessed that he empathized more with Snider than with Stratten ("He's me if I hadn't become successful"). It showed.
Thank you so much for sharing your views on this subject.
So, do you think they included the part where Linda Lovelace had sex with a dog? Apparently that too was part of her 'repertoire".
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, we need not expect to see any movies about Jane Goodall or Indira Gandhi; nobody's interested in movies about women unless they get naked at some point.
Uh, my guess would be, no. Or, rather, I hope not.
DeleteBut your question points specifically to what is potentially problematic about a film about Linda Lovelace. Because it can promote itself as "a movie about respecting women," all indignities, abuse, and humiliation depicted can fall under the guise of showing how terrible or abhorrent it all is...but the act is still shown (or at least referenced). All of which begs the question of whether there is any real difference between showing a woman degraded for erotic stimulation or for moralizing, when the ultimate goal of each is to sell tickets.
I don't want to say too much on this subject. However, I will say this much:
ReplyDelete1. Patrick Muldoon's comment is to be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Playboy Mansion. A "message movie" about "respecting women"? What, he couldn't find some other subject matter to express this? I'd have more respect for Muldoon if he were honest about his film and the motivations behind it. Well, I guess now that Hollywood is running out of comic book characters...
2. Trust Hollywood to cast somebody who looks positively nothing like Linda Susan Boreman in the role of Linda Susan Boreman. See previous point.
(I mean, for crying out loud, they went to such tonsorial extremes with Peter Sarsgaard, but they couldn't even fix Amanda Seyfried's hair to look authentic? Give me a break)
I still recall first seeing Miss Boreman and thinking how she looked absolutely nothing like your typical pornographic film actress. Even by 1970s standards, when the women who appeared in Playboy magazine were somewhat more realistic representations of womanhood, "Linda Lovelace" looked somewhat "un-model-like" by comparison. Perhaps this was the reason for her immense popularity. "Linda Lovelace" was the girl-next-door--she looked attainable.
Yes, in an interview to E!, Muldoon promoted his film by trying to play both sides of the fence. Telling us that there will be lots of Seyfried on display, but hey, it's a film exposing how abusive the porn industry is to women...yada, yada, yada. It reads like something out of "For Your Consideration."
DeleteVery interested to see this new Lovelace film, because over the years I have been presented with two very different impressions of Linda Lovelace.
ReplyDeleteI remember watching a documentary about the sexual revolution of the 1970s, as well as a more recent documentary on the making of Deep Throat, and both of those showed extensive interviews with Miss Lovelace during the height of her fame. She talked about erotics being liberating, and that sex was nothing to be ashamed of, and that it was all free and fun and liberating.
Conversely, I remember watching her on the Phil Donahue show promoting her book, Ordeal. All of a sudden, not only had she been she raped, she said, but beaten and kept prisoner and forced to perform on screen in what she now considered a degrading fashion. The libertine and trailblazer had suddenly become a pathetic victim. Sharp contrast.
I think the truth about her, and the others, lies somewhere in between.
Films like Star 80--which is very compelling though unrelentingly depressing--and the recent TV movie about the life of Anna Nicole Smith continue the paint the picture of a beautiful woman as a commodity to be exploited by men, as a victim of greed and brutality. And that may be the case in these instances. But it sends a subliminal message that I am not sure is healthy...that wanting to be sexy, glamorous and free is at best dangerous and at worst a deal with the devil requiring the ultimate sacrifice.
Are pornography and erotica truly as sleazy, dangerous, mob-infested and downright evil across the board as we have been told over and over--or is that a meme to keep us all feeling ashamed and guilty, yet compelled to keep consuming it? Are there any happy and well-adjusted porn stars and producers? Are there any happy and well-adjusted folks in any form of show business?
For me, as someone who grew up as the sexual revolution exploded, and then the distribution of erotica became more and more accessible through the advent of new technology and media, I actually feel lucky and blessed to have come to adulthood as more and more formerly-taboo material (of whatever genre) became available. Sex is natural, everybody does it...or should, as George Michael would say. Enjoying erotic material is now a right of all Americans of legal age.
Yet sex is continuously mixed with violence and fear in our culture. Porn stars are somehow bad or stupid people who will become victims or victimize others, the conventional wisdom goes. I'm not sure I buy that.
Ken, I am sorry for the long-winded post! But your amazing article has given me food for thought.
Hi Chris
DeleteYour post wasn't long-winded at all. It’s exactly the kind of thinking and questions without answers these two films (one I've seen, the other not) provoke. You make some terrific points about the about the contradictions inherent in the sexual revolution.
Like dialogs about movie violence and its real/imagines impact on real-life violence, I don’t know that anyone can ever know the impact the commodification of sex has on us a culture. Where money can be made, there is the opportunity for exploitation and abuse.
I think a healthy culture embraces free and liberated sexuality. But is it a healthy culture that has a system by which a human body and its sexual use can be broken down to dollars and cents?
We pay people to sing, to dance, to act…but when we pay people to have sex and take
their clothes off it gets into murkier territory. Territory that feeds into our sometimes sexist, patriarchal culture, and feeds into an entertainment industry culture that has made it its business to normalize rape and violence against women. Seriously, I can’t imagine your being able to share thoughts on such a complex subject in a brief manner.
The most fascinating question you raise is the notion that if sex is natural, why is it that we have set up a system (in pornography and mainstream entertainment) that almost invites exploitation through the high-payday correlation of sexual exposure and money?
There was an article online a while back about what a porn performer can be paid for a particular sex act. The more explicit/humiliating the act, the more money paid.
Is it merely a pragmatic businessperson who goes into porn (as a performer) because of what can be made by allowing onself to be photographed doing a natural act (and since it IS the actual act, we're not talking actor, we're talking documentary), or does it require a certain kind of psychology? Who knows. Morality and money have always made strange bedfellows.
So, you see, YOUR comments gave me plenty of food for thought, too! Thanks!
The Movieline article seems to be down--is it archived anywhere? Star80 has fascinated me ever since I saw it at too young an age (it was Fosse! I had to see anything Fosse!) and I'd love to read it.
ReplyDeleteAs for Lovelace--I realize this was written before it came out. The film seemed to become a non event--getting very mixed reviews. I personally thought it was a mess... Disappointing given the directors had previously directed some of my fave documentaries (Life and Times of Harvey Milk, Celluloid Closet, Stories of the Quilt...) The same directors were meant to be making the Anita Bryant biopic staring Uma Thurman which seems to be on hold but I was looking forward to--unlike Lovelace, Bryant I happily admit is not a figure I would feel bad about laughing at even if she gets a terrible, campy movie.
Hi Eric
DeleteThanks for letting me know about the link, it's been fixed. I agree with you about the Lovelace film.It really felt like I was watching a Lifetime movie more than a feature film,