Review of Lovelace (2013) by Kieran F — 10 Feb 2014

I read the story about the real Linda Lovelace many times, including her claims and the claims of others. I never can be certain about which story is true, but considering the kind of dramatic lifestyle she lived and the impact she had on the world, I thought that if the filmmakers got the story right it could be a serious contender for Academy Awards. Even though it got mixed reviews and missed all the award nominations, I still wanted to see it.

The film does skip over small elements of Linda Lovelace's life to fit into such a shortened time frame, and unfortunately this does cause a negative effect on the film. It doesn't just ignore small elements like the fact that before Deep Throat, Linda Lovelace also starred in a bestiality film entitled Dogarama and also that she did in fact star in Deep Throat II when in Lovelace it isn't depicted as going beyond the pre-production stage. It ignores some serious elements too.

The film depicts Linda Lovelace enjoying her rise to fame and taking joy in watching herself on screen in Deep Throat, and yet later on claiming that she was forced into it by Cuck Traynor. Also, a memorable quote from the real Linda Lovelace herself is "When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time." You would get no such idea from the film because even in the scenes before the hidden dramatic subtext is revealed in the alternate storyline, there is no slight hint that Linda Lovelace has aversion to the film. I know it's meant to come as a surprise, but if you know whats coming you can look closely and see that there is actually no slight element in the film or the cast that suggests that Linda Lovelace was anything less than proud of participation in the film. And that makes the entire story less credible and more questionable.

Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman take elements from both Linda Lovelace's allegations and her opposition, creating a hybrid story which half true and half false. Which half is true and which is false is impossible to be sure of, but it just makes the whole film feel like a lie, and so in a biopic that is already abridged to _______ minutes, its ambiguous just how much of Lovelace is really true, because Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman don't really stick to what is true or put effort into clarifying just exactly what is true.

The story would be much more appropriate if it followed a more linear story structure. While it's an ambitious move to tell the story that is supposedly a lie followed by the supposedly true version of the story, Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman simply don't get the timing right or find a balance, and so the real story behind Linda Lovelace isn't told in Lovelace, and instead it's just a loose compilation of third party elements relating to her life, tied together in a story looser than porn star Marilyn Chambers' vagina. The film depicts Linda Lovelace's entrance into the world of pornography as consensual and simple at first with slight elements that hint at Chuck Traynor having some forceful involvement in getting her into the industry, but this is against her claims. Since the film is entitled Lovelace, it is about Linda Susan Boreman, known professionally as Linda Lovelace. And therefore it should be more focused on telling the story that she wants to tell and focusing on what made her a heroic person in the post-pornographic part of her life later on instead of putting it in the film for 5 minutes.

The only thing that Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman prove about Linda Lovelace in the film Lovelace is the fact that they have no idea what makes her such an important person and cultural figure in history, and they seem more interested in showing audiences just how she is used. They show her suffering but they don't show her triumphing, and so their film weakens the credibility of Linda Lovelace as a hero. But the more intelligent crowds will know not to take the film literally, except that since it's a biopic they should be able to. Lovelace is a pseudo-biopic, and the approach that the directors and writer Andy Bellin take is like making a biopic about Amelia Earhart which focuses on the engines of each plane she flies instead of on her as a person. It just isn't a deep or meaningful film like it should be, and Linda Lovelace's legacy deserves much better.

Some of the more positive elements of the film are that it captures a convincing depiction of the 1970's by making it out to be the party age and the time of sexual freedom. Lovelace has the kinetic energy of the time, including a strong and thriving atmosphere which is reminiscent of the film Boogie Nights which depicts the rise and fall of the pornographic industry in the 1970's.

And the cinematography is done well in Lovelace, keeping it well shot from some artistic and atmospheric angles when necessary. Plus the soundtrack is pretty groovy. But it's the cast that supply the major success to the film.

Amanda Seyfried is a great casting choice for the role of Linda Lovelace in Lovelace because it's such a different role to what she tends to play. I mean I tend to see her as that young and friendly girl in all of her films, and also as woman with very attractive qualities to her. So to see her in a role where she capitalises on her ability to play an innocent and friendly girl as well as a greatly sexual appealing one and puts it into the context of playing Linda Lovelace, a role she does a really good job as. She supplies both the sexually energetic elements of Linda Lovelace and the emotionally shattered elements of her real identity, Linda Boreman. Even though she is stuck with poor material, Amanda Seyfried successfully portrays Linda Lovelace and Linda Boreman well, and looks attractive doing it. She is the most bright spot in the film and is an amiable lead.

Peter Sarsgaard manages to give a good supporting performance as Chuck Traynor, because he is never excessive in depicting the man's aggression but does find the appropriate line to still be intimidating and strong as an actor, proving himself to do a good job, especially considering the life in his chemistry with Amanda Seyfried which feels genuine. He pulls off a powerful effort which characterises Chuck Traynor well and adds to his credibility as a broadly talented actor.

Sharon Stone looks nothing like she usually does in Lovelace, and unlike her more famous roles in films such as Basic Instinct, Total Recall and Casino, she doesn't flaunt her powerful sex appeal out. In actuality, in Lovelace she is completely objectional to the concept of sexual activity or glamourisation. It's a role completely different to what you'd expect from her, and it's a nice surprise to see her working actively again in cinema and doing a good job in a role you wouldn't expect from her. Sharon Stone's performance teaches audiences things about Linda Lovelace you wouldn't know of from reading about her, and she just does a really good job.

Robert Patrick does a good job too, particularly in the scene where he delivers a dramatic soliloquy over the phone which he does very well. Hank Azaria and Adam Brody also deliver good supporting performances;.

Lastly, James Franco was just spot on as Hugh Hefner and is a seriously charming presence amongst the cast.

So Lovelace has a talented cast, particularly its lead Amanda Seyfriend and some memorable visual imagery, but it mixes elements of the Oscar Nominated Boogie Nights with elements of the Golden Raspberyry Award winning The Lonely Lady without remembering just what makes Linda Lovelace so important, and gradually just collapses due to poor narrative structure and weak direction.