Saturday, August 10, 2013

Lovelace

Moments into Lovelace, the audience is presented with a title card that establishes the setting. 1970 – Davie, Florida. Three scenes later (which is to say, two days later in the movie), Linda Lovelace (Amanda Seyfried) and Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard) are sitting on a beach, talking about how good the film The French Connection was. So here’s the thing: William Friedkin’s The French Connection didn’t come out in theaters until Oct. 1971. That film was a sensation. It was controversial, grossed a shit load of money, and won a handful of Oscars, including Best Picture. It was a big film, and anyone with access to Google can quickly deduce that it did not come out in 1970.

This lack of exploration is evident throughout Lovelace. And while I didn’t catch any other blatant chronological errors in the film, I can certainly attest to the fact that Lovelace is a dull, needlessly complex, laughably misguided mess.


Lovelace attempts to tell the story of Linda Lovelace, who became the world’s first pornographic superstar following the release of the cult sensation Deep Throat in 1972. Lovelace begins with Linda’s somewhat humble roots. How after having a baby out of wedlock, her family was forced to move from New York to Florida to avoid neighborhood shame. How she met the charming Chuck Traynor and soon fell under his spell, which resulted in a marriage based on fear and abuse. How Chuck showed a home movie of he and Linda to porn producers, who saw gold at the sight of Linda’s impressive talent. 

So, in 92 minutes, the film manages to cram in an abusive husband, prostitution, gang rape, parental disregard, a behind the scenes look at the most famous porno ever made, lawsuits, Hugh Hefner, and on and on. Problem is, it presents none of this information with the patience and research that the material deserves.
At one point, Lovelace jumps ahead six months, plays out the glory days of Deep Throat, then jumps ahead six years to Linda taking a polygraph. Then it jumps back to directly after Linda and Chuck were married, and chronicles the couple’s downfall. And then it jumps forward to the glory days. And then it jumps ahead to the polygraph, again. I think. 

But why? Why the narrative clutter? It adds nothing to anything and leaves viewers (or rather, this viewer) completely confused. When the flashback/jump forward bit was finished, I had no idea where I was. And still, this is the least of Lovelace’s problems. 

The main problem with this film is Amanda Seyfried. Her acting talent is so superior to everything else going on in Lovelace, it makes the film feel grossly off balance. Seyfried’s film debut was as the impossibly ditzy Karen in Mean Girls and she’s made solid impressions elsewhere, as a neglected daughter in Nine Lives, as an evil temptress in Chloe, as the daughter of a polygamist in Big Love, and so on. Lovelace could’ve provided her with the opportunity to shine, but instead, she is drowned out by a bad script and lazy storytelling.
Other acting players put in solid work as well, namely the great Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone, who play Linda’s parents with convincing disgrace and heartbreak. Bobby Cannavale, Hank Azaria, and Chris Noth all have a blast hamming it up as porn producers, while James Franco does his best to chew the scene as Hefner. The less said about Sarsgaard work as Traynor, the better. Sarsgaard is one of the finest actors of his generation, but Traynor is disastrously written as a caricature of dread.

Lovelace was directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, two of the most fearless American documentarians working today. Epstein won an Oscar for crafting the flawless The Times of Harvey Milk, and he and Friedman both have Oscars for their superb film, Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt. But, similarly to their flawed first feature film, Howl, Epstein and Friedman have a lot to learn about how to cohesively structure a narrative outside of the documentary form. If you want to see what these men are truly capable of, watch The Times of Harvey Milk. If you want to know more about Linda Lovelace’s story, watch the searing documentary, Inside Deep Throat. Your time will certainly be better spent. D

24 comments:

  1. Interesting, after reading this I'm glad I watched Prince Avalanche instead of this. I will probably still watch this at some point just to say I've seen it (and I am curious to see Franco as Hefner) but aside from that I don't expect much to begin with anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince Avalanche was far and away superior to this. You made a very wise choice, my friend. I was curious to see Franco as Hefner as well, but just know he's in it for maybe 3 minutes. Shame.

      Delete
  2. I'm just reviewing it right now, for me the film fell apart in the second half but I did enjoy it.

    Sarsgaard really needs to find some other roles than just creepy guys freaking out young girls. He is talented but it's increasingly annoying when he does the same thing over and over again.

    I loved Seyfried and Patrick, the phone call scene was the highlight for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That phone call scene was definitely the best moment of the film, Patrick nailed it. But honestly, that scene just angered me, because it deserved to be in a better movie.

      Completely agree with you on Sarsgaard. He needs to get back to branching out more. Can't wait to read your review.

      Delete
  3. Yikes... now I'm not sure if I want to see it as I do like Amanda Seyfried and the rest of the cast. Yet, the fact that there's so many chronological errors and too many shifts with time is problematic. I notice these things and they often take me out of the film.

    Peter Sarsgaard does need to do more like that laid-back character he played in Garden State which was fun to watch. BTW, is this performance much worse than the character he played in Green Lantern? I don't think I can stomach that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not AS bad as his work in Green Lantern, but few things are, I suppose.

      I honestly don't think you'd really dig this one. You'd probably like some of the performances, but all in all, this one is a wash.

      Delete
  4. Brilliant review, Alex. And you probably spared me the time and expense of renting this DVD, as I am somewhat curious about the material but don't feel like sitting through this mess of a movie. It's a shame it's this bad. It has a decent cast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steph! Definitely a shame that that movie let its cast down. If you're interested at all in this story, check out Inside Deep Throat. It's on Netflix Instant right now, if you have that. Solid doc.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The film was definitely begging us to take her side. Which is okay, I guess. Seyfried did kill it, but I felt her performance belonged in a better film.

      Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

      Delete
  6. I thought Adam Brody did a good job. You know, I'm surprised he didn't have a more successful movie career. He was one of the breakout stars on The OC. Maybe, it's down to him having a crap agent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My first thought upon reading your comment is, did anyone from The OC have a successful film career? Rachel Bilson was in a few things, but nothing too great. Either way, I didn't mind Brody in this film, thought he was okay. He played bad porn pretty well.

      Delete
  7. Inside Deep Throat was on the other night and it is a riveting story in a documentary. How do skilled film makers from that world screw this up? Linda Lovelace was a confounding but important cultural figure and a good film of her story should be made. Is there another one on the way, I seem to remember that this was one of those dueling projects that come up every few years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, it's such a compelling story, and it's a damn shame that it was botched in a narrative film version. There was another Lovelace flick in production, Inferno, but star Malin Akerman recently said she didn't think it was going to get made. Shame. Matt Dillon was going to play Chuck Traynor. Could've been good.

      Delete
  8. Do you know about Traci Lords? Now THAT'S a pornstar whose biopic would/could be amazing and entertaining. She tricked all the porn directors (even her boyfriend) into thinking she was this woman in her twenties, when she was a minor. She then told the police that the directors forced her into porn, managed to ban all her porn films and then became a legitmate actress. What a woman!

    I can imagine Jennifer Lawrence playing her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yeah, that WOULD be a hell of a story. And what an inspired casting choice on your part. Hey, write a spec script and pitch it!

      Delete
  9. Something seemed off in the clips I've seen, so I was never very confident in this film. I almost saw it earlier this week, but I put it off. Not sure when (or if) I'll get to it now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, in all honesty I think this one can be skipped. It really doesn't add much to anything. Bummer though.

      Delete
  10. "Her acting talent is so superior to everything else going on in Lovelace." Hmmm...I seem to get that impression about a lot of Seyfried's movies. "Chloe" and "Jennifer's Body" come to mind. Good review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's very true. She's often better than the material will allow her to be. Shame.

      Thanks for reading!

      Delete
  11. Lovelace played it very safe in my opinion. I still enjoyed it and found it very interesting. I'm not a fan of Seyfried, but I thought she was very charming and impressive here.

    Nice review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man. I thought this definitely played it safe, to a fault. Glad Seyfried impressed you here. I thought she was pretty solid.

      Delete