Entertainment Magazine

Obstruction 3 : Lovelace (2013)

Posted on the 25 August 2013 by Ikzidna @InspiredGround

So, this is the third phase of The 5 Obstruction Blogathon hosted by My Film Views. To refresh your memory, this blogathon contains 5 phase, one for each month, to challenge ourselves as a movie reviewer. I was pleased with my previous blogathon in which made me interviewed a fellow friend who involved in a famous local movie. What is the third one? Let’s read the instruction below :

Obstruction 3 : Lovelace (2013)

Wow, this one’s a toughy. I never really copy-pasted a review, in fact I tried not to read any review before watching a movie. But to do the otherwise, feels unusual. But I get the purpose and there’s no harm to try. It made me felt like a real movie magazine editor for sure (well, sort of), not quite easy to composed only by copy and paste. For you movie reviewers that I referenced, take it as a compliment, love your reviews. I originally didn’t want to referenced from 10 reviews, but after I composed 6 reviews I decided to make it full 10. It’s a new experience and I actually learn new stuffs. So, without further a do, here’s the post :

 photo lovelace-poster_0512012_183835_zps44700250.jpg

Lovelace is an interesting, heartfelt if flawed study of Linda Boreman, who as “Linda Lovelace” was the star of the smash hit 1972 porn film Deep Throat. The film also includes a destructive marriage to seemingly complete, total, bonafide scumbag Chuck Traynor. We knew Amanda Seyfried could play the white swan, but could she play the black swan?

Directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, Lovelace begins with Linda’s somewhat humble roots. Released from strict religious parents (an unrecognisable Sharon Stone as Mum) by marriage to blustering pimp Chuck Traynor (a swaggering Peter Sarsgaard), naïve teenager Linda (Amanda Seyfried, artless and utterly charming) flowers sexually. A year before the events shown in the movie Linda has given birth to a child that was put for adoption and this is the reason for the tension between her and her mother. She is escorted from the innocuous world of roller rink go-go dancing to the heavy-duty drugs-and-porn scene by Chuck.

Traynor parlays her ‘speciality’ into Mafia-backed porn stardom: Linda’s role in carnal comedy Deep Throat (1972) turns her into a media sensation. How she met the charming Chuck Traynor and soon fell under his spell, which resulted in a marriage based on fear and abuse.  The film makes a jump half way through – first we see things as the world saw them, with sweet Linda living glamorous life of joy, carefree sex and parties with famous people. But in the second half we see what – according to Lovelace – really happened. Through it all, she becomes determined not to make another hardcore film: “I just can’t do it anymore.”

 photo 518162d00a28a2f852975c77d7b110ad_zps82a0ba77.jpg

Where Lovelace has real potency is raising a related issue: this isn’t just about porn but also domestic violence. The film presents an incredibly simplified version of Lovelace’s story that actually removes some of the most shocking aspects of Lovelace’s colorful and painful life. The film finds irony in how Chuck, posing as a sexual liberator and a romantic, became Linda’s cruelest jailer. Where Lovelace fails to fully penetrate greatness is that it never feels complete. It was shockingly sexless for a film about porn. With the film so firmly on her side, it 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. The film is many things but the one thing is sure as not objective, since Lovelace is shown as an innocent victim of all of this, one wonders if there’s any edification to be had from it. From sweet young thing to porn superstar in just one movie takes some swallowing.

 photo LOVELACE-6-jpg_210716_zps9f9ce021.jpg
-Amanda Seyfried gave a strong, sympathetic, credible performance that catches Linda’s insecurities and exacts sympathy and regret for all that happened to her, her acting was so good she really melted my heart at times. Lovelace could’ve provided her with the opportunity to shine, but instead, she is drowned out by a bad script and lazy storytelling. Without a real sense of what made Lovelace tick, we wonder in what point the abuse will get so bad that she will leave. Why can’t we get inside her head? Why can’t we understand the psychology behind her submissiveness?  We might not have liked Linda quite so much if we caught a glimpse of her own dark side or met a few of her own internal demons, but we certainly would have understood her better.
 photo AmandaSeyfriedStillsLovelaceTrailerohBBh3VBFSbl_zps618fc7fa.jpg
-Luckily for Lovelace, the film does have one thing on its side – consistently good performances by its entire cast. With Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick as Linda’s parents particularly making an impression. As Chuck, Peter Sarsgaard does his best to match her intelligent naivete with predatory charisma. The vaguely menacing fictional moneyman, Anthony Romano (Chris Noth), leaves little doubt that he’s not to be messed with. James Franco plays Playboy titan Hugh Hefner circa 1972, when Hef would have been about 46 years old. Franco is 35 and looks about 25.With the great cast, you can’t help but feel that there was more – more scenes, more footage, but they are not in the movie for some reason. But the film has great cinematography and lovely atmosphere – it really feels like it was shot in 70′s with warm colors and all the colorful costumes. Overall Lovelace is an entertaining film, but it is also a dangerous shifting of what really happened.-

Movie Score :

bintang 3
References :IndiewireFilm School RejectsTotal FilmThe GuardianTwitch FilmRoger EbertHollywood ReporterAnd So it BeginsCinematic CornerI Love That Film

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

Magazines