MovieChat Forums > Lovelace (2013) Discussion > why distort the truth?

why distort the truth?

posted 10 years ago by cooler56
12 replies | jump to latest

I understand that this is not a documentary but when you watch this movie, and you read about what really happened with Lovelace you realize that this film had an agenda. It makes her come across as some hero when in reality she was a one-hit wonder porn actress who quickly faded into obscurity. I don't know about her abuse and all that but she had a hit-and-run with her porn career and wasn't avoiding doing more porn like portrayed in the film. She probably didn't really know what to do with her life and that's okay. But it's not that appealing on film, so they had to put in conflict and drama to make it watchable.

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

The film is based on her revisionist "feminist" "autobiography" "Ordeal", which is contradicted by practically everybody (but they're all "pornographers" so they must be liars) and is verifiably untrue in places. Plus she has contradicted her own claims both before and after writing it. They might have used this trashy book as a jumping off point, but they should have gotten other perspectives because almost nobody today still has this cro-magnon "feminist" view of the porn industry.

They omit, for instance, all the porn Lovelace did BEFORE "Deep Throat" including the notorious "dog film" that shocked and appalled most of the porn people around back then. They also omit the five year period where she tried to parlay her highly questionable talent into general celebrity with a Vegas revue and the non-hardcore feature "Linda Lovelace for President" before deciding she was a "victim" of porn. All you have to do is watch the latter to realize she was simply NOT a good enough actress to have entirely faked the enthusiasm she showed in her porn work. And you only have to have a cursory knowledge of 70's porn to know there were PLENTY of much more attractive free-spirited hippie girls around back then and no one needed to force a marginally trailer-park refugee to do porn for them

She probably was abused by her husband, but the worst kind of lies are those that are mixed with the truth. That's the same problem with this movie. . .

[–] fidgette 9 years ago

Another douche who doesn't know what the word feminist means.

But yes OP I agree that I fisliked how they altered the truth. I suppose it's an easier story to sell.

[–] Doc80 9 years ago

There are different kinds of feminists. The ones Linda fell in with are that "All men are evil and women are always the victims" kind of feminists.

[–] Forlorn_Rage 9 years ago

No, they're not. Gloria Steinem states several times throughout her life, she is not for women at the expense of men.

[–] Doc80 9 years ago

Oh because Gloria Steinham is the end all be all when it comes to what defines feminism? There are different forms just like everything else in life.

[–] Forlorn_Rage 9 years ago

What are you talking about? I am no debating what feminism is. Gloria Steinem was one of the feminists Linda Lovelace originally associated, whom you described as:

"All men are evil and women are always the victims" kind of feminists.

I was pointing out that is not the kind of feminism Gloria Steinem stands for- from her own words. That is all.

You want to debate feminism? You'll have to find someone else to do it with.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cooler56 9 years ago

Yes it was. It makes Lovelace look like a victim when she was complacent in her quest for fame.

[–] info-996-828544 7 years ago

I am always of the view that when someone changes their version of events, then until their is some form of corroboration disbelieve everything they say.

Having said that, my own view of the truth is that LL loved the fame and notoriety but notwithstanding that, was probably abused by her husband. There are degrees of coercion, and again, my own suspicion is that it didn't take much in the way of coercion to get her into the Porn Industry. She then tried (as many others have) and failed to cross over and instead exploited her fame as the ultimate one hit wonder. Eventually when even this descended into "has-been" territory, she got a new lease of life by re-inventing herself as a victim, because we all know that if you are both a celebrity and a victim, there are plenty of people with their own agendas to fulfill that are willing to help you and hold you up as the poster child for their campaign.

So with regard to your comment, it makes sense, especially if she was going to get involved in little ancillaries such as speaking tours that there would be a symbiosis where the feminists of the "man hating" variety were only to happy to promote her, and she was only too happy to take the money this new career provided.

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

Eh, it's only the end of the film... The meat of the film is the abuse that she received at the hands of her husband, and I have no doubt that that actually happened.

The 'porn as culprit' angle may be self-serving, but it's literally like 5 minutes of screentime, so I can ignore it and remember the accepted wisdom instead... It's not like they made a whole movie out of that premise.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] montrossboc-1 7 years ago

That's how it is done.

In 'Awakenings' the real life character De Niro plays raped the real girl Penelope Ann Miller played.

In Goodfellas, the real Big Paulie was banging Henry Hills wife, and ratted out the real life Tommy DeSimone because Tommy was trying to bang with Henry Hill's wife, therefore leading to Tommy's murder.

Let's not even talk about Ron Howard's movies.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

[–] zharth 7 years ago

I was intrigued when the movie switched gears halfway through, and was hoping for yet another switch in the third act, as the truth is often somewhere in the middle between two extremes (with a little bit of guilt on both sides). That would have made for a more interesting - and less clichéd - biopic.