She wasnt going to do any more porn films, and in the interview she said she spent 17 days in the porn industry, implying she did that one film--- but on her IMDB page it says shes been in 4 porn films along with "Deep throat II" is that a lie or miscommunication of information?
sharePorn movies in general are made very quickly, usually over the course of a few days. It is very possible that she only spent 17 actual days of her life making porn movies.
sharethe movie wasnt very clear, i have not checked out her IMDB movie list, but she said numerous times she was done, no more porn for her.. and the only movie they really touched on was deepthroat.. so its a bit decieving
shareShe starred in DogF@#kers(a bestiality film) in 1971. Deepthroat in 1972. Deepthroat II in 1974 and Linda Lovelace for President (there was an X rated version) in 1975. Doesn't seem plausible she only spent 17 days of her life making porn movies. At least not consecutively.
"He killed sixteen Czechoslovakians. Guy was an interior decorator."
Like I said, porn movies are shot in a quick manner. Deepthroat was probably the one that took the longest but I am guessing it still took under a week and if the others were shot on a similar schedule, there is no reason not to think she is being truthful about 17 days of total shooting.
share
I believe in the 80's Lovelace denied the existence of the fetish/stag films - can't say I blame her. Once the internet age rolled around it became undeniable - I think she died shortly thereafter.
So yeah, the "17 day's" thing was a lie but that was her story at the time.
That was my point. She very well could have been accurate on the 17 days line. She only shot 4 movies that anyone knows about and you could easily shoot 4 porn movies in 17 days.
shareIt doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. The movie wasn't made in 1980, it was made today when the filmmakers knew damn well how much porn she did, yet they chose to tailor everything to make it seem like she was some innocent who accidently fell into Deepthroat then escaped to fight the power.
There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.
Well, she wasn't evil, right? Did she aim to maliciously hurt the innocent and the non-combatants in her life? You don't hit an innocent person, but you don't attack them verbally and slander their character too.
--------------------------------------------
I Take that Back
There were loops too (short wacking-off films for adult theaters).
There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.
I haven't seen the movie, but what interview are you talking about? In real life she never said such a thing. As a matter of fact, she left porn but because of her drug addiction she went back into it. She has mentioned that several times.
shareThere's a Donahue interview that ends the film.
There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.
Some of the story was fabricated for the sake of the film. Hence the phrase "based on a true story" during the opening credits.
She said at one point that DTII and other films she appeared in were cobbled together from leftover bits from the original Deep Throat. So that might explain it.
shareThe movie implies that the making of Deep Throat only took about 5 days. After the first day of shooting, somebody says "One day down. Four more to go," or something like that.
shareNot 100% sure, but I heard that she only appears in DT2 and LLFP. She does not do any sex scenes in those movies.
shareShe made a lot of "loops" before "Deep Throat" like the infamous one where she rapes a dog. They didn't bother to mention that. Nor did they bother to mention most of the period where she gladly tried to capitalize on being Linda Lovelace (late-night talk shows, a brief Vegas revue, the movie "Linda Lovelace for President"). She only became a "victim of porn" in 1980 when her 15 minutes were up and being a porn star didn't take her where she wanted to go. It's highly suspicious.
This movie just bought her victimology hook, line, and sinker. There's nothing wrong with presenting her side of things, but many, many people have very different accounts of these events. Why buy into hers so much that you dishonestly leave out the parts of her life that don't fit the "victim" narrative. They should have said this is "based on the highly questionable and probably largely fictionalized autobiography of Linda Lovelace".
"...rapes a dog" lol lol lol
shareThe whole first part shows her as naive, but not unhappy. There are bruises on her legs but it does not show what Chuck did to CAUSE these. Not much like her autobiography "Ordeal."
WEIRD
It shows Chuck beating her in the movies several times... You shouldn't watch movies if you can't read between the lines. Lololol
shareBUT it shows THAT in Flashback after it happened. I read about "Ordeal" on Ash Wednesday 1980 in the Detroit Free Press . Was already depressed about my Grandmother dying and my late Mother being out of town to take care of her. I was a struggling premed and I let it eat me UP inside!
I grabbed a free press off the college library shelf and was weeping at the end.
And I came back to it Over...and OVER Again!
Some people claim she lied about a lot of things, like having a gun pointed at her off screen. A lot of performers becomes burned out after a while, and some go anti-porn. So when she wanted to get out and didn't have a lot of money to show for her work and needed to get a real life she would have to paint herself in a positive light. I wasn't there, but if she was just a sex addict and swinger maybe she didn't want to be reminded by everyone at PTA meetings that she did porn, so lied about the abuse.
share[deleted]
I just don't understand why the film was cut and edited the way it was. The flip in the storyline from sympathetic starlet to brutalized victim confused the film. The performances were solid. The Screenplay and editing should have been better given the level of the performances.
share