More Linda, Less ‘Deep Throat’ at ‘Lovelace’ LA Premiere

Lovelace Premiere Party
Kevin Winter/Getty Images

The cast and filmmakers behind Animus Films, Millennium Films, Eclectic Pictures and Radius-TWC’s “Lovelace” packed Hollywood’s Egyptian Theater Aug. 5 to pull the covers off the real story of Linda Susan Boreman aka “Deep Throat’s” Linda Lovelace.

Despite the success of the pornographic hit that spawned Linda Lovelace, those involved with the eponymous release had little regard for the 1972 film.

“If you really look at the movie, it is a really funny goofy film that used sex at a time when pornography was in its infancy. It made it okay for people to go see it and not feel ashamed,” said Chris Noth, who plays “Deep Throat” financier Anthony Romano. “It was sort of a cultural event, like everyone had to go see this thing. It’s not like it was a great movie.”

“I watched it once — once is enough,” says co-director Jeffrey Friedman.

Co-director Rob Epstein agreed. “We watched snippets. It was revolutionary in its time for its genre so we had to find ways to characterize that within our movie even though it is completely goofy and farcical and you look at it now and it just looks like bad filmmaking”

“I saw 15 minutes of it at most,” says Amanda Seyfried, who plays Lovelace. And what about that infamous scene from the 1972 film? “No, I did not have to learn how to deep throat for the film.”

“Lovelace” charts Boreman’s transformation from a naive young woman into a champion of women’s rights and outspoken critic of pornography.

“She was the poster child for the sexual revolution and spent the rest of her life trying to explain who she really was,” Epstein said.

After the screening stars including Sarah Hyland, Cory Hardrick, Juno Temple, Sharon Stone, Carmen Electra and Tony Hawk hoofed it down Hollywood Blvd. to the Victorian-styled Hotel Juniper for the shoulder-to-shoulder after party.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 2

Leave a Reply

2 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. G. Jardoness says:

    I am truly mystified by the motives and the mixed-messages surrounding this film. In this article alone, there exists campy-reminiscences, prudish aversions and embarrassed admissions, and a gratuitous throw-away acknowledgement to the title character’s advocacy….

    The filmmakers seem intent on both capitalizing on the salaciousness while diluting and apologizing for its impact and message. It’s like running into a haunted house while insisting nothing be really scary there.

    Either seek to deliver upon what made this story disturbing and traumatic and unique, or admit, it’s a subject you would not or could not credibly tackle… It’s not a question of being explicit. It’s about presenting a serious story in a way which does it justice and should make us care — not present it in such a conditional manner which overtly and self-consciously feels the need to constantly remind us it’s only a movie.

More Film News from Variety

Loading