The Real... (TV Series) Linda Lovelace (2002) User Reviews

The Real Linda Lovelace

[a_baron · 7/10 · 4 December 2019]

Linda Lovelace became the star of a notorious sex comedy, a film named "Deep Throat" which was made on a shoestring budget but brought in tens of millions at the box office at 1972 prices. If you haven't seen the film, you have surely heard the cultural reference. Her fame was short lived, and so was her fortune. This led to her turning against the porn industry and especially her husband, Chuck Traynor. This film was made shortly after her death in a car crash; Traynor, who appears herein, died from a heart attack shortly after it was finished but prior to its release. Although he is scored as the villain of the piece, he comes over badly but not that badly.

The truth is that Linda Lovelace was an incredibly depraved woman. Prior to "Deep Throat" she made a film that involved her having sex with a dog. That is discussed here. Lovelace and her second wave feminist friends would have the viewer believe she was the victim of multiple rapes by Traynor and of gang rape by his chums, something she bowed to only at the point of a gun. How many women do you know who would have sex with a dog, even at the point of a gun?

Don't be fooled by her little girl lost image; Linda Borman authored her own misfortune. She must have made a fair amount of money. Had she squirreled some of it away, she would never have given the time of day to the likes of Andrea Dworkin.

Good Documentary

[Michael_Elliott · 2 June 2016]

The Real Linda Lovelace (2001)

*** (out of 4)

This U.K. documentary promises to introduce us to the "real" Linda Lovelace but I'd have to question how successful it is. There are a few different people interviewed here but the main person is Chuck Traynor, her now infamous first husband. The documentary tells Linda's story while we also hear from Traynor who usually goes against what was presented in Linda's first book, which she claimed she was forced into what became her profession.

For the most part this is an entertaining documentary but trying to figure out the "real" Linda is nearly impossible as the film points out. She had so many different sides in her life that it's hard to know which was really her. She became famous for DEEP THROAT and road its coattails to fame but later she said that she was forced to do it and even rallied to get the film banned. Then, later in life, she went against the feminist who she had previously fought with.

It seems some look at Lovelace as nothing more than a liar while others see her as some sort of victim. I personally think the truth is somewhere in the middle and for the most part this film offers up an entertaining look at her life. Depending on which side of the fence you're on, you might say the film sides more with Linda was lying about the abuse or at least not being fully honest in her books. You can be the judge.

Junk that should tell the viewer a thing or two about the makers

[ersbel · 8 January 2016]

This is a piece of junk that should tell the viewer a thing or two about the quality of the makers (script/ directing). So you have the violent husband talking about Linda Lovelace. The makers have a preference for people who weren't in contact with her at the time. So there is no Hugh Hefner, but there is the competition Larry Flint. Why? Maybe they weren't ready to play along with the moralistic theme of the poor lawmakers going against smut on TV. The husband is a pimp and Linda is used as a prostitute, yet the talking heads are edited to talk about photos and film which started some one year later.

The time line is intentionally twisted also. Linda Lovelace for President was made AFTER she decided to get out of porn and features some nudity and no sex, yet at some 14 minutes into the documentary she is shown talking how she'll be 65 and still willing to play in an X rated film.

One has to admire the hypocrisy: making a film about porn, talking about porn, yet you can hardly see a naked shoulder.

In short, this is an abusing documentary that prefers the first biography dictated by the husband to "Ordeal", published some two decades before this junk was made and in which Linda Lovelace gives more detail and less erotica. And maybe by 2001 it would have been known even in the UK that the polygraph is unreliable, or simpler: woo-woo.

Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch