The real story behind the movie Lovelace

Making a movie about former porn star Linda Lovelace was always going to be fraught with controversy, but for producer Heidi Jo Markel (Eclectic Pictures) Linda’s story was too important to be ignored.

Lovelace poster

Lovelace poster

Lovelace is not a film that glorifies Linda’s life. Rather it sends an important message and warning about domestic violence, the subjugation of women and how making wrong decisions can have a lasting effect on the rest of your days.

Sharon Stone plays Linda's mother

Sharon Stone plays Linda’s mother

I’ve seen Lovelace twice and found it profoundly moving, at times entertaining and yes, absolutely confronting. Actor Amanda Seyfried puts in a brilliant performance as Lovelace, as does Sharon Stone, who plays her domineering mother.

 

 

And let’s not forget Peter Sarsgaard as Linda’s abusive husband Chuck Traynor. I can’t remember when I last saw so convincing a portrayal of such a manipulative and repugnant character.

One of the most startling facts revealed in the movie is that Linda Lovelace only spent SEVENTEEN DAYS working in the porn industry. The rest of her life, she campaigned against pornography and was an advocate for women’s rights.

Being in LA last week meant I had an opportunity to catch up with Heidi Jo Markel and learn more about why she was so committed to making this movie. We met for dinner at one of Hollywood’s most renowned establishments, Chateau Marmont, for a chat over dinner.

Heidi-Jo Markel

Heidi-Jo Markel

Markel first came across the concept for the Linda Lovelace story decades ago. ‘I was subconsciously tracking her story since the mid-eighties. I was too young to even really know what Deep Throat was, but I do remember Linda Lovelace speaking out against pornography and I remember thinking what an incredible juxtaposition. As it is, when anyone at the top of their field turns against it, therein lies a story,’ she said.

 

 

Many years later, Markel watched a documentary ‘Inside Deep Throat’ and learnt more about the abusive relationship between Linda and her then husband, Chuck Traynor. ‘That’s when I had a goose bump moment,’ said Markel.  ‘Linda was almost his prisoner, his property, his sex slave and that’s what I realised was the story.’

Markel first established Eclectic Pictures almost ten years ago and has well earned the respect of the industry, producing films garnering acclaim such as Trust, Solitary Man and Playing for Keeps. Markel also took on the role of Executive Producer for the recent blockbuster Olympus Has Fallen. Ideally, she’d like to focus on more movies with strong lead roles for women. Like Lovelace.

Amanda Seyfried as Linda Lovelace

Amanda Seyfried as Linda Lovelace

Choosing the right actress for the role of Linda Lovelace was crucial. ‘You have to remember, at the start of this movie, we were looking at a very vulnerable young lady,’ said Markel. ‘She was oppressed by her parents before her captor. She was a Catholic schoolgirl with the nickname “Miss Holy Holy”. She didn’t lose her virginity till she was almost twenty years old. Then she got pregnant and was a prisoner in her parent’s home for about two years. So you need an actor who can play that vulnerability.’ Actor Amanda Seyfried was the perfect choice.

But what about critics who believe making such a movie only serves to glorify pornography? How did Markel go about explaining what she was working on to her family and friends? She took her time to consider these questions. ‘I had a hard time with this movie early on in that I had a devout Christian upbringing and I went to church every Sunday. I ran with that crowd and am still close with my parents and their generation, so for me to explain what I was working on was a bit awkward,’ she said.

‘I was a little concerned with the establishment over 60 as to whether they would respect it or not. Early on in the development process, we brought on board consultants; Gloria Steinem and Catharine MacKinnon, who is one of the greatest female rights attorneys of all time who represented Linda during the Senate hearings) on board as consultants, then the literati, the glitterati and the feminist elite fell in line to support the picture.

With such a salacious topic, Markel was surprised that the eldest of her family group have been the most supportive. ‘Just recently I was at a funeral with a lot of my parent’s friends, folks in their 80s. I was surprised they were all super excited to see this film, which meant a lot. I didn’t expect that.’ This is when Markel’s face lit up. Acceptance and approval from one’s family and friends is always important, no matter how successful you are.

Peter Saarsgard and Amanda Seyfriend

Peter Saarsgard and Amanda Seyfriend

Without wanting to give too much away about the movie itself, I’ll give you the heads up – don’t be fooled by the film’s light-hearted beginning. Structurally, not far in, it does a sharp U-turn and the story takes a much darker direction. This unusual idea was pitched by directing phenomenons, Rob Epstein and Jeffery Friedman, then executed by wunderkind writer, Andy Bellin. ‘I feel so blessed to have worked with such outstanding talent,’ says Markel. In doing so, the film achieves a clever balance between flash forward and present moments to draw the threads of Linda’s story together.

Yet still, when it came to an end, I wanted to know more about Linda’s later years.

How did the filmmakers decide when to end Linda’s story? ‘It was a big struggle for all of us,’ said Markel. ‘I very much wanted to include more of Linda’s activist stance and it troubled me greatly to diminish it. However, when we tested it on audiences, the few scenes filmed that summed up Linda’s activism seemed to open a Pandora’s box of more unanswered questions.  Structurally, it made the most sense to end the story shortly after Linda escaped her abusive husband, our main antagonist.’

So was she happy with the final result? ‘I always want more. What I do think is that this film erred on the side of being a disciplined 92 minutes…. personally, I think the audiences could have handled more, but studios are more conservative, relying strictly on test scores.  But yes, I am proud of it.’

Markel is being a harsh critic, but it’s refreshing to hear a Hollywood producer speak with such honesty. Especially given the film has received wide critical acclaim. Even talkback TV host Larry King gave the film his stamp of approval, saying, ‘Both Amanda Seyfried and Sharon Stone should win Oscars,’  – a rare tick from a man who wields huge influence.

Markel almost seems happier with how the film has helped Lovelace’s two now adult children, Dominic and Lindsay, come to terms with their mother’s past.

The 'real' Linda Lovelace

The ‘real’ Linda Lovelace

 

‘They took a blind leap of faith to go with us based on the recommendation from their attorney. And they trusted us. These kids are the most wonderful, loving kids,’ she said.  ‘The only dark part of their life is that they felt their mother’s shame from the whole experience, how Deep Throat had left her. They were proud of her for speaking out but it caused them a lot of problems too because her activism put the family under the spotlight. They didn’t know how to explain their mother’s situation to a lot of people and it was a huge burden.’

 

Markel says the movie has liberated the whole family. ‘They can now tell their peers and co-workers about their mother and they can own her story. A lot of has evolved in the past few decades and there is no shame in having been a victim. Linda spoke out because she wanted her story to be told. She lived a horror story and she didn’t want it to happen to other people.’

It’s also very important to Markel that the film exerts an influence over women trapped in similar circumstances. ‘I promise you, there will be women out there who will see this film and will think twice about the situation they’re in. You might think things have changed in the porn industry, but they haven’t. There will always be young women caught up with scummy men.’

But it’s not just the porn industry Markel is referring to. ‘It might just be someone who is in a relationship where they are being controlled and told what to do and how to think all the time. That’s my biggest fear as a mother of my daughter. I don’t want some strange man to have a huge influence over my daughter so that she is subjugated to his opinions and thoughts and that he might take away her freedom to express herself.’

All good reasons to see Lovelace, but ultimately, it’s also a finely directed and produced and movie with a strong cast. Go see it on the big screen and let me know what you think.

Lovelace opens at Village Cinemas across the country this Thursday, September 26th.

 

 

 

 

 

Les Miserables – a masterpiece, but don’t forget the tissues!

Les Miserables

Les Miserables

 

Ah, Les Miserables – I should have known that with Cameron Mackintosh producing and Tom Hooper directing, you couldn’t disappoint. But having such a strong passion for the musical version, I was fearful the movie wouldn’t live up to expectations.

Reading the history of the film’s development, it’s clear the road to final completion has been long and challenging with many changes in the production team along the way. Alan Parker was first named as the film’s director way back in 1988… and then there was a period where development stopped altogether.

But after attending Melbourne’s premiere of the film on Friday night, I’m delighted to say the wait has been worthwhile. Based on Victor Hugo’s French novel from 1862, the epic screen adaptation is a triumph. While the story of Les Miserables is already a proven winner, (the stage show having been seen by an estimated 60 million people world-wide) it’s effect on the audience weighs heavily on the actors ability to impart the emotional  authenticity of their experience. And this is where the film’s success lies – in brilliant casting and performances.

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean

Hugh Jackman has long been recognised as a strong performer, but this truly IS his moment. As Jean Valjean, he conveys emotional depth and pain with a power and intensity that resonates immediately and continues throughout the length of the film. I don’t think I’ve gone through so many tissues in one film for quite some time. While I’m a huge Daniel Day-Lewis fan, it’s disappointing to hear that many believe Jackman will be robbed of an Oscar opportunity with Day-Lewis already being lauded an Oscar favourite.

There’s also been much publicity about the fact that the actors filmed their songs ‘live’ to camera, with an orchestra added in post-production. It’s a brilliant approach that adds enormously to the film’s strength because of the authenticity from the vocal performances. Anything else would have felt contrived.

Russell Crowe as Javert

Russell Crowe as Javert

Much has also been said of Russell Crowe’s performance – that’s it’s sub-standard and there’s many an actor who would have been better cast in the role of Inspector Javert. Quite frankly, I didn’t mind Russell’s portrayal. He obviously doesn’t possess the same vocal talents as Jackman, but – and probably BECAUSE the actors sang live – I felt his performance had strength in it’s weakness – that the weakness he conveyed was that of his character, which made him all the more human and believable. If moments of doubt were seen in his eyes, I saw that as an expression of his character doubting the strength of his own convictions – not Crowe doubting the strength of his own voice. It is Jean Valjean who forces Javert to reassess all his beliefs, and surely we as an audience, must see this occurring if we are to ultimately believe the path Javert chooses that leads to his downfall.

Anne Hathaway as Fantine

Anne Hathaway as Fantine

Anne Hathaway as Fantine is exceptional. Well deserving of all accolades she’s already received, Hathaway surprises with her ability. Passionate about the role, Hathaway reportedly threw herself into the part one hundred per cent, losing a lot of weight and her own hair as part of the process to achieve her remarkable performance. Is it possible to feel more despair than she conveys with those huge, dark eyes? Even her voice tears at the heart. Her version of ‘I Dreamed A Dream’ is powerful yet fragile, and I’m sure would have warranted a standing ovation had it been live theatre.

 

Samantha Barks as Eponine

Samantha Barks as Eponine

It’s also pleasing to see theatre actors included. Samantha Barks, cast as Eponine, played the role for a year in London and is outstanding. The only problem with her work is that she is so utterly convincing, it’s almost hard to believe Marius would actually prefer Cosette (played by Amanda Seyfriend) above her. Although fortunately Marius, played by the wonderful Eddie Redmayne, is perfectly cast for the role and ultimately persuades us of his undying love for Cosette. I don’t think I’ve seen a truer expression of ‘young love’ lighting up the face of a male actor with more conviction in many years.

My only criticism of the film would be about some of the overly dark and melodramatic set production, designed to give the audience a feel for the oppression and poverty experienced by those prior to the French Revolution in 1832. At times, (while we watch Fantine’s life fall apart) the shadows and lurid make-up give the film a pantomime-esque and surreal flavour. Perhaps the intention is to recreate a sense of theatre, but it subtracts from the real tragedy that is taking place. But that’s a minor issue when weighed up against the films achievements and that of its actors.

Overall, it’s bound to go down in history as a classic and one that shouldn’t be missed. Make sure you see it over the holidays on the big screen – although given it’s remarkable power, I’m sure it’ll be in the cinemas for quite some time to come. I know I’ll be going back to see it again. And again… and again…