So the (is it considered a biopic?) movie about Linda Lovelace and her time in the porn industry is out now. I remember when they were first talking about this movie, adapted from Lovelace's tell-all or whatever, and I remember wondering why they were making the movie in the first place.
The word going around was that it would portray the brutal demeaning stuff that Lovelace had to endure during her time in the industry, including some pretty wretched treatment at the hands of her boyfriend. And they were talking like the movie would not hold back in putting that stuff on screen.
Lindsay Lohan was trying desperately to get this role (and Malin Akerman as well, or perhaps that was a competing adaptation) and at the time I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to go through all that stuff in a movie. But the part went to uber cutie Amanda Seyfried, which saddened me even more.
The other thing that gets me is why would anyone want to watch this in the first place? The story is such a downer, maybe it's just me, but I don't want to go to a movie to be depressed. There's the voyeur aspect of course, which I'm sure will drive some fans, mostly men, who want to see Seyfried naked:
But I'm just not getting it. Same goes for Lohan, who got her wish to play a sort of battered and abused woman in a highly sexual atmosphere in The Canyons. I did a post years ago about how it always amazes me that these actresses always look to play hookers or strippers when they want to show range or maturity in their careers. Is that Seyfried's thinking here? I haven't looked, but she seems to me to have a pretty impressive resume to date. She doesn't need this role. I can see Lindsay thinking she might, to resurrect her own flagging career, but either Amanda or Malin . . . not seein' it.
And like I said, not seein' this movie either.