Oh, Deep Throat. Oh, Linda Lovelace and the clitoris located oh-so-ironically in the back of your throat. Let me tell you, folks, if you're not bored to tears by the first four minutes of the film, which are a continuous shot of Lovelace in a car, then you will be stunned by the sheer amount of pubic hair in this film from the 1972.
A little background about the movie
Deep Throat was directed by Gerard Damiano and released in the US in 1972. A film that caused a stir both in the courts and on the streets, Deep Throat follows actress Linda Lovelace's journey to find sexual satisfaction. Lovelace complains to her friend Helen (actress Dolly Sharp) that she enjoys sex but has never "gotten off" in her whole entire life. This is, indeed, a tragedy, so Helen lines up 12 different men for Lovelace to have sex with. After the plan also fails to produce an orgasm in Lovelace, she goes to see Dr. Young (Harry Reems). Turns out, the poor girl's clitoris is located not in her genitals, but in the back of her throat. The doctor recommends "deep throating" as a cure to Lovelace's troubles, and he hires her to perform such acts in order to satisfy her and his patients, who have weird sex fetishes. We then see Lovelace with some sort of test tube stuck up her vagina, only to have a man drinking soda out of it! The movie concludes with Lovelace finally finding a man who is "big enough" to marry, a man with a rape fetish portrayed by the director himself! We can see why this movie might turn a few heads.
Pros and Cons
From an entertainment standpoint, this movie was certainly interesting. It had a plot line, which is not always the case in pornography. I would argue the first four minutes is slightly boring, and the last 25 minutes or so did nothing to turn me on, but the fact that the film was developed is commendable. There were also many funny moments, such as when Dr. Young claimed he would be able to hear himself cum if his balls were in his ears. Not to mention the hilarious and ironic music that persisted throughout the film (although I was disappointed that I couldn't hear much moaning). It is evident that this film really attempted to be accepted by mainstream audiences as well as more pornographically aligned ones.
I definitely had a few complaints while watching this film. First, there was really too much music. It was very distracting, and since I get turned on by moaning, I don't know that I would be able to use this film in any sexual act. Second, about 45 minutes into the movie, the camera angles begin switching very frequently. Again, it was very distracting, and I would be hard-pressed (haha) to use this movie seriously in sex or masturbation. Third, between about 33 minutes and 45 minutes, the movie gets very boring pornographically - there is very little sex portrayed, and it is done so comically when it does. Okay for casual porn viewing, but AGAIN, hard to take seriously. Fourth, Lovelace is supposed to "nurse" a man whose sexual fetish is pretending to rape women. While this is solely a scenario, it is slightly troublesome that this type of situation would be included in the film. Since many feminists, and people in general, are opposed to pornography because they believe it depicts rape, I think the inclusion of the man's rape fetish is a bit risky. That scene also emphasizes sexist notions of women: Lovelace says, "I need a big, strong man" after giving up masturbating for the rape fetish man. The film also reinforces the idea that women need to be married. Fifth, there was other troubling language throughout the film. For example, Helen says, "Everybody gets a little piece of this action" about Lovelace - yuck. Other offensive and disgusting quotes in my opinion were: "What's a nice joint like you doing in a girl like her?" Helen's reference to cunnilingus as "breakfast" for the man, and "The man I marry has to have a nine inch cock," which sets up unrealistic standards for male viewers of their own dicks.
There were many positives to this movie, though which somewhat surprised me! The movie is full of average-looking men and women who have what would be considered average-sized breasts and dicks. Some are shaved, some not. Some are tan, some not! I feel that women and men can better relate to pornography when the actors and actresses look like normal people. The movie also includes a wide variety of sexual positions, such as missionary, doggy style, reverse cowgirl, and even a threesome! Female pleasure is in no way ignored - there is a lot of eating out performed in this movie for sure! This is somewhat balanced out by the number of blow jobs...but they are never more than about 5 minutes long, and do not include cum being squirted into Lovelace's eye. One may also notice that the men never cum inside the female actresses, and while I cannot rightfully guess the reason, it seems like it may be a respectful thing (since I doubt this was pulling out to prevent pregnancy). The close-ups on the actresses faces during the sex scenes also prevented viewers from being too distanced from the people behind the body parts, and I felt like the women were not totally objectified throughout the film like in some other pornographic films.
On an even more fundamental level, the movie acknowledges that the woman's pleasure center is in her clitoris, not her vagina! Since this movie was produced almost 40 years ago, this is fairly remarkable and an important feature to notice. It may seem demoralizing that a woman's clitoris is separated from the rest of her erogenous zones as a way to make including a lot of blow jobs seem okay, but I think this movie has a different message. Many women even today see blow jobs as degrading - I think this movie attempts to portray blow jobs as a thing that women can enjoy and do not have to resist on principle because everyone tells them it is "ladylike" to do so. Personally, I enjoy performing oral sex - it makes me feel sexy and like I have the power to pleasure my partner like no one else! So, while many could argue that this movie is degrading toward women, I would argue that it is no more degrading to women than it is to men, and that it portrays oral sex for everyone in a positive light.
Quick Conclusion
Overall, I would watch this movie simply because of the impact it had on society in its time, and because it is most DEFINITELY one-of-a-kind. Plus, the angry bushes are AWESOME and a definite fresh change from the total absence of pubes in modern pornography.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment