Deep Throat (1972) from Tuna
Deep Throat (1972) was one of the first hard core films to be mass marketed and widely distributed. It was written and directed by Gerard Damiano, and starred Linda Lovelace as a woman who couldn't have an orgasm until Dr. Harry Reems discovered that her clit was in her throat. The good doctor wears himself out servicing his nurse, Carol Connors and Lovelace. Linda's roommate, Dolly Sharp, organizes a parade of men to try to satisfy Linda, but can't resist trying a few herself. The film is really more of a comedy than anything else.
Deep Throat doesn't hold up very well, although it has many of the "features" of a modern hard core, including a shaved beaver (Lovelace), the money shot, and loud music during the sex scenes.  

NUDITY REPORT
a famous early hardcore sex film
 I have a great reverence for these early porn efforts for several reasons. First, by putting hard core in the limelight, they extended what would be acceptable in mainstream films. These pioneers risked jail, but managed to roll back the censorship laws. Second, they at least tried for a plot. 
Unfortunately, we still don't have good erotica in mainstream films. It is not the MPAA, although they play a part, but rather economics. NC-17 means no theatrical release, and hence no distribution deals, as the youth market drives what is released to theaters. There was a time in the late 70's and early 80's when it looked like they might create a hardcore that would hold up as a film as well, but video tape and rental stores killed the quality adult industry. I don't know that we ever see explicit sex in mainstream (high production value, strong plot and good acting) films, but if someone films one, and finds a way to distribute it at a profit, going to jail on pornography charges is no longer much of a risk. 

The Critics Vote

  • none

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.7 
  • With their dollars ... made for $24,000, it grossed in excess of $20 million in the USA
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics - or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, I give the film a C-, based partially on its historical importance.

Return to the Movie House home page