Screen scene

“Inside Deep Throat” Directed by Fenton
Bailey and Randy Barbato Universal Pictures

Would you believe that Richard Nixon had problems with more than
one Deep Throat? As the documentary “Inside Deep
Throat” shows, not only was Nixon forced to resign because of
a White House informant named Deep Throat, he also started a battle
over censorship and First Amendment rights over the pornographic
film of the same name. In “Inside Deep Throat,”
directors Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato explore the history and
lasting influence of this “most profitable film ever
made” (it was shot for $25,000, and has made $600 million
since its 1972 release). The cultural impact of the original
“Deep Throat,” they find, is nowhere near limited to
scandal and adult movie theaters. “Deep Throat”
premiered in New York in 1972, and as Bailey and Barbato reveal,
quickly went from being “The Little Porno That Could”
to a symbol of sexual liberation and freedom of expression for a
historically repressed nation. Even as crowds were lining up to see
the film, the backlash began. Politicians labeled it as obscene,
and took legal action to suppress anything resembling it. As the
conflict mounted over whether to censor the film, sides were taken
in that ever-persisting battle of American morality: the so-called
“culture war.” A major strength of “Inside Deep
Throat” is that it tells an effective human story. Bailey and
Barbato’s use of interviews and carefully chosen archive
footage turns caricatures into characters. For example, Larry
Parrish, the federal prosecutor who successfully fought to convict
“Deep Throat” star Harry Reems of obscenity, says he
was simply following the law in doing so. But later in the film,
when Parrish characterizes the participants of “Deep
Throat” as “prostitutes and whoremongers,” it is
clear that his interest in the case went beyond mere legal concern.
Presenting insightful character studies such as this lends
complexity to “Inside Deep Throat” and prevents it from
falling into brazen exposé (which is especially difficult for
a film with an NC-17 rating). When “Inside Deep Throat”
takes this humanizing instinct too far is actually when it
stumbles. The film’s telling of Linda Lovelace’s story,
though poignant and compelling in its tragedy (in the aftermath of
“Deep Throat” she was shunned by the media and
employers, and died penniless in 2002), seems more like an E! True
Hollywood Story than part of a socially far-reaching documentary.
Also, the film ennobles the original “Deep Throat” too
readily. Although a clear and convincing case is made for
“Deep Throat” as a symbol of a sexually liberal
society, it is apparent that even its director thought it was just
another stag film going nowhere. But ultimately, “Inside Deep
Throat” does what any effective documentary does: in
exploring the past, it comments on the present. As in 1972, there
is rampant controversy today about sex in the media and the
attempts to suppress it. “Inside Deep Throat” partially
stands as a warning against censorship, as it shows that a
“culture war” is nothing new; that which was condemned
as obscene 30 years ago could still be outlawed in 2005. The film
asks the essential question, “Are Americans really that much
more free now than they were in the 1970s?” We probably
don’t need self-proclaimed “moral leader” Richard
Nixon to answer that question for us. ““ Nick
Rudman