This is a very well-edited and amusing documentary that investigates the cultural influence of one of the most polemic films ever made, as well as its impact on politics, the sexual revolution and the porn industry. An enlightening account that is fascinating and surprising.

someone tries to dispute with me over whether cinema is an ideological apparatus. there're great many historical facts to prove this, if cinema is not an ideological apparatus, why a self-publicized democratic nation like united states would make laws like 1930s hays code or 1950s maccarthyist blacklist to take total control of this medium. even when these laws are already made obsolete in present stage, why there was still great moral crusade from various religious groups which cooperated with some of the inland state government against an insignificant joke like DEEP THROAT? and it's just sex, a private matter you perform in the bedroom, and it's supposedly a freedom you're entitled to have without lawful interference! why all the fuss over it? ideological apparatus??? ok, it's not an argument about what cinema should be but what cinema is often prsented to be...my idea of cinema is CAMP! even i'm a complicated woman by mind, but i do like put my complexity into oblivion sometimes when i watch a movie. my notion of pure entertainment, and what cinema should be, is CAMP, a sheer celebration of apolitical aesthetics. let's face it, no matter how sharp my viewpoints can be, i cannot change the world. all the power i have is to avoid buying food from macdonald. (petite individual). i cannot change anything but pray for survival, free from disfranchisement, malicious discrimination and unjust condemnation. firstly, i wish to say, fellatio was not invented by linda lovelace even the publicity of deep throat in 70s seemed to favor giving people impressions that she was the first woman who could do that with her magical "verbal gift." there's always a thing called stag films way back to 1920s, even 1910s. okay, even in victorian age, there were naughty postcards with such illustrations. BUT i do wanna say, linda lovelace was indeed the one who popularized fellatio into the course of mainstream sex-culture (seriously, i think every male should be grateful to her! everyone who benefits from it in america should donate five-dollars to her..haha.) secondly, the changes of linda lovelace's public image as the ultimate miss fellatio also reflect the evolved process of second and third wave of feminism. she was originally a symbol of woman being free to pursue her own pleasure of sex. by the end of 70s, lovelace started to unite with the spectacled, serious prim second-wave feminists to protest that her performing fellatio was a open exploitaion against woman and watching her doing that is like being an accomplice of a rape scene. then lovelace retired as she aged. later by the end of 80s, penniless linda got paid again to exploit herself by flashing her body for some man's magzine. so she betrays again to everything she's said. in a brief, the public image of linda lovelace was being made over, over and over again in accrodance of the demands of feminist ideolgoies. thirdly, as for what linda lovelace's sexual revolution turns out to be...she just opens the gate of female-fetishizations with a justified name of sexual freedom. there could be a whole debate on approving porns or disappproving porns. porn is exploiting woman or liberating woman, blah blah blah. ok, i suppose it could be both, and it all depends on how you views it with or without a discerning eye. i attended a conference about gender studies on porn, and there were a two-people team doing surveys over the internet porns. their result is, the popular trend within the internet porn industries is still quite misogynistic, and those clips which receive most viewings still favor to gaze at woman as dimensionless object, and fellatio is still the most popular one. (the details of that reports were really hilarious, and the reactions of various users' responces made me laugh, let's skip that here)...and i did give them a feedback, why it's always sex on the target when it comes to woman's liberation. how about EQUAL PAY? i suppose the reason is simple, because man could also benefit from woman's sexual liberation. those sex workers are people who are stuck in their present conditions without a way out to make a regular living, so they have to declare things like they like to be whores, for the sake of the last petite pride left in them. but state could make welfare laws to help people like that instead of leaving all the responsibilities to them while remaining in a morally, socially condescedning attitude. at last, linda lovelace led a crappy senile days, living in a trailer, seriously ill, disgusted and disrespected by her kids, failed marriage. btw, there was some arguments made upon throat cancer caused oral sex. but some university (forget the name of it) chose to demonstrate that by using a picture of a headless woman receiving male head. what does it suggest? some say, it suggests that cunnilingus is to be condemened and man should watch out his health, while you woman could fellate as much as you want since your health is not in realm of foundamental significance. (ok, i just summarize those discussions made over it in that conference). gee, everything could be ideological, even sex. ok, maybe sometimes.