 | edt4 (103)
01/12/2006 |  Ambivalence on this one. Yeah, in her heyday, she was breathtakingly hot, no question. I wasn't all that aware of her until the "underage porn actress" thing sort of took hold in the headlines. She can't really act, but then the sort of movies she appears in now, she's not really required to act, let's face it. But, then again, even the worst of her grade B or C movies are a step above porno, which qualifies her as a survivor of some sort. Pornography by its nature is an exploitative, sleazy business, and on the one hand, my instinct is to applaud the fact that she's survived it and even carved out a sort of unique B-actress niche for herself in legitimate film. On the other hand, there's something very hard and calculating about her, and she really doesn't fit comfortably into the "victim" category. Which may be her ultimate triumph, of course. But to me, "underage porn actress" signifies a child who is raped, abused and powerless to prevent her exploitation. These children are truly victims. Lords entered the industry with her eyes open, willingly. She lied to people. It doesn't make their exploitation any less repellent, but it doesn't do much to authenticate her claim of victimhood either.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |