Writer Hart Williams coined a term for women who cite coercion to seek redemption for their time in the porn industry. He called it the "Linda Syndrome." Feminists have a different term: rape culture. Anti-violence educator Jackson Katz explains this concept in his book, The Macho Paradox. We live in a society where females are treated as sexual objects and sexual violence is common. Rape is accepted as a fact of life for girls and women, a nuisance that simply won't go away. Public figures like Rush Limbaugh, who hurled the epithet slut at a female law student, are part of the problem. So are BBC executives who quashed a special broadcast exposing British media personality Jimmy Savile as a serial rapist, and aired tribute programs instead.

From all reports, directors Epstein and Friedman tackle the rape question head on. The film emphasizes Traynor's brutality, which included forced acts of prostitution, gang rape, and bestiality. Actor Peter Sarsgaard reportedly turned away from the role at first, disturbed by the degree of violence he would have to portray. His character is full of menace, casting a "sinister gaze" as Seyfried basks in audience approval following a Deep Throat screening at Hef's place.

This may sound encouraging, like Lovelace will plumb their abusive relationship to shed light on the myriad ways our culture supports and condones rape. And maybe it will. But if the movie focuses solely on conflict between Linda and Chuck, it is more likely to limit our understanding. Viewers exposed to social problems framed as private problems tend to support individual-level solutions, such as putting a rapist in jail or hiding his intended victim. When social problems are linked to broader cultural conditions, like the sexual objectification of women, viewers endorse macro-level solutions such as gender discrimination education in schools.

This is a tall order for Epstein and Friedman, akin to merging director Brian Gibson's 1993 domestic violence drama What's Love Got To Do With It? with documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock's 2004 indictment of the fast food industry, Super Size Me. Like Gibson, who emphasized Tina and Ike Turner's tumultuous relationship, Epstein and Friedman are assured of viewer interest in an explosive duo, Linda and Chuck. Like Spurlock, who used his one-man McDonald's eat-a-thon to shed light on the causes of the American obesity epidemic, they have the opportunity to connect the specificity of Linda's experience, including lack of education and opportunity, a naïveté that made her a perfect target for sex trafficking, and powerlessness against male violence, to systemic cultural conditions that support the global persistence of rape.

I suspect that Lovelace will be more Gibson than Spurlock, doing more harm than good. Rape victims sometimes describe the interrogation by police, hospital personnel, and the criminal courts as a second rape. I think that's how Linda would respond to the sight of Seyfried performing oral sex on a popsicle (faux penis prop) positioned between Sarsgaard's legs, and joking with Conan O'Brien on late night television about the additional "slurping noises" she recorded in the studio. Perhaps Epstein and Friedman can pull this off ethically, finding a way to tell Linda's story without contributing to her exploitation. Maybe the Sundance audience will walk away with an understanding of rape culture, rather than just adding insult to the physical and emotional injuries she sustained. That would be a nice legacy to associate with the memory of Linda Lovelace, but don't bet your lift ticket on it.

* This post originally stated that Arizona Judge Jacqueline Hatch made comments in regards to a case about rape, not sexual abuse. We regret the error.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.