Re-Watching the Classics: Harper

Harper is a neo noir from 1966 directed by Jack Smight. When a producer asked writer William Goldman to find him a script with a harder edge, Goldman recommended Ross Macdonald’s Archer books. He was asked to write a screenplay and choice the first book in the series “The Moving Target.”

This movie was Goldman’s first solo screenplay writing credit and started the career of one of the greatest screenwriters in history.

So why is this movie called “Harper” and not “The Moving Target” or “Archer”? Well I have found three possibilities for this change of title in my research. I will call these theories since I do not know which one is right. One is Paul Newman wanted the name change to continue his streak of hits starting with H, including The Hustler and Hud, Hombre would come out a year later. The second theory is the film rights were for the story only and the rights to the Lew Archer name was not included in the deal. The third is the Macdonald estate was not pleased with the idea of a film and would not allow the use of the Archer name. Hard to say what really happened here, but I suspect theory two or three is true and they named it Harper because of theory one.

Either way, we got a throwback film in the vain of a classic film noir revolving around a private eye. This must have been an exciting film for fans of noir that didn’t really have a lot to choice from in the 1960’s. Fans of film noir also got to see some familiar faces from some of their past favorites. They got three of the best actresses from the classic film noir era making appearances in this film, Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, and Shelly Winters.

Paul Newman plays Harper as a wise cracking, tough as nails, street smart private detective, just like we like them. Harper is a little more wise than some of our detectives in the past, for instance all three of our female legends try to use their feminine ways on our hero in various ways, but all fall in the end. In fact he uses his charms on them to get what he wants more than the other way around. Harper may not have a lot of money, but he does have great taste. For instance I think his car tells much about the man. He has a Porsche, but it is a little beat up and in need of a tune-up and he has no money to do the proper repairs.

We do have a femme fatale or two in this film. Our first femme fatale is played by Pamela Tiffin who is a bit of a Lolita to Harper’s friend and the lawyer who got him this job, played by Arthur Hill.

Tiffin’s character also has a thing for pretty boy Allan Taggert, played by Robert Wagner. The thing is Taggert already has a femme fatale that is revealed later in the film.

This film is a twisted kidnapping case where Harper is hired by Bacall’s character to find her missing husband. As Harper tracks different leads, he discovers more strange characters. Will Harper find the kidnap victim before it is too late?

The first time I seen this, I was already a huge fan of Bacall and Newman and found the film good, but not great. On watching this again, I really found I enjoyed it much more. The wise cracking humor is very good and not over the top, especially Winters’ character. I think if you are a fan of hardboiled P.I.’s like Marlowe, Spade and Hammer you should give Archer…I mean Harper a try.

Favorite Tidbit: Frank Sinatra was offered the lead, but turned it down.

Review: Act of Violence

Act of Violence is a film noir from 1948 starring two of the genres greats, Van Heflin and Robert Ryan.  This film also stars Janet Leigh in only her fifth film, and Mary Astor in a small part as a prostitute.  This film is also an early film by director Fred Zinnemann.

This film starts out showing our World War II vet, Heflin is happily married to Leigh and a successful business owner in suburbia California.  Heflin and his neighbor are packing for a fishing trip and heading up to a mountain lake for some R and R.  We soon see our dark stranger with a limp arriving in town and trying to locate Heflin.  He comes across as deranged and scary.  He approaches Leigh at their home and finds out Heflin is at the mountain lake.  He rents a car and heads up to the lake, rents a boat and tracks down Heflin.  The cat and mouse game continues between the two as we learn their history.

The interesting thing about this film is how we start out looking at Ryan as the villain, but our alliances change throughout the film as we learn about each man.

We have some wonderful cinematography in this, I especially enjoyed the scenes where Heflin is running to an unknown destination through the empty streets of Los Angeles.

This is a very interesting film as there really isn’t a bad guy or a good guy.  We don’t even have an anti-hero to root for.  We sympathies with both main characters in this film and understand where both are coming from.  The message I got out of this is we all have made mistakes, all we can do is, try to do the best we can from here on out.  Maybe the other message is let bygones be bygones.  We also maybe getting a taste of “not everybody in the suburbs are what they seem”.

This is a very good film all noir lovers should see, and if you are a fan of any of the four stars it is well worth your time.  They are all excellent and I have already mentioned in past reviews how much I like Heflin and Ryan and they both play something different then I’ve seen them play before and both do an excellent job once again.  Astor shows her range as she was playing a hardened street-walker in this and then going across the lot to play the mother in Little Women at the same time.  Leigh was just getting started in her career, but showed she could hang with the best, giving good depth to the scared, but strong loyal house wife.

Favorite Tidbit:  Even though this had four big stars in it and the film was very good, even being entered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1949, it still lost $637,000 at the box office.