The Harrad Experiment

My friends and I read the HARRAD EXPERIMENT by Robert Rimmer as nervous teenagers in the early 70s. The book was a manifesto for sexual awareness and responsibility, a call for a rational development of sexual activity on a cultural basis. Of course at the time, we were just looking for the hot parts....

Anyway, the movie makers were given the thankless task of transforming the book and apparently cound not decide whether to make it a polemic or a soap opera. Worse, the plot they chose betrays the format of the book, where the narrative was shared equally buy two men and two women. The film concentrates on Johnson's character, maligning him and transforming the film into his character's unwilling education in sexual responsibility.

Bruno Kirby doing full frontal nudity? Brrrrr..........

A review that came before me listed top 10 unintentionally funny moments in the film, which I am going to reiterate/add to. It is the only way to truly enjoy the film. Don't read this if you actually want to experience these priceless moments freshly for yourself.

1. The opening credits tree hug.

2. "You don't need to lose any weight."/"Neither do you!" (Then the two kiss passionately)

3. Make-out scene simultanously occurring as a conversation about stamp collecting takes place. By the same people.

4. The fashion and hair!

5. Don Johnson repeatedly in scenes with massive pit stains, without any trace of pre-occurring hard labor. (And then he proceeds to make out with whoever is there.)

6. The redhead girl saying "That was wonderful!" to her roommate, after he punches Stanley after he walked in catching her making out with Stanly.

7. The music really is overly dramatic. Both the score and the acoustic guitar-laden ballads with priceless 70's lyrics, one song sung by Don Johnson himself!

Good points in film:

1. Don Johnson in wonderfully tight clothes and sometimes without them.

2. The enjoyment coming from the whole 70's aesthetic and seeing a story line unfold that is so foreign to our 21st century minds.

3. A way of looking at the feeling of jealousy, and dealing with it, that isn't really presented anymore. I decided to shed some of my own hard feelings regarding relationships after some reconsideration prompted by this film.

I just purchased the DVD of this movie and I wasn't very pleased. In fact the DVD was so bad that I can't really give the movie a fair rating or review. First, the print was awful..very washed out scratchy. Second, and worst of all, the film was obviously cut. It looked as if they used a "TV" version of the film. Every possible "bad" word was cut from the film any scenes that might offend, that is any and all nudity. And for a film such as this one that's really crime since the nudity is one of the main points of the film. The company that released this DVD (I think it was Platinum or something like that) deserves to go out of business. And if should be a crime to release any film on DVD that's been cut and that hasn't been remastered from the best possible source. A total waste of money.

It took 11 years for Robert Rimmer's novel written in 1962 to get to the big screen. In that time America had undergone a cultural sea change in its values. So a novel written in the beatnik years is updated to the middle 70s where it certainly would have been less shocking than the experimental college of Harrad headed by James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren had been brought to the screen in 1962 when the omnipresent Code was still in place.

This college promotes coed rooming and in this carefully selected group of students Don Johnson and Laurie Walters are paired as are Bruno Kirby and Victoria Thompson. It's the story of these four students that is the basis of the plot.

I won't go into it, but it is Johnson who challenges the mores of society far more than Whitmore and Hedren ever expected.

The movie made quite an impact when it came out, but by today's standards seems like really tame stuff. It's also quite a display of 70s fashions as well for kids and adults. Viewers will still find it enjoyable.

Robert H. Rimmer's manifesto for the love and sex generation was brought to the big (drive-in) screen by low budget director Ted Post in 1973. Unfortunately the book would have been better suited to have been done in 1968 by someone like Radley Metzger. Because though it may seem dated compared to today's standards. I've a feeling the movie was almost as dated in 1973. The book was written in 1966 by a horny square guy, that tried to punt the book as a "real" experiment in a college that's hidden away somewhere, with 4 kids writing fantasy masturbatory tales of their opposites. Something that would have suited Mr. Metzger, and he would have probably added a dimension of good honest seediness that would have benefitted the film adaption. Instead we have (5 years, too late) Ted Post's treatment of the book. While I do find the film pretty entertaining unlike most of the reviewers, it's just not relevent. And it's all done, as if you were watching a "sexual awareness" film in your high school class. The characters are treated as if they were all blosoming sexual flowers, waiting to picked at the right moment of their maturing intellect. But in it's own dated way, it's kinda cool. Obviously the ideas expressed in this film are dangerous to today's idealogy, but it was made in 1973!!! So with this in mind, it's like watching a drive-in "Eight Is Enough" with nudity. When I was playing hookie from grade school, I would have loved for a film like this to come on TV! All the actors in the film are very likeable. "Eight Is Enough" actress Laurie Walters is believable as the shy virtuous virgin Sheila Grove. While Don Johnson's third film outing is far more confident, and adds an air coolness to the miniscule budget. His character Stanley (after the film "The Magic Garden Of Stanley Sweetheart" (1970), Don can't seem to escape the name Stanley??) is one of the more interesting ones, because he's far more open with his sexuality and the desire to get down with the ladies. Yet later you find that he's not very open with his emotions, and his emotinal attachment to Sheila. Hence the lesson learned. You cannot runaway from yourself. Having said that, there's basically no other lessons to be learned from this (Harrad) college. The rest of the film indulges in naked Yoga scenes (with people connecting through Zooms???), naked swimming in college pool, discussing and understanding relationships, playing jokes with the outside world, and Don Johnson trying to bed down with every lady on campus. Sounds like the perfect Drive-in movie to me! But as an intellectually stimiulating film, your better off watching a John Cassavetes film. If you prefer something less tame, your better off watching some real 70's porn by Radley Metzger. But if you're interested in a Cult classic that's cool in a early 70's retrospect...you might find it as entertaining as I did. Curiously, Don Johnson sings two songs on the soundtrack, was his agent trying to sell him as a pretty boy rock star (ie: Leif Garrett, David Cassidy, etc)??? Strange?? Sounds like a mix of James Taylor and Bread. Bruno Kirby in one of his earlier roles is pretty much a natural playing nerdy awkward types, so the movie tends to pick up a little when he's in the film. Tippi Hendren has a small role as the loyal wife/ assistant to the founder James Whitmore. Her daughter Melanie Griffith was a 14 year old extra in the film, though I've yet to actually spot her in it. Apparently an early 20's Don Johnson courted this 14 year old with mother Tippi's blessings. Now that's when truth is really stranger than fiction. Double strange! Great little curio film, though.