Harlow

Saying that this is the better of the two movies about Jean Harlow in 1965 isn't saying much. The other Carol Baker one ranks as one of the worst movies ever made by a major studio. When the only good performance in a movie comes from Red Buttons, you know there's a problem. As opposed to the Baker-Harlow disaster, this one is merely bad, occasionally it rises to the level of being mediocre, mostly when Ginger Rogers is on-screen. How sad that this last performance of this legendary actress should be in this pale and dull quickie. Carol Lynley looks like Tuesday Weld. Both were beautiful and talented and had a few good roles, but neither really got the breaks to get to the stardom they deserved. "Bunny Lake Is Missing," "The Night Stalker" and "Poseidon Adventure" are probably her best works. Its funny that she is so sexy when she's not trying to be, and here, when she's trying to be, not sexy at all. She gives it the old college try, but whenever she starts channeling Jean Harlow, the poor script and poor production values undercuts her.

This is a must see for all Jean Harlow film fans, but lower your expectations so you won't be too disappointed.

This version of "Harlow" used to be a staple on local television until the mid-1970's. Then it suddenly vanished. It was nice to finally catch up with this film again. It has generally been acknowledged as a slipshod filmization of the life of Hollywood's Blonde Bombshell, Jean Harlow. Apart from the film mixing fact with fiction, it's really not a bad movie. It was shot in just eight days, and it looks like a live TV show. But that's fine! The inexpensive process used for filming the movie ultimately creates an appropriate atmosphere for the film. Carol Lynley is good as Jean Harlow. Had she been given more than three weeks rehearsal, she might have given a stronger performance. Ginger Rogers (who had only a couple of days rehearsal after being chosen as a fast replacement when Judy Garland quit the production) simultaneously gives a bravado performance and shows her unmistakable star quality as Mama Jean. Hurd Hatfield, ever a fine actor, is very moody as producer Paul Bern. Lloyd Bochner has an ongoing role throughout the film as a Hollywood big shot. Undeniably low-budget, this production of "Harlow" is much more enjoyable than the alternate version made the same year. I'd seek this one out. It works better as entertainment on all levels.

More of a curiosity than a movie, this shot-in-8-days quickie was made to beat the release date of the big budget Joseph E. Levine production of Harlow. Lasting in a few theaters for just about as long as it took to shoot it, it utilized the experimental "Electronovison" process (as was The T.A.M.I Show and Richard Burton's Hamlet) which was basically a step up from kinescopes. The effect is like watching a shot-on-video soap opera from the 60s and one not quite as polished as say, Dark Shadows. As for the content, this Harlow trivializes the image of the great 30s star as much as the Carroll Baker Harlow yet in different ways. Here she's petulant, demanding, and obnoxious. With its shot-on-the-fly direction, writing, and performances, it doesn't get much deeper than the video tape allows. Oddly enough, what this movie most reminded me of was Inserts, the low-budget Richard Dreyfuss movie about the shady adult-film industry in the 30s. Yet, if you get a chance to see it don't miss it. It's one-of-a-kind.

1965 was a strange year. Two DIFFERENT movies came out called "Harlow" and purported to be the famous actresses' biography...and both were filled with all sorts of mistakes, omissions and downright lies about her. So, if you are looking to learn about the REAL Jean Harlow, consider reading the Wikipedia article instead.

My friend Angelo found this movie on YouTube and suggested I watch it...and I was game. But when I began watching, I thought there was some mistake, as instead of the print looking like a movie, it looked like a dark and grainy TV kinescope print. I was shocked when I found out that the filmmakers WANTED that look (apparently they wanted the film to look terrible!) and used a film process called 'Electronvision'...and I can only assume by the look of the movie that no one else decided to use Electronvision! It also was shot over 8 days....which only compouds this and other problems.

So is this 'biopic' worth seeing? Well, as I mentioned above, it's not worth seeing if you want to learn about Harlow's life as it mixes a lot of facts with a lot of fiction. Plus, Carol Lynley often just screams her lines and her performance is very earthy (as if to say Harlow was a very coarse woman in real life). Yes, Lynleywas a decent actress in later flms, but here she is terrible and you wonder if the director was telling her to scream like this to show how poor an actress Harlow was in her earliest movies (she was VERY young at the time).

The film also looks trashy and cheap...which is a plus for bad movie buffs! It's not accurate and is full of salacious scenes and one of the big truths you learn about Harlow is she did NOT like wearing bras and directors liked putting her in scenes without clothing....which wasn't exactly a shock if you've seen her films. With many of the stars in the film, you can understand why they appeared in the movie. They needed money and work. So why did Ginger Rogers appear in it as Jean's mother? It's a thankless role and a poor way to remember this fine actress.

The bottom line is that for most, this is a bad film. But if you like over the top and silly films like many of Joan Crawford's later films (TROG, STRAIT-JACKET and WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE come to mind), then you might enjoy the ride. In fact, I could imagine a group of friends getting together to see it...and laugh at it like an installment of "MSTK3000"!

Next, I'll have to see if I can find the other "Harlow" to know which semi-fictional biopic is best...or worst.

The rise of Hollywood's first blonde bombshell, Jean Harlow, who died tragically at the age of 26. Magna Pictures distributed this low-budget venture, which was first shot on an early form of videotape and then transferred to film. It competed with Paramount's version of Harlow's story (also entitled "Harlow" and released in 1965!), but because of its unusual pedigree, this effort (ambitious, if rough) was hardly seen. Carol Lynley portrays Jean not as the raucous, lovable gal who made friends so easily, but as a volatile, impatient, often heartless young woman who wasn't quick to take good advice. Lynley does well in the role, even if her body type isn't right and her voice falls short (her performance actually improves as the movie progresses, and she has a very strong scene with mama Ginger Rogers near the end). Some identities have been changed, and Harlow's first and third marriages are barely mentioned, but the movie makes its point with little pomposity: this was a troubled young woman who had no inkling of her own impact with movie-going audiences, constantly short-changing herself in the romance department. Rogers does solid work; Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., as a movie idol à la William Powell, Hurd Hatfield as tortured producer Paul Bern, and Lloyd Bochner as a director are each excellent in support. Does any of it ring true? Probably not. Writer Karl Tunberg seems to have constructed his script out of fan magazine articles, and the picture is fairly useless for those wanting to know the real dish on the 1930s superstar. Still, there are interesting accents and attributes throughout "Harlow", and it is seldom dull. **1/2 from ****