Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
Search Index Here

Thursday, November 05, 2015

When Harper Did It Better

Paul Newman Is 1966 King Of Cool

Harper was Bullitt's slightly older cousin that foresaw a next couple years of movie cool's progress, while Bullitt exerted influence to last decades. Harper was also among last of recognizably Warner Bros. pictures. Jack L. in fact visited the set to wish cast/crew luck. WB ad/pub team lit fuse here on latter-half 60's where they'd not put a merchandising foot wrong. Harper was a private eye story, and those generally date least. If anything creaks, it might be Paul Newman's performance, one of times (few) where he gave in to fan desire and played Newman the star rather than character actor mired in settings/situations no fun to watch (The Outrage and Lady L then-recent instances of damage to his momentum). Comedy seemed allergic to Newman, though even Cary Grant would have been undone by A New Kind Of Love or What A Way To Go. Harper actually rescued Newman from decline that was well in progress. He'd not had a recognizable hit since Hud, and in fact, five during 1963-65 interim were for most part stink-ups a lesser career could not have sustained.

Let's Go Back and Pin a Medal On Whoever Devised This
Brilliant "Dick and Jane" Selling Angle

Stars rather than studios in steering seat made for mixed bag through the 60's, hope and expectations seldom met from point when you'd pick a favorite. I'd see Hombre after Harper, then Cool Hand Luke (twice) and think, wow, bring on more of Newman ... but then would come The Secret War Of Harry Frigg ... and Winning. Did Lou Wasserman exert unholy influence on Newman (or his agent) to drive the at-peak star into poisonous embrace of Universal? Similar things would happen with Lee Marvin and Steve McQueen. You'd sit with a Bullitt or The Dirty Dozen and imagine vistas of pleasure ahead, but vehicles behind these came on flat tires, thus retreat to freevee and backlog of icons like Bogart or Gable more consistent in their day at pleasing followers.

"Kicky"? Did They Say Kicky? I Need To Look That One Up

So We See How a Campaign This Good
Just Had To Draw Crowds
Harper plays well after fifty years. There is jazz scoring by Johnny Mandel that should be, but isn't, available on CD. Some of dialogue is snappy, Harper a first big break for scribe William Goldman, whose book, Adventures In The Screen Trade, tells the background. He and others attribute much of Harper success to a credits sequence where Newman navigates shabby digs and brackish coffee on way to client appointment that sets the story in motion. I'd say if Paul Newman's 60's image had a defining moment on screen, this was it. Just a pity there weren't more films to support it. For refreshing once, he was "our Paul" in contemporary setting and in position to react as we might to Southern Cal kooks and situations that permeated Harper. "See Harper Shoot Straight" said posters that pointed up, knowingly or not, Newman doing just that at long last. He'd be remembered better as Butch Cassidy or for The Sting, but those were period-set, ergo a distance, whatever the coolness factor. Harper would come closest for Newman to a 60's bulls-eye. It's become my favorite of his star turns. Now if only someone would turn a hand toward releasing the soundtrack.


Blogger Bill O said...

Always read that Newman changed the character's name from Archer for "luck", following Hombre and Hud. More recently a more sound theory offered - that "Paul Newman Is Archer" evoked thoughts of Warner's earlier Errol Flynn and Merry Men.

4:48 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

The Hustler and Hud had come before Harper, Hombre the year after, so Newman had a string of H's going, all well-received, his (or whoever's) switch was a sound commercial move. I prefer Harper to Archer for the character name in any case, more loose and befitting "a different kind of cat" (see poster) that Newman plays.

7:11 AM  
Blogger MikeD said...

Hearing the name Archer in a private eye movie makes me think of Sam Spade's loser partner in 'The Maltese Falcon'.

8:13 AM  
Blogger Dave G said...

I like this movie just fine, but as a fan of the Ross Macdonald novels, my one bugbear is Newman's performance, which (for me, at least) doesn't capture the character as written. In that regard I much prefer Newman's sophomore turn in "The Drowning Pool" a decade later. Older and a little more weathered by life, he fits Archer/Harper much better for me, although the movie itself isn't as good.

8:51 AM  
Blogger radiotelefonia said...

The film feels more like a television production than as actual movie and not a copelling one. In this one, Newman is actually annoying and arrogant. The story is confusing and is filled with episodes that play more like erratic short subjects pasted together.

9:59 AM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

I do think the scope helps lend theatrical stature to Harper. Seen flat, it would flop.

As to Newman, his performance does at times have a case of the cutes, as in a bit flip for the story's good, but it was Newman giving fans what he figured they'd want, and success of the show would suggest he was right.

Dave G, I watched The Drowning Pool a few months back, and did a post, but it hasn't moved up the line yet for publication.

Anyway, I thought Pool was OK, but lacked the fun, free spirit, and 60's vibe of Harper.

10:19 AM  
Blogger Mike Cline said...

We had 35mm prints of HARPER available here in North Carolina until the mid-70s and often double-booked it at our drive-ins with a newer WB picture, such as DELIVERANCE, JEREMIAH JOHNSON or McCABE AND MRS. MILLER.

I always enjoyed HARPER. THE DROWNING POOL came so much later that my patrons didn't remember Lew Harper. But it gave us a week to get drink syrup off the auditorium floor.

10:36 AM  
Blogger Unknown Hollywood said...

The poster designs were extraordinarily brilliant. They did as much as anything else to entice ticket sales. Newman inherited a couple of James Dean slated roles. Could we visualize Dean as Harper? And John, thought I was the only person who referred to some male actors with "a case of the cutes?" Bravo! I think James Coburn's earlier roles exemplifies the phrase.

4:06 PM  
Blogger Dave K said...

Okay. You got me. After your write-up, I put on HARPER (Warner Instant) while I worked at my desk top. Had not seen it since catching it on a double bill with COOL HAND LUKE back in the 60's. Had fond memories, only avoided it all these years 'cause I could vividly remember the 'who' in the whodunit. Enjoyed it again this time anyway!

By the way, speaking of the soundtrack, there's a nifty Capitol 45 of THE THEME FROM HARPER by 'the Gallants' out there, circa 1966. Interestingly, the B side is THE THEME FROM LAUREL AND HARDY. No, really. You can catch listen to either on Youtube!

4:50 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Dean as Harper, Kurt! The mind boggles. But could Jim have relaxed enough to be "kicky" as Paul?

Dave, I've dug about You Tube in search of Harper music and have found a number of cuts from the original soundtrack LP, but had not come across this single, let alone the L&H "B" side. I'll have to flush both out.

6:26 PM  
Blogger Dave K said...

Sorry, John! I should given some links! Here is that HARPER single:

And here is the Laurel and Hardy B side:

7:30 PM  
Blogger b piper said...

HARPER is a fairly faithful adaptation of MacDonald's THE MOVING TARGET (which was the film's British title) and that's where much of the snappy dialogue came from. Harper, Archer, I have no preference for either name but since Lew Archer was already an established character I thought the name change was kind of a slap in the face to the original author. Brian Keith made a good Lew Archer in an unfortunately short-lived NBC series.

12:56 PM  
Blogger Unknown Hollywood said...

John, Dean liked to experiment. He could have gotten a close-cut hairstyle just in time for the 1960's. There are scenes that I could see Dean fitting into. His playful wit shining. Others, it does hurt my brain.

3:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021