Harper (1966)

When you start naming detective authors from the 20th century, you get a short list of names. Christie, Hammett, Chandler, maybe sometimes Rex Stout or a few others. But the name that's on every real mystery fan's list is Ross MacDonald for his Lew Archer novels. The first and arguably MacDonald's best is The Moving Target, a thrilling pot boiler about a missing millionaire and a household of people who frankly would be much better off without him. Harper is Hollywood's attempt to turn The Moving Target into a moving picture with Paul Newman performing the roll of Lew Harper (changed for some sort of Holly-weird reason). The result is Newman at his prime and by changing Archer to Harper, America's future salad dressing king can make the role his own. Newman sizzles on the screen and every single line out of his mouth feels smooth and as cool as a menthol cigarette. The film's cast is filled with talent as well. Lauren Bacall, Robert Wagner, and a cast of other old studio pros all support Newman's quest to be the first and best easy going PI. But as good a film is, Harper can't seem to live up to the novel it's based on and it's easy to understand why this film (and it's later sequel) never quite stay memorable in the minds of American film fans. Harper is a film that tries so hard, achieves so much, and yet still manages to waste it's potential.

Paul Newman, who was very popular in the 1960s, had a series run of successful "H" movies: "The Hustler" (1961), "Hud" (1963), "Harper" (1966), and "Hombre" (1967). "Harper" is based upon a Ross MacDonald book ("The Moving Target") about fictional private investigator Lew Archer of southern California. The movie cast is impressive enough, with old pros like Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, Julie Harris, Shelley Winters, Strother Martin, and others working with Paul Newman's Lew Harper. It was said that the last name of Lew Archer was changed to Harper to satisfy Newman's insistence on another "H" movie. Lew Harper is a quite unorthodox private eye. Acerbically witty with one-liners, cynical, laid back, and friendless (except for the acquiescent Albert Graves = Arthur Hill) we find comedy as Harper struggles arising in the morning and going through the motions to get his body cranked up. Harper is estranged from wife Susan (Janet Leigh). Through lawyer Graves he is hired by jaded and invalid Elaine Samson (Lauren Bacall) to find her millionaire husband who has been missing for one day. But is the unlikeable (as we will learn) Ralph Samson worth the effort? Harper takes the job as he can use the cash. His California journeys take him across almost every eccentric personality that one can think of in a movie: a gigolo type (Robert Wagner), obese alcoholic actress well past her prime (Winters), spoiled teeny-bopper who likes to dance while standing on a pool diving board avec transistor radio – and with limited acting skills (Pam Tiffin), phony religious cult leader (Martin), drug addict lounge lizard (Harris), and enforcer/strong men (Robert Webber and Roy Jenson). There are also illegal aliens and just about the most clueless state police force ever seen on the silver screen. Now Harper has to discover just what each of these characters knows and to piece the puzzle together. The plot, though, is ultimately rather thin. The most interesting scene occurs when Elaine Harper spears the sunny-side eggs.Newman plays the cocky character well. And he has many funny lines, like the following scenarios: At a bar he tells the bartender, "Keep the change." The bartender replies that there isn't any. Harper retorts, "Keep it anyway." Another line, to his lawyer: "The bottom is loaded with nice people, Albert. Only cream and bastards rise." And at the end: "Aw, hell!" Newman would reprise the Harper role nine years later in "The Drowning Pool."

Based on Ross MacDonald's book, Jack Smight's 'Harper' is a fine tribute to the 1940's noir genre. It's pretty much treated exactly like a noir film. The dialogues, characters, storyline and even the setup and use of actors contribute. The only exception is that this was made much later (and thus has a more 'modern' look) and it's in colour. Even though the characters are not fully developed and there are very few occasions when the plot got slightly confusing, the film succeeds in building tension and its element of surprise. Moreover it's a cool movie. Humour is also used effectively.Paul Newman's 'Harper' is quite a complex figure. He has women drooling all over him, yet all he wants is to win his ex-wife back. The portrayal of the women is also interesting. Although not all these characters are fully fleshed out, they all have their own struggles. Paul Newman plays the pàrt as though it was tailor made for him. Maybe it was. After all he gave the character his name. The actresses do a fine job too. Obviously, Lauren Bacall stands out (she's also the original femme fatale of the noire genre).Overall, 'Harper' is cool, fun, suspenseful and exciting. 'Too bad they don't make it like this anymore.

In this tough guy detective movie, Paul Newman plays Lew Harper, an annoying Los Angeles cop investigating the case of a missing person, at the request of wealthy invalid, Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall).The film tries to be an updated 1940s noir film. Most of the various characters lie to Harper. People die. The detective gets beat up a little, but plods along, all determined. And through the slow-moving, muddled plot, somehow all the loose ends get wrapped up. But there's zero suspense and very little mystery. Production design is unappealing. And the background score is irritatingly hip and flighty. Funky, then-current dance fads render the film dated.Harper is not an appealing character. Smug, jaded, and pleased with himself, the character comes across as a cool dude, one who drives a snazzy, but quite ugly, sports car. He's in almost every scene. None of the other characters are interesting. Some of the dialogue is too clever to be believed. And you can see the end coming a mile away, the result mainly of poor acting.Indoor scenes are dark and drab. Outdoor driving scenes use antiquated rear-screen projection technique. The most interesting sequence, visually, is the one wherein Harper drives fast along a narrow dirt road on the crest of a mountain.My impression is that the film, mostly a cinematic vehicle for Newman, gets high marks from viewers who are attracted to all the big-name movie stars, and from people who drool over the lead actor. But the story is boring, cliché-ridden, and totally not interesting.