Harlow

In 1965, in yet another classic example of "Copycat Movie Making" Hollywood produced not one, but two film biographies of Jean Harlow, the 30s 'Blond Bombshell' whose tragic, short life was reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe. One was a gaudy, ambitious big-budget production starring theater and film actress/sex symbol Carroll Baker; the other was a low-budget, experimental film starring television actress/sex 'kitten' Carol Lynley. Both films failed, both in capturing the essence of Jean Harlow, and as film biographies. While the Lynley film, which I'll discuss here, stars the actress who 'looked' more like the real Harlow, poor production values and a fabricated story would 'do it in'.

The 'real' Harlow, born Harlean Carpenter, in 1911, arrived in Hollywood at 16, with an over-ambitious mother and newlywed husband in tow. Divorcing her husband, she appeared in 'bit' parts until Howard Hughes 'discovered' her, and cast her "Hell's Angels", in 1930. She was a sensation, despite possessing a tinny, twangy speaking voice (which voice coaches would work on, throughout her career.) Eventually signing with MGM, she would become a sensation, frequently co-starring with Clark Gable, and her off-screen life would be even more sensational; her second marriage, to producer Paul Bern, would last only two months, and he would soon commit suicide, fueling rumors of his inability to 'perform' his duties as a husband; a third marriage, to cameraman Harold Rosson, soon followed, only to last eight months. She finally found happiness with actor William (The Thin Man) Powell, but before they could marry, she developed uremic poisoning and kidney failure, dying in 1937, at 26.

Lynley's "Harlow" dumped any references to Gable and Powell (Efrem Zimbalist Jr. plays the character 'based' on Powell), offered the legendary Ginger Rogers as her mother (which must have felt like deja-vu for the actress, as her mother accompanied HER to Hollywood), and offered a brittle, angry, ultimately bitter Harlow, fighting both the studio and the men who attempted to 'use' her.

Jean Harlow was an optimist, self-reliant and resilient, with a ready laugh, and an often too-generous nature. She never took her sex appeal too seriously, and preferred 'being comfortable' to creating illusions. She was adored by her co-workers, and the grief everyone felt at her death was genuine, not staged.

If "Harlow" had gotten even a part of this right, it would have been a far better film!

Definitely better than the splashy Joseph E. Levine version with Carroll Baker, this biographical movie was released in the same year and stars CAROL LYNLEY. Though neither version was particularly accurate regarding the life of JEAN HARLOW, this one is more on the money. LYNLEY evens looks more like the real HARLOW. Most of the actual players in the life of HARLOW are represented here, although EFREM ZIMBALIST'S character called William Mansfield is no doubt apparently supposed to be WILLIAM POWELL. HURD HATFIELD is effectively creepy portraying JEAN'S second husband PAUL BERN. GINGER ROGERS is quite good as MAMA JEAN, who cares about her daughter, but not as much as she does about her shady husband MARINO BELLO. LYNLEY does an excellent job showing the angry side of HARLOW, but never conveys any of her appeal or vulnerability. The way that she carries on as if she's in a constant state of fed up irritation, you wonder why anyone actually cared about the real HARLOW. Still, this is an interesting film, and in B&W it has an eerie slightly morbid aura . Look for HERMOINE BADDELEY in a brief scene portraying MARIE DRESSLER. TRIVIA : This was the first movie that NOLAN MILLER designed the clothing for.

As if insulting the memory of Jean Harlow with one bad fictitious screen biography wasn't bad enough they had to go and make two! At least the Carroll Baker one was in color with a decent budget but this cheap quickie was shot in only eight days and looks it.

Filled with terrible performances from everyone but Ginger Rogers as Mama Jean this has at its center an actress, Carol Lynley, of limited skill none of which is on display here and absolutely zero approximation of the real Jean Harlow's screen charisma or magic.

The incredible thing about both of these bad bios is that the real Jean Harlow had an event filled life, packing an awful lot into 26 short years, yet both movies fabricate stupid untruths which they present as fact. Why bother to make the film, and shed a negative light on the subject, if you can't be bothered to tell the truth. Oh well maybe someday she will receive her due, in the meantime skip both of these pieces of trash and watch Jean's classic films. A much better use of your time.

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 ****

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.