Harlow

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.

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.

Shot in only 8 days on video tape, this version of the story of Jean Harlow didn't set the world on fire any more than the big screen big budget version of Harlow that Paramount put out with Carroll Baker.

No true story of Jean Harlow could possibly be filmed. Too many people were still alive, most importantly William Powell, William Mansfield in this version of Harlow. Powell in retirement then saw both films and said that the Jean he knew was nothing like what was shown on screen. One of her contemporaries in her memoirs Rosalind Russell said that Harlow of all the people at MGM when she was just starting was the most thoughtful and kind to a young player looking to succeed.

The story of how she was a meal ticket to her stage mother mother and her second husband played here by Ginger Rogers in her farewell screen performance and Barry Sullivan is well known. They actually named Louis B. Mayer in this Harlow and he's played with a certain verisimilitude by Jack Kruschen. There's also a good performance by Hermione Baddely as Marie Dressler who did co-star with Harlow in Dinner At Eight. Other than Hell's Angels none of her films is given a title here.

The issue of her the impotency of her second husband Paul Bern is dealt with most delicately. Irving Schulman's biography of Harlow on which the Baker film is based goes into that throughly. Hurd Hatfield really never develops his character with what he's given to work with.

Two beautiful blondes named Carol played Jean Harlow in 1965 in different films. Both films were trashy and exploitive with little difference save in budget.

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.