Girl 27

I have rather mixed feelings about this movie. It brings up an interesting, forgotten scandal, which I give it credit for. But I felt the movie was always straining a little too hard to be interesting, as though the filmmaker knew he really only had a 40-minute short but was determined to get a feature length film out of it.

The movie is a mix of a documentary about the rape and a documentary about uncovering the rape, and I found that an interesting, fairly successful approach. The various film clips range from relevant to flippant. The filmmaker's worst instincts came out during the interviews with the victim. Tossing in film clips earlier made a certain amount of sense, but doing the same thing during her painful answers felt gimmicky and insensitive and just took away from the power of the scene. Sometimes you have to be willing to let a person or a situation speak for itself, but that doesn't happen in this movie.

I was glad to see that many of the other comments felt like I did - that this was a very compelling story - a story that should be brought to light, but that it is very badly handled by the inexperienced filmmaker. Now David Stenn is a talented writer and my friends who devour Hollywood biographies speak very highly of his (I believe he's written about Clara Bow and other big Hollywood Golden Era stars) and it is interesting how he came across this awful scandal that was covered up by MGM but he seems to not trust the power of poor Ms. Douglas' story and I actually was cringing with the horrid decision to add Hollywood movie clips of women being shaken or slapped or pushed down (from various fiction films) - as Ms. Douglas begins to tell of the actual sexual assault and how it destroyed her - the forced clips almost seemed to parody what was happening (which I am sure is the opposite effect the director wanted). The way the story is told, the way he films a lot of the interviews - it is just amateurish. I read the article Stenn wrote in Vanity Fair and that is much more complex and fascinating than the film. Hollywood truly had the power to sweep all of its dirty secrets under a large rug and this story is a perfect example of that. Ms. Douglas was a very brave woman to even try and stand up to MGM but of course they crushed her with newspaper lies and huge powerful law firms. The film is still worth watching because of the subject matter but as far as documentary skill - it truly fails.

Girl 27 (2007)

**** (out of 4)

Rather sad documentary taking a look at a 1937 MGM case where Patricia Douglas was hired to appear in a movie at Hal Roach Studios but instead she was raped by a man and the crime was eventually covered up. This case made headlines at the time as Douglas was attacked but then the case pretty much went away for over six decades until director David Stenn heard about the case and was able to locate the woman. I've seen quite a few documentaries on MGM and it's clear looking at the studio today that they owned Los Angeles and that they weren't afraid to do harmful things (look at Judy Garland) or cover things up. This story here is just downright shocking because it makes everything so clear that MGM was calling the shots on everything and they were strong enough to have cops, politicians and lawyers in their pockets. I think what's so sad about this movie is the interview with the then 85-year-old Douglas who is clearly still haunted by the events that happened to her when she was 17. Seeing how this event damaged her life is just sad and seeing and hearing from her daughter isn't any more happy. The film has a very low-budget that does effect it somewhat but it never takes away from the power of the story. I also really liked how the director shows how the system worked back in the day and this includes showing how Douglas was being attacked by the media while Loretta Young was allowed to lie about an adoption when everyone knew that Clark Gable and her had the kid. Their daughter, Judy Lewis, is interviewed here as is Peggy Montgomery (aka Baby Peggy) who talks about the trouble that girls found themselves in at the studio. GIRL 27 is high drama from start to finish and I think it's an important story to tell no matter how ugly that story is.

What a heart-wrenching story! The way Mr. Stenn, who also directs this film, presented Patricia's story is refreshing, in fact the manner in which he insinuated himself as a part of this drama seemed to be implicitly sanctioned by her own words. She was thankful that he persevered in his quest to obtain this particular story, despite her fears. Furthermore, he genuinely seemed to care for her, as well as what she had experienced. He was highly criticized by critics and reviewers for his unusual style - to allow his own relationship with Patricia to unfold on screen.

For so many of us women who have experienced assault during our lifetime and had to learn that 'safe' is a rather tenuous term, it can be comforting to see someone like Mr. Stenn put himself 'up front' as he did, in a supportive role. At least, I found it so in this film.

This documentary certainly rent the veil of 'The Good Old Days' to pieces. By interspersing some old film spots of MGM as Pat was delivering her interview, it was made much less easy to obtain that nostalgic feel we might usually glean.

Are men dogs? My uncle Doug (a self confessed dog) says it is so, and that, furthermore, we women just need to be aware and ever cynical. We are less naive these days, I think.

I believe lawyers would find it a tad bit trickier to dump such a case these days, as they did in Pat's. Still, then or today, it takes an inordinate amount of courage to attempt to hold someone accountable for committing such terrific violence against us. If anything, I appreciate Mr. Stenn for giving Patricia her opportunity for vindication, as well as my chance to experience, albeit vicariously, some sort of weird justice on this end.

A documentary that could have used a lot less of the documenter, David Stenn spends far to much time on camera and does, what is to me the death kiss of documentaries. Stenn's editing forces his audience to see thing his way and no other, to feel the emotions he feels and to come to all the same conclusions he does. This is in no way anything new to documentaries, Michael Moore for example is the very master of this, now to be fair, does that mean these film makers viewpoints are wrong, no not at all, sometimes they are right on with mine but for heaven sakes let me come to my own opinion honestly. Give me both sides of a story fairly as best as possible and let me use my brain to decide which I believe. Now, I do realize in the case of Girl 27 there is no real way to show both sides, and to listen to Patricia Douglas talk I have no doubt in my mind that she is an honest woman, but it degrades her to surround her story with unfair edits of MGM convention footage with sinister music overplaying. Also on a side not I found the story about Loretta Young & Clark Gable's daughter to be heartbreaking, to hear Judy Lewis tell her story was one of the saddest things I have ever heard, it made me loose a lot of respect for those two actors. Anyway, David Stenn, let Patricia Douglas tell her story, realize what you have in that, it is all your film needs. The bravery of that women to do what she did in both her situation and during that time period is amazing, and for her to go in front of a camera and re-tell that to the world is to be admired.