bobbie-16

When I saw this movie in the mid-1960s I enjoyed it-but in 2023 it seems flat, woodenly acted, neither funny nor thrilling, and way too long. Compared to the great classic noirs, neo-noir like Chinatown, and contemporary crime stories like Better Call Saul, it fails to capture our imagination, to grab our fears, fantasies, and fatalism. Why? This question takes us to the heart of the matter-how does our taste change in tandem with the style of the times, causing and reflecting each other? Harper's sunshiny scenes, bright colors, unconvincing cool jazz references on the soundtrack, and flat TV-type acting are part of the answer. Misogyny (and racial stereotyping) is a constant in the crime genre, but in Harper it has an irritatingly adolescent tone-appealing to the Boomers in their teens-that is quite different from the femme fatale imagery of classic noir and the strange transgressive/redemptive Tristan-Isolde companionship of Kim and Jim in Better Call Saul. See Harper if this kind of film history question interests you.

Paul Dedalus, an anthropologist returning from Tajikistan to Paris, remembers his mother (a short, intense scene), his high school "travel abroad" trip to Minsk, USSR (an odd destination for a school trip, but very exciting), and then alas, his interminable teen romance with Esther. Unfortunately the boring third segment is very long and Esther was not a character that I "cared about."