Girl 27

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.

This exposes old Hollywood as a cesspool of corruption and cover ups, which historians already knew, but for the average person would be eye opening. Then you get the effects that a rape had on a person and how it trickles down through the generations added in to the mix which makes this a must see for anyone to understand how a violent act traumatizes more than just one person and why they need to be treated more seriously.

The 1937 scandal is definitely a story worth learneing about. There are some interesting interviews, great film references, but the director of the film clearly does not know how to direct a documentary. There is an ego about him that is just not acceptable. He insinuates himself into the story and into the life of the woman who back in 1937 was Girl 27. He never passes up an opportunity to bring up the fact that he is also an author of celebrity biographies. He never passes up the opportunity to let his audience know the famous people he has worked with. I am not someone who believes there is a perfect cookie cutter way of making a documentary film. Sometimes it's necessary for a director to knock down that fourth wall and make himself or herself a presence in the film he or she is producing. A good director should never steer the focus of the subject matter onto himself or herself, though. David Stenn is not just annoying as a documentary filmmaker, he is disgraceful as a documentary filmmaker. This documentary should be taught in film schools about what NOT to do as a documentary filmmaker.

Anyway... this is the only existing documentary that covers the subject matter of the 1937 MGM sex scandal. It's a story worth knowing. It's unfortunate that the story was brushed under the rug as long as it was. In this, the time of #MeToo and #TimesUp, it's really important not to brush such stories under the rug. History absolutely repeats itself. 'Girl 27' as well as other documentary films and biopics like 2019's 'Judy', for example, are evidence that Louis B. Mayer was the Harvey Weinstein of the '30s, '40s, and '50s. Some people live their whole lives and die without being brought to justice for their horrible behavior. Justice sometimes comes in the form of unearthing the truth postmortem, denying their legacies praise, and condemning them for their insidious existence.

Are you serious, NY Times? Much appreciation for the courage and bravery this woman mustered when she was just a girl facing the legal monster of MGM and its public office cronies. As far as I'm concerned, she was raped multiple times by the Hollywood machine, her own mother, the legal system. Is it any wonder she developed a thick protective shield and does not trust people. But The NY Times refusal of the obituary was the topper for me...who reads your scummy rag anyway, you birdcage liner.

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.