Girl 27

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.

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.

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.

"Girl 27" is a fascinating story of Hollywood history and the workings of the studios. The studios owned Hollywood: the police, the DA, all the way up. The movie magazines were studio organs. They had private hospitals, doctors on payroll. Anything could be hidden.

Patricia Douglas was a young girl working in Hollywood as a dancer. "I moved like J. Lo" she tells the interviewer, David Stenn. One day she and some other women were asked to report to what they believed to be a film set, and they were sent to Western Costume to get costumes.

When they arrived on the "set," it was a convention on a farm for MGM salespeople. Patricia Douglas was raped by one of them in a field. It was hushed up, and the doctor, under MGM's influence, put in her record that she had been treated for VD.

Patricia attempted to sue but lost, so she took it to Federal Court. MGM bribed her mother and lawyer to make the case go away, and they did. The lawyer never showed up in court any time the case was called. Her mother got a liquor store out of it.

At the time of the documentary, Patricia Douglas was 84, living alone in Las Vegas, when she was found by writer-producer Stenn. At first he spoke with her on the phone - she would say so much and then hang up abruptly. Finally she agreed to meet him and tell her story.

There have been many complaints about Stenn's presence in this film. I used to work for David Stenn. When he says he loves Patricia Douglas, he's not playing nice to get the story at all. He's not that kind of person.

As for his presence in the film, she would only talk to him, so he was stuck there - yes, he could have cut himself out. In the beginning, I think he had to lay the foundation as he did - he is a film historian, an expert on MGM and that era.

Did he have to mention Jackie Onassis? Probably not, but I think it made his credentials all the more impressive.

There's nothing uncommon in a documentary about looking at records and having someone go over them with you. So maybe in total, five minutes of Stenn could have been cut. I do not think he took away from this woman's agonizing story.

Not only is this a searing documentary about the machinations of MGM and Mayer, it is such a sad commentary on the time during which Patricia Douglas was young. Families swept incidents such as rape under the rug.

There was no place she could go for help. She was never able to move on. It ruined her life. She said she was frigid. She was married three times; she wanted a child desperately to love and be loved, yet she gave the child to someone else to raise. She couldn't get too close to anyone.

Her beautiful daughter tells a sad story about their relationship or lack of it. Patricia never told anyone what had happened to her. When the story broke in Vanity Fair, she told her mother that she was so incredibly proud of her. And her mother said nothing.

It's such a tragic account, it breaks your heart. An entire live ruined. Patricia could have tried to move on, but how does one do that when violated and no one acknowledges it? When everyone expects you to act as if nothing's wrong?

The studio heads were sleazes. When I interviewed actress Rita Gam, an incredibly beautiful woman even today, she said she received many offers from Hollywood.

But she smartly waited until she was offered a contract for $1250 a week. Why? Because if you made less than that, she said, you were part of the "visiting firemen" circuit, in other words, a prostitute.

Starlets were expected to sleep with men for jobs, and at the behest of the studio. Even Rita Hayworth's husband tried to pimp her out to Harry Cohn.

I think the story overrides David Stenn's presence in the film, which some find offensive. Personally I didn't mind it. I loved the film clips that were interjected. A nice touch to a horrible story.

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.