The Harrad Experiment

I just purchased the DVD of this movie and I wasn't very pleased. In fact the DVD was so bad that I can't really give the movie a fair rating or review. First, the print was awful..very washed out scratchy. Second, and worst of all, the film was obviously cut. It looked as if they used a "TV" version of the film. Every possible "bad" word was cut from the film any scenes that might offend, that is any and all nudity. And for a film such as this one that's really crime since the nudity is one of the main points of the film. The company that released this DVD (I think it was Platinum or something like that) deserves to go out of business. And if should be a crime to release any film on DVD that's been cut and that hasn't been remastered from the best possible source. A total waste of money.

The 1970's brought the movie rating system. The system allowed both nudity and overt sexuality into American films. Hollywood was trying to capture the youth market in a way they never had. This led to a number of "hip" youth low budget oriented movies. Some tried to capture a moments in time such as "The Trip". Some worked only as satire such as "The Seniors". Some tried social commentary as "The Harrad Experiment". All had common dominators: young people, sex and skin.

Some hold up as a time capsule, "The Trip". Some as a silly nudie farce, "The Seniors". And some are just dull. "The Harrad Experiment" falls into this category. What was shocking to one generation, such as "The Chapman Report" and "Peyton Place", becomes boringly silly to future ones.

It's not a bad film, its just a dumb film. Still, if you are interested in seeing youngish Tippi Hedren in bra and panties or a very young Don Johnson's backside; it's worth a look. Just remember, you've been warned.

This was more or less the KINSEY (2004) of its day, though clearly quaint in comparison; still, it is a measure of the times that the film caused a mild stir back then whereas KINSEY virtually made no ripples when it emerged! Anyway, HARRAD is mildly interesting (if perhaps too low-key to stay in the memory for long) in delineating the forward-thinking/experimentation that occurred in sexual relationships at the end of the 1960s. Incidentally, I rented the film as part of a small tribute to its recently-deceased star James Whitmore: of course, the middle-aged actor does not get in on the action (even if it is never particularly explicit); Tippi Hedren, then, appears as his still-attractive spouse/collaborator – who even catches the eye of the campus hunk (Don Johnson, interestingly the long-time partner of Hedren's real-life daughter Melanie Griffith!). The rest of the cast is filled with fresh faces (including future comedian Bruno Kirby[!]…but especially notable is lovely and initially shy heroine Laurie Walters who, in her turn, is pursued by leering Robert Middleton at a nearby café). Unsurprisingly, partners get swapped (whether intended or not) which invariably cause heartbreaks, but there is also some cheap humor at the expense of a bespectacled and plump student. While director Post was more at home in action-oriented fare, he handles the delicate subject matter with directness and reasonable perception; besides, the film looks good, sports a typical 1970s pop score (one of the songs being performed by Johnson himself) and, for what it is worth, was even followed a year later by a sequel, HARRAD SUMMER.

The original, theater and maybe VHS, were excellent. I have bought two different DVDs of this movie and both were horrible TV versions. The first was from Amazon (Passion Productions, 98 minutes (?) and no nudity or language and the color was orange like from a really old film that hadn't been taken of. The BN (Platinum) had much better color (90 minutes) but it was about the same "cut to death" version losing the kids working on nudity and bleeped language that is on TV today. One really great lesson that hasn't been mentioned is Tenhousen's (sp?), James Whitmore, teaching, "People only recognize an action as love when it is the same kind of love that they give." I learned something from that and I have run across many real life examples to support that observation. I would still like to get a DVD that was the theater version that I saw but I don't know how I would recognize the version after being burned twice.

Robert H. Rimmer's manifesto for the love and sex generation was brought to the big (drive-in) screen by low budget director Ted Post in 1973. Unfortunately the book would have been better suited to have been done in 1968 by someone like Radley Metzger. Because though it may seem dated compared to today's standards. I've a feeling the movie was almost as dated in 1973. The book was written in 1966 by a horny square guy, that tried to punt the book as a "real" experiment in a college that's hidden away somewhere, with 4 kids writing fantasy masturbatory tales of their opposites. Something that would have suited Mr. Metzger, and he would have probably added a dimension of good honest seediness that would have benefitted the film adaption. Instead we have (5 years, too late) Ted Post's treatment of the book. While I do find the film pretty entertaining unlike most of the reviewers, it's just not relevent. And it's all done, as if you were watching a "sexual awareness" film in your high school class. The characters are treated as if they were all blosoming sexual flowers, waiting to picked at the right moment of their maturing intellect. But in it's own dated way, it's kinda cool. Obviously the ideas expressed in this film are dangerous to today's idealogy, but it was made in 1973!!! So with this in mind, it's like watching a drive-in "Eight Is Enough" with nudity. When I was playing hookie from grade school, I would have loved for a film like this to come on TV! All the actors in the film are very likeable. "Eight Is Enough" actress Laurie Walters is believable as the shy virtuous virgin Sheila Grove. While Don Johnson's third film outing is far more confident, and adds an air coolness to the miniscule budget. His character Stanley (after the film "The Magic Garden Of Stanley Sweetheart" (1970), Don can't seem to escape the name Stanley??) is one of the more interesting ones, because he's far more open with his sexuality and the desire to get down with the ladies. Yet later you find that he's not very open with his emotions, and his emotinal attachment to Sheila. Hence the lesson learned. You cannot runaway from yourself. Having said that, there's basically no other lessons to be learned from this (Harrad) college. The rest of the film indulges in naked Yoga scenes (with people connecting through Zooms???), naked swimming in college pool, discussing and understanding relationships, playing jokes with the outside world, and Don Johnson trying to bed down with every lady on campus. Sounds like the perfect Drive-in movie to me! But as an intellectually stimiulating film, your better off watching a John Cassavetes film. If you prefer something less tame, your better off watching some real 70's porn by Radley Metzger. But if you're interested in a Cult classic that's cool in a early 70's retrospect...you might find it as entertaining as I did. Curiously, Don Johnson sings two songs on the soundtrack, was his agent trying to sell him as a pretty boy rock star (ie: Leif Garrett, David Cassidy, etc)??? Strange?? Sounds like a mix of James Taylor and Bread. Bruno Kirby in one of his earlier roles is pretty much a natural playing nerdy awkward types, so the movie tends to pick up a little when he's in the film. Tippi Hendren has a small role as the loyal wife/ assistant to the founder James Whitmore. Her daughter Melanie Griffith was a 14 year old extra in the film, though I've yet to actually spot her in it. Apparently an early 20's Don Johnson courted this 14 year old with mother Tippi's blessings. Now that's when truth is really stranger than fiction. Double strange! Great little curio film, though.