Going Back: "Harper" A Blockbuster before Blockbusters that reminds us of what we go for

About five minutes into my first viewing of this Paul Newman film I knew at the very least, I was going to like Newman’s performance. In an opening scene he is in conversation with Lauren Bacall’s Elaine Sampson, ( Bacall's essence is elegance here, and it begins acting out in front of her as she Marionettes it around skillfully) and her character says something rather cruel about her husband (or at least revealing) and Newman just looks away, he adds a clearing of his throat and nervously digs in his ear. All signs of his discomfort, not necessarily with the morality, but with the circumvention of the facts. Newman adds all sorts of little cues and tics all throughout the film in a performance so well constructed and then inhabited, I ended up genuinely and completely baffled as to how I hadn't heard “Harper Harper Harper” blaring throughout the large compound of takes that is film twitter. Director Jack Smight, in league with writer William Goldman, ended up pulling me out of the doldrums of yet another uneventful movie season further compromised by our lockdown. Watching it though, I couldn’t help but wish I was in a theater laughing along with an audience at the cadre of quirky, clever characters, and Newman’s tag huer comedic timing. Johnny Mandel’s roaring jazzy score blaring in dolby surround, munching down popcorn, and wiping butter off under the tail of my shirt. Harper was released in february of 1966, well before summer time, and well before the term blockbuster would become a thing, but it would have done well being released in one and termed the other.

The film has all the ingredients of not only a blockbuster, but more importantly of all the reasons we go to the movies. I think it's important to state here that I personally feel Blockbuster filmmaking (when done right) to be maybe the peak of filmmaking abilities . To make a film that can appeal to a wide audience, without sacrificing the integrity of the elements of great filmmaking is an extremely difficult task . A major middle aged star, surrounded by a cavalry of talented actors, in a stylish well paced, all around entertaining bit of escapism based on pre existing material, helmed by a virtual newcomer with a hunger and a clear vision can be an extremely intoxicating mix. A common misconception around blockbusters is that they must involve heavy special effects, and high concepts , but obviously most know Jaws, Indiana Jones, and Get Out as Blockbusters. These movies need only have the ingredients of an easy-going, fun, but well told story relayed as an experience. For instance, John Wick chapter 3 (The only blockbuster movie since summer I’ve seen that I consider memorable) like Harper features some very stylish directorial choices, striking neon cinematography, some flashy supporting performances from its committed actors (Huston, Fishburne, McShane) and another committed performance from it’s star Keanu Reeves who like Newman (though for different reasons and to different degrees) has been underrated his whole career. Like Newman Reeves operates on a frequency of cool, and I think a complex and self interrogating representation of it that exists on a frequency that doesnt register until anywhere from five minutes to ten years after you've contemplated what just happened, and Newman for his part, is on an entirely different level in Harper. A level that in that time or this this should’ve been an Oscar nominated performance. Newman weaponized his charm, activates his dark side, merges the instincts of a physical character actor, and a leading man, and most importantly employs his signature blue eyes in work that goes beyond emitting sexual desire , cool, and veracity, and into a remarkable variety of ingenious concoctions. Like in a scene where he argues with an out his depth sherriff who wants to give him the business over not reporting to him all his findings. The Sheriff remarks “Now look if I wanted to get ugly….” and before he can finish Newman’s eyes have widened, and with a furious matter of factness he quickly remarks “You are ugly!” This in combination with the intonation which never gives itself over fully to either mockery, or cruelty, induced a laugh so hard, and heavy I almost embarrassed myself even while being completely alone.

Both the evidence of what Newman was going for and the finishing move that sent me over came just after when Newman reads the cops face for signs the cop knows as if to say “Surely you’re aware of this?”. This isn’t a great line delivered by a great actor it’s a line made great by a great actor. There are several scenes where Newman as Lew Archer has to imitate different types of people, and Newman slides in and out of these characters within the character as if he was being manipulated by the morphing technology in Michael Jackson’s “Black or White” video. This is Newman at the height of his powers an agile, honest, deeply instinctive actor who hid tons of work behind crystal blue eyes, and an adamantium charm. Today Newman would be among the exceedingly short list of actors who can carry a movie to box office success based purely on name (Denzel, Meryl). The Kind of actor whose a guaranteed good time in anything their in (Will Smith, Keanu, Angela, Octavia Spencer) and the is almost assuredly a key component of a great blockbuster film.

Harper is a reminder of everything we go to the movies for and most importantly that just because its escapism does not mean it has to be mediocre. There has been a somewhat troubling trend of a sort of benign acceptance of the mediocrity of film especially as it pertains to the blockbuster. Escapism in film has always been unfairly treated as if its impoverished version of filmmaking, so people who never gave the blockbuster its proper due, don’t seem to mind if it lives up to what is “expected” of it. Never mind that some of the greatest blockbusters of all time are also quite clearly some of the greatest films of all time. The difficulty in making a great and extremely loveable film on a the near universal spectrum of blockbuster doesn't mean we should allow studios to cynically disavow any of the art, the craft, the big ideas involved in blockbuster filmmaking in exchange for hordes of interchangeable actors and remakes, reboots , sequels to unremarkable films. I love films that contain that sort of abstract intangible nature born of their creators mercurialism. I love silly films that dive deep into the absurdity of what they are, I love politically and emotionally charged indies, but none of these types of films would be what I categorize as the reason, the core of what I think when I think about going to the movies. We all go to the movies we love, but “This is what we go to the movies for" is an altogether different statement. It’s an art crafting this blend. The other types are either too intense or messy, or indulgent, and so forth to what is optimal to just sitting back and enjoying the experience. Films like Harper remind me of the magic of a really charming film that’s as easy to get into as a warm bath without relinquishing intelligence or craft. It’s the ambitious challenge of mixing just the right amount story, action, dialogue, themes, pacing, and performance to get something that oscillates between taking away , and giving back. Getting us what we want, and getting on our nerves. Repelling, and attracting us in that way that makes the experience so much like the most romantic idea of falling in love. Films like “Harper”reminds me of the power of the megawatt star who can also A..C..T. It reminds me of the importance of pacing, and most importantly that “The Fugitive”’s, The “Get Out"'s and “Lethal Weapons” (especially those because they are mid-budgeted, and light on visual effects) are still possible. Also Paul Newman .. that is all.