Jean Harloaw


The movie was ok, but jesus christ, what kind of roles are they putting harlow in? I saw this movie because of HER, I thought she maybe had the lead or something, or at least a larger role then what she actually had. What was the point of having her in it at all? Exept for the fact that stupid Warner wanted to make what they could from their homemade "sexbomb". Her picture printed all over the DVD cover, how idiotic. Sorry, I am just irritated...it wasnt any bad movie, not at all. I dont regret buying it, but the Jean Harlow thing pisses me off.

reply

I guess it's because she was Howard Hughes' girl at the time, she got the high billing and cover art. I thought it was bizarre how high her billing was compared to the size of her role. I bought the film for Cagney, but I can imagine how you must feel.

"Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make!" -- Dracula (1931)

reply

I also just bought & watched this movie. I thought it was fantastic & Cagney was brilliant. I know they had Harlow's face plastered on the dvd art & anyone watching it for her was disappointed.

Two things though: watching the dvd extras I discovered this was one of her first roles so its not like she was some big star they thrust into a tiny role. Instead, they began making her a star from that role. Second, I'm glad she didn't have a bigger if only for the fact that I didn't think she was any good in this particular film. It just seemed she was trying out different acting styles with almost every line trying to find a delivery that worked.

I'm not trying to offend any Harlow fans, just pointing out what I saw in this particular movie.

reply

[deleted]

If I were a Harlow fan, I'd want to see all of her films, even the ones with small parts. Considering how short her career was, especially.

I found her delivery pretty bad--she was barely hiding her nasal Betty Boop twang-- she was trying hard though--but her clothes and the way she carried herself were amazing. That white pantsuit was so slinky, and the way she slunk to the door and away from it, it was like a cat. She was so slow, and she was almost slouching, but she did it so well.

She died at 26, from kidney failure. She'd had scarlet fever ten years before, and according to Wikipedia, if she had lived today, she would have had kidney dialysis but it didn't exist back then. The rumors were that her mother (who she was very close to)--a Christian Scientist--did not get her the medical treatment she needed and brought on her early death, but this is now considered myth.

But I think it was a great film--and it was worth seeing Harlow in, even if her scenes were a little weird. I saw it to see how it fit in with other Mob/Mafia/Gang films. "Why I oughtta...You dirty yellow-bellied..." I loved it. It was a seminal gangster film. Wow, how about that ending? Don't want to spoil it for anybody, but man! I wasn't expecting a film from 1931 to be so powerful. Great flick.

reply

This was my first Harlow film, and not to upset her fans, but I thought she was really ugly. She wasn't a sex bomb at all. She just did not look good at all. I don't know if it was just this movie?

reply

I agree, everything about Jean Harlow in this film is just horrible. She delivered the worst lines, gave far and away the worst performance and actually looked like a man in drag. I've never found anything appealing about her. She was far and wide from a great actress and was generally overshadowed by prettier women who gave better and more believable performances in her films [Leila Hyams in Red-Headed Woman, Loretta Young in Platinum Blonde, Myrna Loy in Libeled Lady and Wife vs. Secretary, ect.]. She gets second top billing, which is a joke, in Public Enemy and poor Mae Clarke gets uncredited.

reply

I'm a Harlow fan, and while I agree her performance in this is bad, I always liked her art deco look. It's not everyone's cup of tea. Her look was often called hard looking & the high-arched pencil eyebrows & such. But I always thought she had beautiful hair, skin & a great figure.

She was much better in Dinner at Eight & held her own against Wallace Beery.

reply



Yes,

I'm also a Harlow fan and I admit her performance in this film is flat - at best.

reply

[deleted]

The Harlow role was supposedly originally offered by director Bill Wellman to Louise Brooks. Wellman had worked with Brooks on a silent called "Beggers of Life" and thought he'd give her the part, even after she'd walked out on her contract at Paramount and was kind of being blackballed in Hollywood. But the always moody Brooks for one reason or another turned the role down, even though she was really hurting for work.

It proved to be one of the dumbest moves she ever made, as the picture was a smash and Harlow was not, in my view, very good in it.

IN Harlow's defense, the part seems horribly under written and the actress has virtually nothing to do.

reply

I like Jean Harlow very much, but her performance in The Public Enemy isn't good at all (I've heard that a few of Jean's performances in early sound films aren't that good). Thankfully, Harlow's skills as an actress improved considerably in the following year with films such as Red Dust and Red-Headed Woman.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

reply

Jean was far more effective as a comedic actress than a dramatic one. Dinner at Eight is a good example. Her role in this movie seems utterly pointless. It is one of her earliest roles and she's not very good in it, with pretty wooden delivery. It would have been fun to see her take the grapefruit in the pan instead of poor Mae Clarke!

I'm also not surprised Louise Brooks didn't take this role, considering it's nonimportance to the plot. However, it was a bad career move for Brooks, who liked to burn bridges and effectively ended her own Hollywood career by cutting her nose off to spite her face and turning Paramount's offer down. Although she did stunning work for Pabst in Diary of a Lost Girl and Pandora's Box in Germany, she never made a Hollywood comeback. Then again, she was far to intelligent and iconoclastic to have made the prototypical movie star, anyway.

Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?

reply

No, Jean Harlow wasn't much of an actress at THIS POINT in her short career.

Anyone who knows her history knows that her best work would come a year later, after she developed her comedic talent at MGM. Harlow was still under contract with Howard Hughes at the time, who was simply capitalizing on the platinum blonde craze she started with Hell's Angels. He had no inetrest in molding her talent, which is what MGM eventually did to great success. Harlow knew she couldn't act at this time, so she would agree fully with those here who said she was bad in it. She did not look her best in this either as again, the legendary screen image we're familiar with today would not come until 1932. This film IS a James Cagney film, and the reason why most of the promotional material used Harlow on it, was because of her success in Hell's Angels and Platinum Blonde which started a hair craze. I agree, that this this vehicle certainly would've been better suited carrer-wise for Louise Brooks than Jean Harlow.

reply

I think the best dramatic acting of Harlow's was perhaps China Seas. But her early work, I agree.....capitalized on her hair & flashy looks, & not being an "actress".

After the tragedy of Paul Bern's suicide....or murder....Jean seemed to put more into her roles. Such an experience seemed to change her as an actress, I think. She emoted more, whether it was comedy or drama.

After Louise Brooks' substantial roles in the two German silents Pandora's Box & Diary of a Lost Girl, the small part of Harlow's in PE seemed too small & more for a bit player than for her, & I don't know if it would've made much of a difference in jump-starting her Hollywood career.

reply

Jean Harlow was not under contract to Warner Bros. She was under contract to Howard Hughes' Caddo company which loaned her out to other studios for one or two picture deals. Because of this runaround, she was unable to learn acting, which explains her terrible performance in THE PUBLIC ENEMY. Her career turned around after Hughes let her go, and she signed with MGM. There, she developed into the delightful little comedienne that the public and critics loved.

reply

People should not judge Jean on this movie alone. This is definitely her worst performance. Believe me, she later grew to be a marvelous comedic and dramatic actress and all of her movies are worth seeking out. As for her looks in this movie, I think she looks beautiful no matter what, but they definitely botched her makeup in this film. They really overdid it and made her look pretty trashy. If you want to see Jean as she really was, watch Red-Headed Woman, Red Dust, Dinner at Eight, Riff Raff...Basically any movie at all except for this one! She was one of the most beautiful women of all time, but watching this movie you would never know it!

I get the feeling you're violating somebody's basic human rights here...

reply

But Jean Harlow was never a great actress; sure, she evolved into a decent comedienne who had some wonderful ability for comic timing and delivering one-liners and rapid-pace dialogue. However, her great comedic performances are mostly the result of a great script. You previously mentioned Red-Headed Woman, but Harlow is just as completely ungraceful and mechanic in that film as she is in The Public Enemy; the latter role is just not as juicy and based around her. Therefore, I don't buy Harlow as a "marvelous comedic and dramatic actress." At times, she was great, however, she lacked the fluidity and naturalness that other great comediennes of the time possessed; everything just seems so incredibly strained from her and I vehemently disagree with "She was one of the most beautiful women of all time."

reply

I also watched this film for Jean Harlow. I also love James Cagney but for some reason I just couldn't get into the film. 25 minutes into it I was wondering where the hell Jean was. I ended up falling asleep at the end and rewinded the film looking for Jean and was pissed as hell she's only in it for about 15 minutes

You're still good to me if you're a Badd Kidd, baby!

reply

This was actually the first film I ever saw Jean Harlow in, and that ended up being a bad move on my part. She's really not very good in it. It's definitely the worst performance of her career.

reply

[deleted]

I was disappointed, too. And I don't buy her as a bombshell - but she's cute.

She was a hoot in "Red Dust" the following year (with Clark Gable):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgiNpllxoxg

reply