MovieChat Forums > Girl 27 (2007) Discussion > Flawed film, but still valuable...

Flawed film, but still valuable...

posted 17 years ago by imdb050106
17 replies | jump to latest

This is a flawed film, but still valuable because of the uniqueness of the subject matter...

..There's enough footage and info that communicates the story just fine. The director acts like a kid stumbling on some treasure...He does not take a back seat to the story, he rides it around on it like a tricycle, screaming "Mommy! Look at me!!"

The director's narcissism is ridiculous and evident..The first clips we see of Patricia Douglas are of her talking about the director, and what a unique individual he is, and how she's never met anyone like him!!

Continuity of her interview is diminished greatly by cheesy "rape" clips intercut at dramatic moments..There is also a hotel scene where the director goes to visit her which is a case of overkill...

It would have been fine to show him waiting in the hotel room, then answering the phone call to tell him he can't meet with her. But the scene goes on and on, and continues onto a follow shot through the casino and then out to a deserted street where the director is shown walking alone at night like in a noir film.

Another review here mentioned him dancing on David Ross's grave..That scene must have been cut due to its tastelessness, it wasn't on the DVD version.

In a way, the assailant and the victim are paired in the loneliness of their lives, there is a ghastly photo of them coming face to face in the court house.

It is eerie and bizarre the ramifications of one night in 1937 can have on so many people's lives..

..and how you never, ever can really know someone.

[–] caaro1947 17 years ago

Hey IMDB050106:
Insightful analysis--Thank you. I just watched this and was moved by Pat Douglas' story. About that ridiculous hotel room scene . . "So anxious" . . . "The first meeting is so import- . . .RRRING "Hello?". That was completely staged after the fact. What bu&$#@it! Almost ruined it for me.

[–] urbanbooger 17 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more.

Ultimately I enjoyed the film, but I found the director to be phony.

I also didn't like how one sided the movie was. Now, based on her interview, I'm prone to believe her, but a responsible documentary would have explored all sides with an unbiased hand. When he's going through the MGM file in the library archives and he's saying that all of that was to defame her, that very well could've been the case, but he force fed it a great deal. What he should have done was presented the file as evidence and let the viewer decide.

Or even if he wanted to be tricky about it, ask a few of his interview subjects about the file and get them to bring up the idea (and it is an idea mind you) that the studio was trying to defame her.

It's truly a fascinating story, but ultimately I'm not going to recommend it to anyone because it's so one sided and not terribly well made.

He tried to pull off audio from her on-camera interview as a recorded telephone conversation. Who in the heck is he trying to fool?

[–] LCWGringoLoco 17 years ago

I agree with everyone on here so far. The audio didn't match at all, clips were re-used too often, I felt that I was watching the David Stenn story, not the Patricia Douglas story. I also disliked how he spoke to one attorney, one woman working for Fox News of all places, and a few random family members. The inter-cutting of cheesy old movie footage was extremely disrespectful and offensive in my opinion and undermined both the importance of the story he was telling and the events that Douglas went through. The first poster was right, the first clips of Douglas talking about how great Stenn was were pretty ridiculous. I remember reading the Vanity Fair article a while back and hearing about this movie before its release. I was really looking forward to it, but found it to be in poor taste and even more poorly made. Disappointing.

[–] greenredblack 17 years ago

Yeah, it almost feels like a shame to have to admit the many weaknesses of the movie. Stenn was representing something important, and he did it irresponsibly. Some of his voiceover stuff was clearly mix-n-matched. At one point, his "voice-over voice" (clearly leveled differently, volume-wise) almost cuts off his his own voice with an "and..." also, the j-lo dance thing was completely irrelevant and ridiculous. it doesn't just take you out of the story for a second. it's like 30-40 seconds of cutting between jennifer lopez dancing and old busby berkeley-like sequences. for like 40 seconds!

compelling subject matter, but sort of cringe-worthy sequencing/editing. it's a bummer.

[–] urbanbooger 17 years ago

I don't know. I think the view in which the society at the time held rape is at the very heart of the matter. I don't think it's disrespectful, I think it was a view into how the studio treated rape at the time.

The movie was still poorly done, but I don't know that the inclusion of the old movie clips were a poor choice.

[–] dollabox 16 years ago

I think it is very important that after you first watch this film, to go back and watch it again with the director's commentary. I feel that if the film were approached in the style of the commentary version, you would find it a more compelling and intimate story.

I understand that it must have been difficult for the director to have found this story that was buried and forgotten by almost everyone, and that he feels very close and protective of Patricia Douglas and her struggle with the events of her life. But it's hard to tell if he was trying to objective in the theatrical version or make it palatable to a wide audience.

Anyway, the commentary is a more indepth and intimate telling of the story with additional information.
It's almost a different film.

[–] MrsMulwray 16 years ago

I agree with everyone's assessments about the cheesy voice-overs presented as telephone conversations, the ridiculous comments Patricia Douglas made about what she thought of her interviewer, and I thought the film maker more interested with name dropping and self interjection to the story than anything. (who really cares if Jackie O was his publisher?)

The article he wrote for VF was a good one, and I wish the film kept some of the same objective view, but it did not. I actually thought the part about Judy Lewis was necessary to show the dichotomy between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' under the same studio system. Ms. Lewis is actually a well known psychologist and I think has profound and learned things to say about cover-up and how it affects the human psyche.

The sections with the family members was also imperative to the story. This film seemed to be a study of the prolonged effects of maternal neglect, childhood abuse, and rape. The sensationalist in all of us find this most interesting because these topics are under the rubric of a Hollywood scandal. But at its heart, this is a study of these women's vulernability, lack of parental guidance or affection, violation, and the ripple affect of untreated and unrecognized traumas.

This film did break my heart, as another poster wrote, but there is a limit to my sympathy. Not all abused children become abusers, and the truly strong break the cycles of violence. Patricia Douglas may not have had any resources to properly heal and she, in turn, became the abuser when she did nothing to protect her own daughter. That to me does not allow her to be the exhaulted victim that the filmmaker seems to paint, she was weak and cowardly turning her rage in on herself to the detriment of her child. That's no hero in my book.

This film is very flawed, and it's too bad the storyteller couldn't give the objective analysis the story requires. Thanksfully though, he did give us this story and, it seems, Patrcia Douglas some final peace.

[–] HoppingBunny 16 years ago

Well, I guess he can call this as his legacy. It's some what bizarre and could use a better editor. It was still interesting to watch the forgotten story of Girl 27. Ultimately, it felt some what empty.

My life isn't any better than yours.

[–] FILMMUSICANDTV 16 years ago

Just watched Girl 27 a few minutes ago. The story was extremely compelling, but the director was annoying! I think he needs to take a documentary making class and go back to the drawing board and try again.

He also should remember that he is "NOT THE STAR!!" and we don't wanna see his @$$!

[–] filmbuff1974 14 years ago

The director did interject himself somewhat. But I'm assuming that there was not enough material to fill out a full documentary. I'm just grateful that David Stenn thought enough about this case to devote his energies to creating this film. Patricia Douglas has made transition out of this world, as we all will, and she has David Stenn to thank for giving her some kind of vindication and immortality in this documentary. I think David Stenn did a good job of it!

If you love and support Michael Jackson 100%, copy & paste this into your signature. We love MJ!

[–] loriacerny 14 years ago

Nicely said, imdb050106. I completely agree with you and have mixed feelings as to how to "rate" this film. Stenn monopolized and seemingly took advantage of the story, I noted no compassion for Douglas herself. Yet, this story has some moments which must be seen: the various lives it affected, the lifelong torment Douglas endured, and the machinations of business, etc.

How do you give credit to the story while discrediting the director?

[–] liberagatta 13 years ago

It's a good crime story, but the director ruined it. Could have been told in a more precise way.

"Leave the gun. Take the canolis."

[–] claudecat 13 years ago

"...I noted no compassion for Douglas herself"

I disagree--he spent hours talking with her, got her a photo shoot with "Vanity Fair," even went out to get her favorite cole slaw. I suppose you could put that down to his personal interest in writing a book about the story, but it didn't come across that way to me. The fact that he was interested in this forgotten story at all shows a great deal of compassion. Many people, especially today when a horror movie doesn't think it's worthwhile to have fewer than 10 horribly mutilated bodies, would think the long-ago rapes of two young women not really worth bothering with. But I didn't mind the director's presence. It seems like a lot of people just didn't like his personality. Personally, I thought it was interesting to get a glimpse of how a story like this is researched.

"the various lives it affected..."
I agree with your statement here--it was refreshing to see a film that really examined the long-term, true-life effects of one crime.

[–] chaoslex 13 years ago

Although there was alot of David Stenn, what other documentary is about the life of Patricia Douglas. I think this helped someone finally let something go before she took it with her when she died.

Lex

http://www.chaostheoryband.com/

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SamanthaCR 11 years ago

I just watched this documentary this past weekend and was completely moved.

I didn't mind the personal touches that indicated a trusting friendship between the director and the Ms. Douglas. To me it brought a "healthy" face to her; that she's human just like everyone else, just like our grandmothers/mothers, and that she CAN smile and care. The subject matter was heartbreaking enough. To hear her "blush" as she talks about how the director tried his best to build an honest kinship with her, was touching and made me smile.

This woman is more than just the "scandal" it was. No one wants to be remembered by terrible things like this. So, thanks to this documentary, I will remember this awesome dancer who moved like J-lo back in the golden era of Hollywood.