Harlow biographer David Stenn's documentary, GIRL 27 - a shocking, true story about one would-be starlet's trip through Hollywood hell that he stumbled across while researching Bombshell: The Life and Death of Jean Harlow - is currently screening in Los Angeles, beginning tonight.
Here are the details:
Laemmle Music Hall 3
9036 Wilshire Blvd. (just east of Doheny)
Beverly Hills
310/274-6869
Fri, Mon-Thu: 5:20, 7:40 10:00
Sat & Sun 12:40, 3:00, 5:20, 7:40 & 10:00
To view a trailer, see the official website which includes a link to the film's MySpace page:
http://www.girl27movie.com
Read previous posts I've made about this intriguing documentary by clicking here.
I'm pleased as punch to report that last night's premiere Los Angeles screening of GIRL 27 was a smash success! It was followed by an enthusiastic Q&A between the audience (who all stayed) and filmmaker. The music had to finally be turned up in order get people to leave, and someone aptly cracked that it was scenario akin to the old trick they use with the orchestra during Oscar ceremonies, ha!
Don't miss your chance to see this amazing Hollywood tale, running all week, and documented as only a stalwart classic Hollywood investigative researcher like David Stenn can bring to us.
While I'm on the subject, I'd like to address a review of this film in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that slams David for making himself part of the story. The review is by Carina Chocano, author of the non-fiction book "Do You Love Me...Or Am I Just Paranoid?" which she describes as being 'a guide to having bad relationships' - wait, it's all becoming clearer to me now....
Is this writer on crack? *rhetorical*
Yes, I know David. No, I didn't discuss this review with him. This is my own two cents.
The GIRL 27 scandal was buried for years, and ruined a woman's life. The fact that David invested his time and emotions in digging for the truth, which included bonding with the victim and offering her some peace of mind, is part of the story, so why not tell it?
Why not answer the questions such as how did this story eventually come to light, editor Jackie O's involvement or not? How did the fact that someone cared about this woman and her story make a difference in her life? That's why it's called a documentary. Documenting what it took to get this woman's story told after she'd hidden it away for most of her life is part of what makes this unique story all the more compelling.
Are movie industry critics (or in this case, a staff writer) so out of touch these days that it becomes acceptable to insert fictional characters into real life stories (i.e., the recent Hollywoodland in which Adrian Brody plays a fictional detective investigating the death of actor George Reeves to make the story easier to tell, so say the producers) but it's offensive to let a real person show-n-tell compelling truth in documentary form? That's just silly.
Frankly, the review called to mind an observation that the great Jimmy Breslin made about the equally great, unique columnist Damon Runyon. Runyon broke the mold by becoming involved with his subjects while telling their stories differently that anyone else had before. He provoked negative reaction in some fellow journalists, and Breslin had this to say:
"He understood that a newspaper was the underworld and that all these people who were sitting at typewriters who were on the way to nowhere suffered from phenomenal jealousy."
David did a service to Hollywood history, and the victim, by bringing this story to light and, like it or not critics, he's part of the intriguing tale. In a town known (justifiably or not) to be filled with egos larger than the Hollywood sign itself, what makes this independent filmmaker a special target for being called on the red carpet, so to speak? I find it all completely laughable.
Just saying.
See the film and judge for yourself.
