Movie review: Paul Newman film 'Harper' still holds up

I recently picked up the 1966 movie “Harper” from a bargain bin somewhere, on the logic that if it had Paul Newman in it, it would probably be good.

To most, Paul Newman is best known as the kindly face on healthy salad dressings. But “Newman’s Own” (a product line that donates all proceeds to charity) was created after a decades-long acting career that defined American cinema.

“Harper” is special because it played against the grain of what was popular at the time and had one of the biggest names of the time, and ever. Noir and “tough guy” detective fiction boomed in the 1930s and 40s, but grew out of fashion and made way for a growing interest in musicals and westerns. Crime stories were relegated mostly to the land of television, and hardly ever reached the big screen.

The crime-fiction of today largely takes the form of high-flying, fast-paced political thrillers. This is the second reason “Harper” is particularly special. It takes the classical nihilistic approach that noir stories have on life: Crime seems complex and interconnected, but in the end solutions are simple and dirty, more often based on chance and emotions than labyrinthine logic and cerebral planning.

In the opening credits sequence, the audience is immediately introduced to our awakening detective hero, Lew Harper, totally free of dialogue. He is a bit schlubby — comes off as a talentless, unattractive and boring person — and we like him. And with Newman’s charisma as a leading character, the audience wants to see him succeed.

The story begins, as all detective stories do, with the meeting with the client. Ralph Sampson, an eccentric, old millionaire, has gone missing and his callous wife (played by Lauren Becall, bringing to mind the older noir pictures of Humphrey Bogart, her real-life husband) has hired Harper to find him.

Sampson is effectively a “non-character” in the film, in which he never really appears, and all the information learned about him is from the other characters: cruel, selfish, drunken, materialistic, etc.

The audience’s emotional hook comes from Harper’s collapsing marriage and estranged wife (played by the incredible Janet Leigh), as well as Harper’s best friend and Sampson’s lawyer, Albert Graves (played by stellar theatre actor Arthur Hill). Even Broadway great Julie Harris makes an appearance as a junkie jazz musician.

Director Jack Smight has a keen eye for performance. The film isn’t “slow,” but the camera takes its time on the faces of the actors, picking its moments for clever editing. Although the classic noir films were all in the era of black-and-white, Smight’s use of shadow and contrast is stunning in the more tense sequences. The film breathes the 1960s, from the voluminous hair and bright colors to the frantic, dancing teens, making Harper’s hard-boiled efforts all the more alien.

Had “Harper” been made today, it wouldn’t have been given the wide, narrative freedom that it has, especially with so many stars in its cast. Harper and Sampson probably would have had some personal connection. Harper himself would have had a dark secret.

Harper’s existential dilemmas of “why is he doing this?” is allowed to be laid bare. He’s beaten up, pursued, shot at, lied to by everyone. But still, he keeps going. In the end, the simplicity allows for profundity amid the intricacy of conspiracy and crime.

Bargain bin or no, “Harper” is sharper than it looks.

Graham Gentz is a theater and film reviewer for the Daily Lobo. He can be reached culture@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @DailyLobo.