Girl 27 (2007) User Reviews

sad, a victim of her time

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 20 September 2013]

"Girl 27" is a fascinating story of Hollywood history and the workings of the studios. The studios owned Hollywood: the police, the DA, all the way up. The movie magazines were studio organs. They had private hospitals, doctors on payroll. Anything could be hidden.

Patricia Douglas was a young girl working in Hollywood as a dancer. "I moved like J.Lo" she tells the interviewer, David Stenn. One day she and some other women were asked to report to what they believed to be a film set, and they were sent to Western Costume to get costumes. When they arrived on the "set," it was a convention on a farm for MGM salespeople. Patricia Douglas was raped by one of them in a field. It was hushed up, and the doctor, under MGM's influence, put in her record that she had been treated for VD.

Patricia attempted to sue but lost, so she took it to Federal Court. MGM bribed her mother and lawyer to make the case go away, and they did. The lawyer never showed up in court any time the case was called. Her mother got a liquor store out of it.

At the time of the documentary, Patricia Douglas was 84, living alone in Las Vegas, when she was found by writer-producer Stenn. At first he spoke with her on the phone - she would say so much and then hang up abruptly. Finally she agreed to meet him and tell her story.

There have been many complaints about Stenn's presence in this film. I used to work for David Stenn. When he says he loves Patricia Douglas, he's not playing nice to get the story at all. He's not that kind of person. As for his presence in the film, she would only talk to him, so he was stuck there - yes, he could have cut himself out. In the beginning, I think he had to lay the foundation as he did - he is a film historian, an expert on MGM and that era. Did he have to mention Jackie Onassis? Probably not, but I think it made his credentials all the more impressive.

There's nothing uncommon in a documentary about looking at records and having someone go over them with you. So maybe in total, five minutes of Stenn could have been cut. I do not think he took away from this woman's agonizing story.

Not only is this a searing documentary about the machinations of MGM and Mayer, it is such a sad commentary on the time during which Patricia Douglas was young. Families swept incidents such as rape under the rug. There was no place she could go for help. She was never able to move on. It ruined her life. She said she was frigid. She was married three times; she wanted a child desperately to love and be loved, yet she gave the child to someone else to raise. She couldn't get too close to anyone.

Her beautiful daughter tells a sad story about their relationship or lack of it. Patricia never told anyone what had happened to her. When the story broke in Vanity Fair, she told her mother that she was so incredibly proud of her. And her mother said nothing.

It's such a tragic account, it breaks your heart. An entire live ruined. Patricia could have tried to move on, but how does one do that when violated and no one acknowledges it? When everyone expects you to act as if nothing's wrong? The studio heads were sleazes. When I interviewed actress Rita Gam, an incredibly beautiful woman even today, she said she received many offers from Hollywood. But she smartly waited until she was offered a contract for $1250 a week. Why? Because if you made less than that, she said, you were part of the "visiting firemen" circuit, in other words, a prostitute. Starlets were expected to sleep with men for jobs, and at the behest of the studio. Even Rita Hayworth's husband tried to pimp her out to Harry Cohn.

I think the story overrides David Stenn's presence in the film, which some find offensive. Personally I didn't mind it. I loved the film clips that were interjected. A nice touch to a horrible story.

A reply to mravenwud

[nancytribe · 7/10 · 21 May 2008]

This is in response to mravenwud's comment. You say that "girls are incredibly naive about men's sexuality" and that "they should not let themselves be left alone EVER in a place where there are men drinking". Why are you placing the blame for what happened to Patricia Douglas on her own shoulders? Are you saying that men are all naturally rapists, and that if women don't guard themselves carefully, they can expect to be violated? That does a disservice to both men and women, in my opinion.

Attitudes like this are part of the reason why it is so heartbreakingly difficult, even today, for people who have been raped to come forward with their stories. Patricia Douglas didn't do anything wrong. She didn't "let herself" get raped-- she WAS raped.

Worth seeing to learn how MGM ran Hollywood and the surrounding county

[digital_groove · 7/10 · 17 October 2008]

First, I must say I'm shocked of all the 1/10. I'm going to guess this is either the same person writing a bunch of bad reviews or someone who dislikes the producer/director personally.

I found this documentary to be a great inside look into how power run rampant in the early Hollywood 20s helped to ruin a woman's life and provide the means to cover up such a scandal. I'm am a movie fan in general and have always been intrigued how movies of the 20s and early 30s, the pre-Hayes Code era, including so much outright sexual material or sensual qualities. Growing up I always thought America was prude until the 60s rebirth.

This documentary does a good job giving personal accounts of extras and dancers on the types of activities that would occur at MGM getaways. Girls being brought onto grounds under false pretenses of a movie shoot; only to find out they're prime young women about to receive plenty of advances from numerous men. Fascinating to see how the birth of one new media outlet without much restriction could run so rampant and so free.

This is one of the underlying themes throughout this documentary. It intertwines with the main female interest discussing how in 1927 she reported she was raped at a MGM getaway. What is presented to us is an unaccountable law system, cover ups, and a insight into a woman who never recovered from the incident.

The director appeared to create this to get the scandal out in the open and shed some light onto a woman who up until the documentary never told her story to anyone. Not to a book, movie deal, newspaper, nothing since first reported the incident in 1927. The director manages to interview the offspring of many of the people at fault, impressive family members would discuss such incidents or troubled childhoods.

Overall, well worth seeing and if one isn't very informed about early Hollywood, a great film for provocative and first hand detailed accounts.

Really Sad Look at the Power of MGM

[Michael_Elliott · 14 December 2012]

Girl 27 (2007)

**** (out of 4)

Rather sad documentary taking a look at a 1937 MGM case where Patricia Douglas was hired to appear in a movie at Hal Roach Studios but instead she was raped by a man and the crime was eventually covered up. This case made headlines at the time as Douglas was attacked but then the case pretty much went away for over six decades until director David Stenn heard about the case and was able to locate the woman. I've seen quite a few documentaries on MGM and it's clear looking at the studio today that they owned Los Angeles and that they weren't afraid to do harmful things (look at Judy Garland) or cover things up. This story here is just downright shocking because it makes everything so clear that MGM was calling the shots on everything and they were strong enough to have cops, politicians and lawyers in their pockets. I think what's so sad about this movie is the interview with the then 85-year-old Douglas who is clearly still haunted by the events that happened to her when she was 17. Seeing how this event damaged her life is just sad and seeing and hearing from her daughter isn't any more happy. The film has a very low-budget that does effect it somewhat but it never takes away from the power of the story. I also really liked how the director shows how the system worked back in the day and this includes showing how Douglas was being attacked by the media while Loretta Young was allowed to lie about an adoption when everyone knew that Clark Gable and her had the kid. Their daughter, Judy Lewis, is interviewed here as is Peggy Montgomery (aka Baby Peggy) who talks about the trouble that girls found themselves in at the studio. GIRL 27 is high drama from start to finish and I think it's an important story to tell no matter how ugly that story is.

interesting story told semi-competently

[cherold · 6/10 · 18 February 2009]

I have rather mixed feelings about this movie. It brings up an interesting, forgotten scandal, which I give it credit for. But I felt the movie was always straining a little too hard to be interesting, as though the filmmaker knew he really only had a 40-minute short but was determined to get a feature length film out of it.

The movie is a mix of a documentary about the rape and a documentary about uncovering the rape, and I found that an interesting, fairly successful approach. The various film clips range from relevant to flippant. The filmmaker's worst instincts came out during the interviews with the victim. Tossing in film clips earlier made a certain amount of sense, but doing the same thing during her painful answers felt gimmicky and insensitive and just took away from the power of the scene. Sometimes you have to be willing to let a person or a situation speak for itself, but that doesn't happen in this movie.

David Stenn, point and shoot, thats all I ask of you.

[EXodus25X · 6/10 · 6 July 2008]

A documentary that could have used a lot less of the documenter, David Stenn spends far to much time on camera and does, what is to me the death kiss of documentaries. Stenn's editing forces his audience to see thing his way and no other, to feel the emotions he feels and to come to all the same conclusions he does. This is in no way anything new to documentaries, Michael Moore for example is the very master of this, now to be fair, does that mean these film makers viewpoints are wrong, no not at all, sometimes they are right on with mine but for heaven sakes let me come to my own opinion honestly. Give me both sides of a story fairly as best as possible and let me use my brain to decide which I believe. Now, I do realize in the case of Girl 27 there is no real way to show both sides, and to listen to Patricia Douglas talk I have no doubt in my mind that she is an honest woman, but it degrades her to surround her story with unfair edits of MGM convention footage with sinister music overplaying. Also on a side not I found the story about Loretta Young & Clark Gable's daughter to be heartbreaking, to hear Judy Lewis tell her story was one of the saddest things I have ever heard, it made me loose a lot of respect for those two actors. Anyway, David Stenn, let Patricia Douglas tell her story, realize what you have in that, it is all your film needs. The bravery of that women to do what she did in both her situation and during that time period is amazing, and for her to go in front of a camera and re-tell that to the world is to be admired.

Rape......Some Real History

[ImTheDeadGirl · 9/10 · 4 March 2012]

This is a true glimpse at life and how fragile it really can be. A young virgin, raped. Then the covered up by powerful, greedy, vicious men with no regard for just one girl. I loved this film more than I can say. I fell in love with Patricia! I adore her and feel for every single tragic life experience and painful moment she suffered. She was wonderful and the film maker is incredibly kind, patient, honest and wonderful in his story telling of her life. I loved what he's done here. To bring something out of a woman who's covered it up for 65 years, is a credit to him. No wonder Jackie O suggested he continue on his journey to the end with .....Patricia rip beautiful girl.

Unusual directorial style, but earthy, intimate documentary about workplace assault

[zaenkney · 7/10 · 22 November 2010]

What a heart-wrenching story! The way Mr. Stenn, who also directs this film, presented Patricia's story is refreshing, in fact the manner in which he insinuated himself as a part of this drama seemed to be implicitly sanctioned by her own words. She was thankful that he persevered in his quest to obtain this particular story, despite her fears. Furthermore, he genuinely seemed to care for her, as well as what she had experienced. He was highly criticized by critics and reviewers for his unusual style - to allow his own relationship with Patricia to unfold on screen.

For so many of us women who have experienced assault during our lifetime and had to learn that 'safe' is a rather tenuous term, it can be comforting to see someone like Mr. Stenn put himself 'up front' as he did, in a supportive role. At least, I found it so in this film.

This documentary certainly rent the veil of 'The Good Old Days' to pieces. By interspersing some old film spots of MGM as Pat was delivering her interview, it was made much less easy to obtain that nostalgic feel we might usually glean.

Are men dogs? My uncle Doug (a self confessed dog) says it is so, and that, furthermore, we women just need to be aware and ever cynical. We are less naive these days, I think.

I believe lawyers would find it a tad bit trickier to dump such a case these days, as they did in Pat's. Still, then or today, it takes an inordinate amount of courage to attempt to hold someone accountable for committing such terrific violence against us. If anything, I appreciate Mr. Stenn for giving Patricia her opportunity for vindication, as well as my chance to experience, albeit vicariously, some sort of weird justice on this end.

How did this film not receive more attention!!

[aloha-from-ritaanne · 10/10 · 21 April 2013]

While subject matter etc. is often reviewed (hence my 10 of 10), I am truly impressed with you for understanding what it took to reach thru this woman. At 1st my concern was that of "another story pusher" but I realized as the film cont. & you were in Vegas when she couldn't come up- you got her. I knew then that she may have started as a "story" but to you she was more than the just the incident. Just as she needed the world to know that they didn't just take her sexual innocence but they took her soul. My passion is because I know you got that because I am a survivor of rape that follows her course as far as my treatment as the victim including my mother. This was back in the 70's & treatment of girls/women was horrible. Thank you for introducing this woman to me. Thank you for you caring for her. Thank you that the love she could never give nor receive she experienced as a result of you prior to her passing. Your film has moved me to do this- write a review in hopes it is actually seen by the director/creator.

If you haven't seen this film, you should.

[joboeg · 7/10 · 8 February 2011]

I wonder how many people alive today would know who Patricia Douglas was let alone anything about her story if not for the work of David Stenn. I hadn't heard of either of them until happening across "Girl 27" about three hours ago. How Mr. Stenn learned of Patricia Douglas and the journey he took to discover what she experienced and who she became was a big part of the story he wanted to tell. Frankly, Mr. Stenn's personalization of the documentary and the relationship that he developed with it's subject are what make the story compelling. If you take these aspects away from the film then you have to take Ms. Douglas' voice and face out as well. Whatever you have left you can throw on the pile with all the other miscarriages of justice throughout history. Not to say this film doesn't have flaws; it has several, but a self-aggrandizing director isn't one of them. Where I think the film comes up short is in its failure to include any statements from MGM, the state of California, or Los Angeles County. How do we know anything has changed

Compelling Story Badly Handled as Film

[shark-43 · 5/10 · 31 December 2007]

I was glad to see that many of the other comments felt like I did - that this was a very compelling story - a story that should be brought to light, but that it is very badly handled by the inexperienced filmmaker. Now David Stenn is a talented writer and my friends who devour Hollywood biographies speak very highly of his (I believe he's written about Clara Bow and other big Hollywood Golden Era stars) and it is interesting how he came across this awful scandal that was covered up by MGM but he seems to not trust the power of poor Ms. Douglas' story and I actually was cringing with the horrid decision to add Hollywood movie clips of women being shaken or slapped or pushed down (from various fiction films) - as Ms. Douglas begins to tell of the actual sexual assault and how it destroyed her - the forced clips almost seemed to parody what was happening (which I am sure is the opposite effect the director wanted). The way the story is told, the way he films a lot of the interviews - it is just amateurish. I read the article Stenn wrote in Vanity Fair and that is much more complex and fascinating than the film. Hollywood truly had the power to sweep all of its dirty secrets under a large rug and this story is a perfect example of that. Ms. Douglas was a very brave woman to even try and stand up to MGM but of course they crushed her with newspaper lies and huge powerful law firms. The film is still worth watching because of the subject matter but as far as documentary skill - it truly fails.

Suspend criticism, and see the ripple effect of rape

[donalan · 10/10 · 8 June 2013]

Regardless of any 'errors' or liberties the director may have taken, understand that this is a TRUE story of a minor, a 17-year old girl, who was raped and had the courage to attempt to seek justice. Nevertheless, the psychological effects of rape in that era (1937) had a ripple effect in her life. It touched and destroyed nearly every aspect of her life. The lessons to be learned deal with courage, integrity, honestly, and communication. If possible, I highly recommend watching on DVD so you have access to the director's commentary. Go ahead and read the harsh reviews - examine the criticism and you will discover nit-picking and diversion from the good that you will gain from a viewing.

Worth watching, but Bad Direction

[RyanNijakowski · 6/10 · 2 February 2020]

The 1937 scandal is definitely a story worth learneing about. There are some interesting interviews, great film references, but the director of the film clearly does not know how to direct a documentary. There is an ego about him that is just not acceptable. He insinuates himself into the story and into the life of the woman who back in 1937 was Girl 27. He never passes up an opportunity to bring up the fact that he is also an author of celebrity biographies. He never passes up the opportunity to let his audience know the famous people he has worked with. I am not someone who believes there is a perfect cookie cutter way of making a documentary film. Sometimes it's necessary for a director to knock down that fourth wall and make himself or herself a presence in the film he or she is producing. A good director should never steer the focus of the subject matter onto himself or herself, though. David Stenn is not just annoying as a documentary filmmaker, he is disgraceful as a documentary filmmaker. This documentary should be taught in film schools about what NOT to do as a documentary filmmaker.

Anyway... this is the only existing documentary that covers the subject matter of the 1937 MGM sex scandal. It's a story worth knowing. It's unfortunate that the story was brushed under the rug as long as it was. In this, the time of #MeToo and #TimesUp, it's really important not to brush such stories under the rug. History absolutely repeats itself. 'Girl 27' as well as other documentary films and biopics like 2019's 'Judy', for example, are evidence that Louis B. Mayer was the Harvey Weinstein of the '30s, '40s, and '50s. Some people live their whole lives and die without being brought to justice for their horrible behavior. Justice sometimes comes in the form of unearthing the truth postmortem, denying their legacies praise, and condemning them for their insidious existence.

disappointing look at an important story

[triciamcdermott · 4/10 · 26 December 2009]

The biggest issue I have with the film besides- his constant focus on himself instead of the story- is that for someone who claims to know MGM and Hollywood so well, he calls Peggy Montgomery, one of the most, if not THE most famous child film star ever, a Hollywood extra. She was Baby Peggy for god's sake.

Since he got that huge, very obvious item wrong, it may indicate other research that is not very good either. Could that be why he spends too much time on himself. All of the time on him is wasted time and self aggrandizing. Time to watch "Broadcast News" for tips on why it doesn't work to focus on himself.

Pat Douglas's story is important, particularly in light of other famous (Fatty Arbuckle for one), and some more recent, Hollywood rape cases.

I, at least, applaud him for telling Pat's even in this not very well handled documentary.

Tragic cautionary tale

[chucknorrisfacts · 1 November 2011]

I just watched "Girl 27" on Netflix instant stream. It's a very sad movie, but I think it's worth checking out, particularly if you're a starry-eyed youth thinking of making a career in show business.

The truth is, the world's a pretty nasty place, and you shouldn't trust people. Maybe that doesn't sound very nice to say, but it's the truth. It's just too bad no one ever told poor Pat Douglas that when she was growing up.

"Girl 27" tells the story of Pat Douglas, a young extra in the early days of Hollywood who gets raped at MGM and the subsequent cover-up that took place to protect the studio from the backlash after Douglas went public with her story.

I know a lot of people have given this film negative reviews and I can't really understand why. It seems a common complaint is the director's mishandling of the material or his apparent need to put himself in front of the camera instead of the real "star".

Well, first off, I'm in no way affiliated with the director, but I think if he's the one to uncover the story, he has the right to appear in his own documentary. Secondly, no one ever stopped to consider that maybe Pat Douglas wasn't comfortable talking on camera long enough to make a whole film out of it -- and that the director had to relay some information himself? I don't know...I guess I just think the people who voted this movie down because of the director missed the point of the whole documentary. It's about Pat Douglas and her tragic story, and I'm just glad the story got out and without the director that wouldn't have happened.

Some may say he exploited her again for the purpose of a story, but I don't see that. I think he gave her the only vindication she received in her whole life. Otherwise, the story would never have been told, as I said before, and I think as tragic as the story is, it serves as a warning of the dangers of being young and naive and unaware of the dangers that exist in this world.

I would recommend checking this movie out -- it's really sad, but I'm glad to have seen it -- because nothing like this should have to happen to anyone...and awareness is key to keeping stuff like this from happening to anyone else.

Good story but ...

[Reviewer99 · 7/10 · 17 July 2022]

I agree with the other reviews in that the Director / Writer got too personally involved in the documentary. It should have been the victim's story not the director's.

Required viewing

[jellopuke · 8/10 · 28 August 2021]

This exposes old Hollywood as a cesspool of corruption and cover ups, which historians already knew, but for the average person would be eye opening. Then you get the effects that a rape had on a person and how it trickles down through the generations added in to the mix which makes this a must see for anyone to understand how a violent act traumatizes more than just one person and why they need to be treated more seriously.

The truth is not always pleasant

[TSMChicago · 10/10 · 15 August 2008]

Girl 27 has been criticized for the alleged self-indulgence of director David Stenn. I disagree.

Stern's obsessive effort to unearth the truth about Patrica Douglas was riveting, and it could not have been depicted in any other fashion. A dry, factual investigation would never have revealed the intimacies that made this story so compelling to watch.

At times I felt uncomfortable with Stenn's invasive style, but this was a terrible story that needed to be told. To gloss it over would only be an injustice to Ms. Douglas.

I truly felt Stenn's anxiety at the casino hotel where he awaited his first meeting with Patricia. Some may accuse the director of exploitation, but to me Stenn displayed true compassion for Ms. Douglas and her tragic experience at MGM.

An amazing film.

David Stenn, Boy #1

[pubguy47 · 4/10 · 16 November 2008]

What self-respecting documentary filmmaker would appear on camera to quote his book editor (Jacqueline Onassis): "She said, 'if anyone can tell this story, you can, David.'") or go in for the close-up to feature a testimonial from his subject ("Thank God for him")? It's an obnoxious way to, respectively, begin and end, a potentially compelling documentary about an incredibly brave woman.

The first half is a rather sloppily edited view of Hollywood in the 1930s with a lot of misguided film clips used to illustrate the worst of celebrity and power (and a lot of footage of director Stenn pacing and fretting and worrying and sitting with every tangential revelation cued with ominous music). The hotel room scene in which Steen anxiously awaits his first face-to-face meeting with Patricia Douglas is embarrassing. So is the admission that he offered to scrub out her toilets to get her to talk. It's important for her, of course. A catharsis, he says. You can't help but feel that Douglas is being exploited all over again so Stenn can get an "exlcusive" for his lip-smacking tabloid story.

When Douglas, as well as her family, are finally allowed to speak for themselves in the second half, it becomes a more focused and moving look at the subject herself, and the life-long ramifications of sexual assault. But Stenn can't help but to throw himself in at the end again, as savior, when he includes Douglas saying, "They should make a documentary about him."

Well, he has.

Girl 27 is a compelling and fascinating film

[karie-5 · 10/10 · 14 September 2007]

David Stenn spent 10 years researching Patricia Douglas and her case and trying to uncover the truth. He presents rare archival footage, film clips and interviews that are compelling and at times even shocking when placed in the proper context. He gives the audience solid historical perspective on how secrets, lies and hypocrisy impacted Hollywood from the top stars on down.

The title of the film derives its name from the roster of girls who were at the party. Patricia Douglas was "Girl 27" on the list.

About half way through the film, we finally meet Patricia Douglas (which was great great timing since her survival comes as a bit of a surprise). She has a commanding voice and an arresting presence. She is surprisingly sharp and articulate. In spite of what Eddie Mannix claimed, she is alive and living as a recluse in an apartment in Las Vegas. The film tells two interwoven stories of both Patricia's terrible ordeal and of David Stenn's search for the truth about the events surrounding it. Even though she is reluctant, Patricia Douglas finally opens up and tales her story. In doing so, she seems set free and vindicated. Through it all, Patricia and David form a close bond that seems almost like an unconventional love story.

Girl 27 is a haunting, compelling and powerful documentary that will stay with you long after the final credits.

Not so good - ruined by overbearing star/director

[dmccarthy-10 · 1/10 · 17 September 2007]

What does happen when an interesting story is ruined by a man who just cannot keep out of the shadows and must (simply MUST) always leap centre stage? Well it looks a bit like Girl 27.

I think I am kinder than some other reviewers who give this film a one (but maybe not than those who think this is the best film of all time --- maybe the director or his friends eh?) this isn't terrible really, just fairly bad. The story, however, saves it from being awful - it is quite compelling blend of misogyny and studio politics with a victim who is left a ruin.

Its his first film I think so maybe he will learn to focus more on the subject of a documentary and not to grab the attention so much for the next effort.

Jochen L.

An Incredible Film

[bodian26 · 10/10 · 18 October 2007]

This is an incredible film, a powerful film, a love letter to someone who was deeply and tragically wronged. This is a film that shows how sadness, despair and actions can be carried down through the generations. It is also a film that shows that the system may try to destroy you but if you believe in yourself, the truth will come out somehow. This is a film that is moving in every way a film can be. David Stenn, the filmmaker has done a lot of good with his film. He has helped to change lives, bring closure, and allowed Patricia Douglas to feel that she is not alone in her struggles and regrets. An absolute must see. You won't regret it.

The "Split Personality" Documentary

[bassman592 · 8/10 · 31 December 2007]

I liked this film. Both of them.

I think any analysis of this documentary must take into account that it is really 2 films in one, and I'm not really sure which one the director felt was more important. The first film is a sort of "making of" documentary. This is where the director takes you by the hand and literally shows you how and why he came to make this film. This type of thing now-a-days is usually relegated to a special feature on the DVD, but here it is incorporated in the film itself. Some of that is irritating (Jackie Onassis gave him a "mandate" - c'mon dude), and some just looks stupid (pointing out the former location of the structure in which the party took place, while the camera doesn't move from his face). However, Stenn's research is very thorough, in some cases exceptional, and the interviews, for the most part, are well done. However, this film really has a "hey look at me - didn't I do a great job" feel to it. I gave this film a 3 (out of 5).

The second film is about a tragedy. The rape of a woman, the rape of a legal system, the rape of a society, and, perhaps most disturbingly, the rape of a family. And this film is brilliant. This film makes you care about a crime that was committed 70 years ago against a poor working-class girl. And although part of the crime involves the ruthless way it is handled by MGM, it is not just another Erin Brockovich big-business-is-bad story. It is also about how the crime has affected several families through several generations, particularly, of course, Douglas's. I wish he had introduced Patricia Douglas earlier, and I wish I could have heard more of her story. The film does leave some questions unanswered. For example, since Douglas was legally a minor (she was 20, and the age of maturity in those days was 21) how did Douglas choose her attorney, and how was he paid? Once her criminal case was dismissed, how did she arrive at the decision to file suit in federal court? After all, applying federal constitutional law to a rape case was not something that would have occurred to many practicing attorneys at the time (or even today!). Also, the film (with the help of Greta VanSusteren) seems to settle on the idea that her attorney was bought off - but could he instead have been threatened? (If he was bought off, then he's just a piece of scum, but if he was threatened, the moral picture for him gets a little murkier, while MGM's immorality would extend to perverting the federal courts). MGM apparently had a lot of clout, and was willing to use it, so who knows? Finally, why did she give up? The federal suit was left in limbo for 3 or 4 years before it was dismissed. Even then, it could have been re-filed. Patricia Douglas does not come across as a quitter. But then again, she's only human.

I have other questions, but I guess I'll have to wait for the book(!) I gave this film 5 (out of 5). So the total is 8 (out of 10).

I saw this terrible film at Sundance

[mitsukurina · 1/10 · 5 September 2007]

This film appalled me when I saw it at Sundance. It was one of the worst I viewed there.

This could have been an interesting - possibly touching - film, the underlying story has all such elements. A naive girl abused by a Hollywood salesmen and then betrayed by her mother - it is fascinating; yet Stenn ruins it all. Mr. Stenn seems less interested in bringing the victim's story to life and more interested in thrusting himself into the camera and showing off. It is like an extended promotional reel for a D grade ham actor.

The scene of him dancing on the grave (yes *literally* dancing on the grave) of the girl's abuser sickened me. Stenn clearly has no sense of decency or dignity.

Documentary on 1930 Hollywood scandal that was covered up

[mail-4509 · 9/10 · 14 September 2007]

Director and writer David Stenn took the gutsy step of putting himself into the movie. "Gutsy" because others have, and will, find fault with this approach. They misinterpret his goal of sharing each step of investigation. They see it as self-centered. Rather, it's quite the opposite. The technique succeeds in creating a "plot" and building considerable suspense, especially regarding the central figures of the 1937 scandal.

I would recommend this movie to any interested in the "Glory Days" of Hollywood, historical research, and the telling of history. Stenn takes a chance in his approach. I think it succeeds.