The 1960’s was a very, very good decade for actor Paul Newman.  Not that he didn’t appear in great films in other decades (he most certainly did), but he just seemed to be on a great roll during that decade, beginning with 1961’s The Hustler and ending with 1969’s Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  Along the way, he would also appear in such classics as Hud, Hombre, Cool Hand Luke, and, of course, Harper.

Based on the very first Lew Archer detective novel The Moving Target by Ross MacDonald, Harper featured Mr. Newman in the title role of Lew Harper (at the time, Mr. Newman was having so much success with movies that started with the letter “H” that he insisted Archer’s name be changed to Harper!).

Lew Harper, as played by Mr. Newman, is a deeply moral yet sarcastic man who is well aware he works and lives in a very amoral world.  As the movie starts, he’s on his way to the Sampson estate to meet Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall echoing roles she used to play in her early noir days).  Her husband, Mr. Sampson, flew in from Las Vegas to L.A. the day before but is now missing and she wants Harper to find him.  Mrs. Sampson does little to hide her contempt for her husband, noting she’s certain he’s out on a drinking binge and/or shacked up with yet another of his mistresses.  All Mrs. Sampson wants is to get him back with a minimum of fuss.

After talking with Mrs. Sampson, Harper heads out to the estate’s pool area where he meets up with Miranda Simpson (the absolutely stunning Pamela Tiffin), a very hot to trot youngster, and Allan Taggert (Robert Wagner), the seemingly shallow “pretty boy” who drove/flew Mr. Simpson around and was the last to see him before his disappearance.

This is but the introduction to a labyrinth plot that involves…well, I don’t want to spoil it.  Suffice it to say that Mr. Simpson’s disappearance is anything but a drunken binge or a fling with a mistress and that by the time the film is done Harper will have exposed a host of sordid affairs…including murder.

When I first saw this film many years before, I was astonished by what I saw.  The film had me from the very beginning, with Newman’s Harper a real treat.  While he isn’t entirely true to the Archer character from the novels (I don’t recall him being quite that sarcastic), like the novels his character is a next generational Phillip Marlowe.  Indeed, if there is one critique that can be leveled on the Archer novels of Ross MacDonald it is that they are awfully similar to the works of Raymond Chandler.

Having said that, I still love almost all the novels I’ve read and Harper does a pretty damn good job of translating that particular novel to film.

Yet seeing it now, I came away aware of at least two negatives.  These negatives don’t torpedo the film, but they are things to consider.

The first problem the film has is that it is clearly of its time.  There are scenes in clubs which featuring some pretty godawful “hip” music that the young kids are dancing to.  These scenes scream 1960’s…and not in a terribly good way.

Another problem I have, a far smaller problem, is the inclusion of the great Janet Leigh in this film.  She plays Harper’s estranged wife and appears a total of three times in this movie (her role, it could be said, is nothing more than an extended cameo).  As much as I like Janet Leigh and especially like the scene where she and Harper have a phone conversation, I couldn’t help but feel her inclusion was unnecessary.  In the novels, Archer is described as having an ex-wife that he thinks about, but to my memory (and my memory being what it is, I could be completely wrong here), I don’t believe she ever appeared in any of the books.

That doesn’t mean she has no reason to appear in this movie.  Indeed, I’m guessing she was included here to try to “humanize” the character of Harper, to give us a look at him outside of the case itself.  But given the movie’s very robust plot and lengthy run time (the film clocks in at two hours and a minute), her scenes could easily have been cut without being terribly missed.  In my opinion a viewer will come away with a good understanding of what makes Harper even without the scenes featuring his wife.

As I said, these two points aren’t dealbreakers.  Harper remains an intriguing mystery which features a fun cast of characters.  If you enjoyed The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon, you should get a kick out of a 1960’s era attempt at recreating those classics.