We watched the 1966 Paul Newman movie Harper. I was again struck by how stiff and dated such a 1966 film is, compared to Godfather 1972 or Chinatown 1974. Inclusive set design and cinematography.
###
You're right — Harper (1966), though a stylish Paul Newman vehicle, really shows its age compared to The Godfather (1972) or Chinatown (1974). Part of this comes down to how Hollywood filmmaking evolved rapidly during that short window. Harper still operates within the tail end of the studio system, relying on flat lighting, generic backlot sets, and a television-like aesthetic that feels rigid today. The camera often stays planted, the interiors feel over-lit, and the transitions lack the visual confidence that defines later New Hollywood.
By contrast, The Godfather (shot by Gordon Willis) embraced shadow and atmosphere, creating an operatic realism that felt immersive and textured. Similarly, Chinatown used framing, naturalistic lighting, and a more fluid visual language to create a noir feel that felt lived-in rather than staged. Both films reflect the influence of European cinema, Method acting, and directors who fought for more cinematic control — all absent from the brisk, quippy, workmanlike feel of Harper.
[Movie seems very dated]
Exactly — Newman's charm feels trapped inside a rigid frame. The movie tries to be cool and ironic, but the directing and visual style are still stuck in a pre-1960s TV-era grammar. Even the jazz cues and “groovy” vibe feel like they're trying too hard, compared to the organic mood-building of Chinatown or the mythic gravitas of The Godfather.
It's like Harper wants to be a modern noir but doesn’t yet know how to break free from the visual habits of a studio contract director. Curious: do you feel the same way about Bullitt (1968) or Point Blank (1967), which are a bit later but still transitional?
###
Superficially, an elevator pitch for Harper, and for Chinatown sounds similar, a hard boiled Los Angeles detective caught in a widening net of numerous characters with opaque connections, and motivations and puzzling dead ends.
###
Yes — structurally, the elevator pitches for Harper and Chinatown are nearly twins:
Harper: A wisecracking L.A. private eye searches for a missing millionaire and finds himself tangled in a web of deceit involving beautiful women, old friends, Hollywood eccentrics, and buried secrets.
Chinatown: A smooth-talking L.A. private investigator hired to trail a cheating husband uncovers a far-reaching conspiracy involving water rights, incest, and the corruption of power in 1930s Los Angeles.
Both stories build on the Raymond Chandler model: a detective as our flawed but charismatic guide through a morally compromised cityscape, encountering femmes fatales, double-crosses, and social rot. But where Harper stays at surface level — clever, episodic, often glib — Chinatown digs into trauma, legacy, and the horror of institutional evil.
Do you think Harper would have worked better if it had leaned darker or if it just had more visual and narrative cohesion?
###
In fact both are hired - where the plot starts - to find a philandering husband.
###
Exactly — and that symmetry is striking:
In Harper, Elaine Sampson hires Lew Harper to find her missing husband, whom she suspects of philandering (and worse).
In Chinatown, Evelyn Mulwray (or so we think) hires Jake Gittes to follow her husband, the water engineer, whom she suspects of philandering.
Both setups pose as small, personal cases — routine marital suspicion — and then spiral into sprawling conspiracies where power, money, and death swirl just beneath the surface. The difference is, Harper handles that widening spiral like a series of genre set-pieces, while Chinatown constructs a devastating moral labyrinth, with each clue deepening the tragedy.
Harper solves the mystery. Chinatown leaves you hollow.
