Traditional, but nice! Officially, the founder of the literary (and then cinematic!) genre “cool detective” is considered Dashiel Hammet. And Ross MacDonald, on whose novel Harper is staged, is a worthy (late) successor to the cause of the “discoverer”. Since very talented, somewhat in his own way, engaged in the "development" of the foundations that Hammet laid (by the way, he is not alone!). Unfortunately, they soon became "common places", artistic "stamps" for many American (and not only) detective writers and filmmakers. I have read enough of Hammett, MacDonald, and writers like them to make such a statement.
So, what gave birth to Hammett and the rest picked up? Yes, in addition, the image of a “cool private detective”. This is a middle-aged man (often a former police officer), far from succeeding, or rather, barely making ends meet, living his job (honestly, but sometimes "partially" breaking the law in the name of investigating and establishing the truth). He has a headache in the morning with a hangover, in the house around, sorry, crap, with personal life problems, and even an old clunker is cluttering, as well as debts, but he is Cool, and despite everything (mandatory attribute of a detective is beaten a lot or treated by both cops and bandits) he solves the case! Wow! Now you have an idea of who our main character is Detective Harper (from the novel, and not only this - Archer) in a brilliant performance of a young Paul Newman! In fact, in this image you can recognize a lot of people, for example, Detective Welliant (Bob Hoskins, Who Framed Roger Rabbit). That's it. Why is that? Yes, because for American pop culture (which includes quite “commercial” literature, including Hammett and McDonald) for more than 100 years, the main thing is that if there is an interesting idea that can bring a good income, then it should be exploited and sold to the audience, without conscience, until there is no interest, sorry, demand for this “good” and until its “purchasing abilities” are erased to holes. It wasn’t me, it was reality, it was reality.
But the film is still good, agree (and shot at a time when this theme was not hit to death). Although for a sophisticated fan of the genre is quite predictable (remember the golden rule of the detective: often the criminal is the one who is least suspected!).
And I can not, as a lover of the search for all sorts of “films”, not draw your attention to one, striking “blunder”. At the end, when Harper, in a fight with the enemy, hears a shot saving him, he removes his hand from the back of the enemy, and under it opens a bleeding wound from the bullet. It looks spectacular and impressive (the director and the cameraman probably thought about it). But here's the bad luck! How did the shooter not shoot Harper's hand, but only the "body" underneath it? Wonders, and only!
7 out of 10
7 out of 10