MovieChat Forums > Mrs. Harris (2006) Discussion > Revisionist film that takes liberty with...

Revisionist film that takes liberty with the facts

posted 18 years ago by babybyrd2000
13 replies | jump to latest

The film works hard to keep up the sympathy drumbeat for Harris and yet tries to on occasion show Harris's obvious culpability.

She shot him 4 times at close range and according to the coroner he died almost instantly. He did not sit up and talk to her as portrayed at the beginning of the movie.

It is not ok to kill folks for being a jerk, a hunter, liking firearms or having a large willie.

She allowed herself to be in a disastrous relationship for many years even though not married and having no children with him. That is her responsibility.

Any young unmarried lady reviewing this forum would be well served to note that being a lover with a philanderer for years who eschews commitment inherently has it's risk if one desires fidelty.

She could have simply left. That she "loved" him as she tells the FF character is no excuse to allow someone to use you for over a decade.

Harris lived in a self delusion.

PS: Great cast though and some of the set design nails it though several of the soundtracks were played out of date....the songs would have come later in history than depicted. And the folks in the Courthouse looked more late 60s than 1980

[–] fluffhead34 17 years ago

I agree that she was obviously delusional, but knowing that the Doctor still played mind games with her; such as giving her a ring and asking her to marry him, and then calling it off, and continuing to blatantly sleep with other women, while she was staying at his home.

Yes, a stable, clear thinking woman would have left him very early on. However, she was not a stable clear thinking woman and he knew this! He was a Doctor remember, a psychiatrist I believe, who, was prescribing her multiple
medications; including Barbituates, Percodan & Desoxyn(pharmaceutical methamphetamine) which, when abused(or over prescribed) can lead to psychosis.

I don't know how much of the movie was factual, but in the movie she had run out of her Desoxyn and tried to reach him by phone for days for a refill. Each time she called he had his secretary take a message, which he didn't return.

Being a Psychiatrist he would know the dangers of letting anyone run out of any of the prescriptions he was giving her, which she took with complete trust in the Doctor (another sign of her self-delusion).

Of course I agree that as low of a human being he may have been, he certainly did not deserve to get shot! We'll never know if she went to his home to kill herself, or not, but in that state of mind anything is possible.

I guess my point is that although the Doctor (I forget his name), may not have deserved what he got, he should not have been surprised that his relationship with Mrs. Harris was headed for trouble, BIG TROUBLE and that he was partly responsible for stringing her along for so long. If he would have "simply left" her early on, all could have been avoided.

I also felt that the movie was a black comedy take on the whole true life inspired case.

P.S.I AGREE, GREAT CAST!

[–] rios_119 17 years ago

Dr. Herman Tarnower was a very respected, well known cardiologist who had written the best-selling diet book, "The Scarsdale Diet."

No one deserves to be shot, but he certainly was a womanizing, controlling creep. The movie deviated strongly from the real facts of the case.

One scene, in particular, did not ring true. When he first meets Jean Harris at a dinner party, the movie shows him staring at her, bewitched. He later asks her out. Annette Bening is a very beautiful woman; Jean Harris is very plain. She was highly intelligent, educated and "classy" but not a beauty who would mesmerize a man on her physical attributes, alone.

[–] fluffhead34 17 years ago

rios0119
Thank-you for correcting me on Dr Tarnower's specialty. It had been awhile since I had seen the movie and don't know much about the case. It should have been more obvious to me that he was a Medical Doctor, having written the diet book.

I guess it was the way he prescribed medications that got me thinking he was a Psychiatrist. My Heart Dr. only gives me "beta-blockers! LOL!

Whether he was an MD or a Psych. he still would/should have known the dangers and possible consequenses of prescribing such drugs, and the importance of maintaining a person on them.

Then again, I don't really know for sure if that part of the story was embeleshed. I'll have to look into the true facts one of these days. Until then I'll try and view "Mrs. Harris" as the black comedy that it is, and enjoy the performances as "based" on a true story.

Thanks again rios0119
TALK to YOU SOON!?

[–] jilllovesmovies 17 years ago

babybird2000,

What "soundtracks" were played out of date? If you're nailing a film for something, be specific.
I disagree with you, by the way...the songs are perfectly accurate. A lot of time went into picking them.

[–] babybyrd2000 17 years ago

Harris murdered him in 1980.

Many of the songs played during the 70s lead up time period were in fact 60s songs such as those from the Hollies for example.

I'm discussing a film....not nailing it....it was not a horrible film just very flawed but with a nice cast.

My primary beef with the film was Hollywood's usual notion of portraying female murderers as victims and demonizing the Kingsley character.

I am unaware of anything he did to merit being shot 4 times up close and killed instantly...unlike portrayed in the film.

The 80s courthouse styling was also about 10-15 years late btw.

I'm 50. I lived that time period I know what it looked like. Pink Chanel and pillbox hats in the early 80s?

please.

[–] Jelly-4 17 years ago

I just saw this film and while I liked it I thought it was terribly anachronistic as well.

I thought the story took place in the 50s after seeing Benning's dresses and style of cars they drive (i.e., the cars in the parking lot of the Palm Beach party house). I was surprised when I heard the murder took place in 1980.

[–] NJCHARMED1 17 years ago

There are only 2 people who know what *really* happened that night in Herman's home... he's dead & she may not be entirely telling the truth. They both participated in the delusional relationship. Either one of them could have left & neither did. As agreed by everyone else in the forum, Herman didn’t deserve to die. Jean had no right to kill him. What’s sad to me is that I don’t think she paid long enough for her crime.

Blessed Be!

[–] cmleidi 17 years ago

No one can say for certain what happened that night. The prosecution's case did not match up with all of the evidence and neither did the defense's. Harris was not convicted based upon the physical evidence because it was inconclusive and the authorities made a mess of the whole thing--allowing Harris to wash her bloody shirt for example. In his testimony, the coroner could not definitively pinpoint the events of that night. It was the Scarsdale Letter that convicted Harris as well as her demeanor in court which is evidenced by interviews given by those present in the courtroom. Diana Trilling in her book, MRS HARRIS, also says the letter was what convicted Harris.

[–] LadyJaneGrey 17 years ago

For the later posters, the film moves back and forth in time, from when Harris and Tarnower met in the mid 60s through 1980 when she shot him. The songs, decor, fashion, naturally go back and forth too. The cars at the Palm Beach party house were, I think, the 60s and 70s, not 80s. Though at times surroundings did seem anachronistic, I think overall they did a pretty good job.

To the original poster: I'm not totally sure the music was meant to reflect the period at any given time shown in the movie, but rather Harris's emotions.

As to Harris's motivations for murder and/or suicide and her willingness to be treated like a doormat for 15 years, I think it's pretty clearly expressed in the movie that she is high-strung, unstable, and medically dependent on the drugs Tarnower was freely prescribing (and also withholding) from her. Tarnower was indeed a creep who treated women cavalierly, and this in combination with his offhand treatment of her probably drove her over the edge. That said, everything Harris says happened in the bedroom may not have occurred the way she said it did. It's plausible that she recalled things to put herself in a better light. He gets shot four times accidentally and every time she puts the gun to her head, it doesn't go off? Unlikely.

I thought Kingsley and Benning did a stellar job, though.

Future events such as these will affect you....in the future!

[–] Daverat 17 years ago

LadyJaneGrey points out a n umber of things that viewers seem to miuss. Thanks for that post!

yes, the film is non-linear and moves back and forth through time from the early 1960s to 1980. if you olook at each scene, the fashions and cars are appropriate for the time frame. However, Jean Harris is shown as being stuck a few years behind the times in fashion and that's consistant with her appaearance in real life. She was the head Mistress of an old fashioned privates girls only school. In fact, when the murder happened, I was a teen who babysat for some people who moved in the same social circle as her. People were sympathetic towards her but the general opinions seemed to be she was lost in the Eisenhower era mentally. While she herself was not wealthy, she was often invited to stay with wealthy firends and acquaintences. As a paid teen nanny, I stayed at a rented "cottage" in the adirondacks that someone from her immediate circle used to rent and it was a freakin' mansion. It too was stuck back in the late 50s and early 60s.

As I recall that part of my life and the scuttle about the murder, I can remember how remarkably stagnated that scene was. The parents were often practising alcoholics (the dads) and the mothers were all on methamphetamine diet pills. The kids I cared for were shuttled from private school to private music lessons to ballet and back to the manses they lived in. Childcare was farmed out to workingclass kids such as myself and/or foreign au pairs or even housekeepers. The folks with money often socialized with artsy types, theater folk, the literati, prominent doctors (but not Jewish doctors mind you) and school teachers from the best schools.

What I remember most was how nasty the comments were about Dr. Tarnower (sp?) and how people clucked over her having an affair with "a Jew". It was OK in that circle to go to a Jewish doctor and OK to see them socially at events, but these people didn't invite "jews" to their homes. Goodness no. I remember being on duty as a nanny on the weekend after the murder. A limo was sent for me and my little charges so we could be driven to have lunch with an out of town great-aunt or somesuch. The eldery lady told me to "feel free to order anything on the menu, dear" which was a reference to my workingclass background, and then she proceeded to cackle about the "delicious" gossip about Jean Harris "killing that.. Man!" I only vaguely knew who she was and the lady filled me on the nastier details.

Incidentally, a Psychiatrist IS an MD (Medical Doctor). It is only a Psychologist who is not a doctor but rather a PhD . Dr. Tarnower was neither as has been pointed out; he was a cardiologist. His book was on every wealthy lady's nightstand or in her bathroom at the time of the murder.

As for the film not portraying the muder properly, it is shown from two different points of view! If you watch carefully, the two different points of view roughly correspond with varying versions of the story Jean told. We are never told which if any of those versions are true and in fact, the dialog and later trial testimony seems to indicate that we shouldn't believe EITHER version as true. The film shows Jean Harris's POV - not what really happened. The jumping back and forth through time works well because it shows how she was not accepting of the reality of her present realtionship with him. She was forever looking backward to that day on the lake when he gave her a ring. The film portrays her not as a victim, but as a sad, deluded and self-deceived woman who chose to remain in an abusive relathionship for almost 20 years because she was simply most comfortable being under this man's thumb and couldn't conceive of life any other way. When that relationship is threatened, she could do one of three things: Kill herself, Kill him, or Kill him and then kill herself. At various times she claims she wanted to do each of those things.

That the film is sparking such a debate shows thow far women have come since 1980. Jean Harris wouldn't get much sympathy today.

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

I think the OP may have misinterpreted the film's presentation. It's not trying to make out Jean Harris to be a "good guy", but rather it's showing--in a surrealistic way--how the world was largely fooled into being sympathetic toward her.

The opening scene was a trick designed to set the tone. It wasn't the real truth; it was Jean's truth. The real truth comes toward the end in the courtroom flashback where we see how things really happened (or at least how the courts decided)--that Jean Harris casually & intentionally shot the doctor multiple times.

If you've seen the classic film Rashomon, you know what I'm talking about. In Rashomon, the witnesses each tell compelling versions of the truth, and we, the audience, are taken for a ride. But in the end, it's up to us to realize that we've just been shown versions of the truth which must be taken with a grain of salt. If absolute truth exists, it doesn't come through witness testimonies.

The key is to realize that this film is being facetious, sarcastic and surreal. Think of the locker room scene where Ben Kingsley is walking down the gauntlet, eliciting insane, choreographed reactions from men admiring his manhood. ROFL. That scene was a clear message to the audience that this is not a truthful documentary. It's an exaggerated caricature of *certain* truths that surrounded the case.

The bizarre round of applause at Jean's insipid closing statement capped it nicely. This film is tongue-in-cheek.

[–] EmmaPopell 13 years ago

Love this film. I always thought the underlying reason she stayed in the
relationship might have something to do with that very locker room scene.
That scene explained ALOT to me, as far as her relentless affection...

[–] TheMaenadWhoCameToDinner 13 years ago

She shot him 4 times at close range and according to the coroner he died almost instantly. He did not sit up and talk to her as portrayed at the beginning of the movie.

If you're going to bash a film's facts, you should get YOUR facts straight.

The coroner never wrote that he died almost instantly.
Actually, Tarnower was alive when he was taken to the hospital, where he died shortly after.