MovieChat Forums > Girl 27 (2007) Discussion > To the Stenn bashers.....

To the Stenn bashers.....

posted 11 years ago by willard86
6 replies | jump to latest

...and to the pretentious labeling of a "flawed" documentary. One definition of documentary is that an opinion is provided alongside nonfiction facts. Sure, there is merit in the documentary where the people behind the camera stay behind the camera. But in this case, writer/researcher/directer David Stenn is integral to the story. Some posters have said he should have focused only on Douglas and let the story speak for itself without interjecting, which I find so ignorant. Without him, she would never have told her story.

I loved that he chronicled his part in it. For sixty-five years, after bringing her case to the courts had failed, Patricia Douglas hadn't trusted anyone enough to talk about what happened to her. Then David Stenn came along, and she was able to trust. After all those years, she let one person close enough to open up about her past trauma. It was really worthwhile watching that unfold. And if he hadn't spent years researching, talking with her by phone, and patiently trying to get her to speak openly, no one would know the story.

This documentary is important also because still today, rape is a crime after which the victim is often blamed. Women still have a very difficult time prosecuting without persecution and scorn. The horrendous act happens daily all over the world, usually affecting the victim for life. In this film, we have a man caring enough about a rape, one that happened decades ago, to pour time, energy, and money into bringing the story to light.

In the process, he exposed how sleazily MGM handled the crime. Great work. I wasn't bothered at all by his presence in the documentary.

[–] TheLightFantastic 11 years ago

So by your logic all filmmakers should interject themselves into a film because they're the ones who brought the story to the general public so we should expect to see them yapping needlessly about themselves. Um...yeah, I don't think I want to watch a film like that. If a filmmaker wants screen time, (s)he should move from behind the camera and become an actor. If one wants to tell their story in a documentary, they should do so and not under the guise of telling another story.

I don't think anyone here is complaining about Stenn bringing this story to the public (besides the obligatory misogynists that pop up whenever there is a discussion about a sex crime).

I think the documentary is well made overall, but Stenn was in it too much. I don't care that his editor was Jackie O. or that he went to lunch with her or that she gave him her seal of approval. That didn't further my understanding of what happened to Douglas. That was just cheesy name dropping. Unless one has been living under a rock, most people are aware that a person who takes the time to make a documentary is interested in the subject and wants people to know about it. We don't need to see Stenn talking about that - it's implied.

And while it's lovely that Douglas did at least get her side of the story out, I think whatever friendship they had was slightly one-sided. Stenn wanted something from her and made nice to get it. That doesn't make him a bad man or even slightly shady, it's just greasing the wheels to make the machine run. You're kind of acting like Stenn parted the Red Sea when all he did was do what authors and journalists have been doing for hundreds of years - wait around, play nice, get the story. Douglas knew her time on this planet was coming to an end and I think she likely would have opened up to anyone had they taken the time to pay attention to her like Stenn did.

[–] willard86 11 years ago

Since I did not say I thought every director should interject into the film he or she is directing, no.

In this story, his presence was part of the story itself. Not in a lunch-with-Jackie-O way, not because he was interested in talking about the subject--no. He was integral in offering the compassionate and trustworthy ear she had never gotten. He instigated the unfolding of the story, not merely reported the story.

He wasn't name dropping or bragging. I found his method endearing.

[–] KatR3040 11 years ago

Agree with you there, Willard. I just saw this film for the first time last night, and was shocked to see so many people here complaining about how much the filmmaker "interjected" himself. I looked at it as his journey to bring the truth to light, and what it took for him to find the victim and get her to speak, was part of that journey. How was he supposed to leave himself out of it?
The people complaining just have different tastes and are entitled their opinions of course. But I wonder how many of them think they are "right", and people like you are I are "wrong".

[–] TheLightFantastic 11 years ago

But I wonder how many of them think they are "right", and people like you are I are "wrong".

Ah, the us versus them rhetoric. Classic. All opinions are just a preference based on observations and feelings. I like the color blue. I don't think someone who doesn't like blue is wrong. That line of thinking is narrow minded and silly.

I also didn't say Stenn shouldn't be in the documentary at all. His interest in a story that likely would have died with its victim is what set the entire project into motion. When I first viewed this, I felt his presence was a bit much but after watching and rewatching it, it's not as overwhelming as some people make it out to be. I still feel he laid it on a bit thick at times and added bits that were not important to the story but it wasn't distracting enough to take away from the overall point. The fact that he took the time to explain the studio system, how they protected their stars and image at all costs and also included stories about Eloise Spann shows he's capable of presenting a good story. Bits about him talking about how he scrubbed Douglas' toilet to show her how much he loved her is still a bit much for me.

But you know what? This is my opinion. It's not right or wrong, just an opinion.

[–] blanche-2 11 years ago

I worked for David Stenn, and I have to say, I love the man. He is a wonderful person and very thorough in his research. I really didn't mind his presence in the interview. It was important, I think, to set up that he is a film historian, interested in this period, and fascinated by this story.

Having known him, I can attest to the fact that he did care very much about Patricia Douglas as a person and was in touch with her often after the interview. When he was working on the Clara Bow book, he said to me, I could have said blah blah and not researched it, but that would have been so unfair to Rex Bell (her husband). It's not a play nice and get the story thing with him.

He definitely had to be in this story because he was the only person she would talk to. Such a wounded, emotionally damaged woman. Truly heartbreaking. In those days everything was swept under the rug - I'm not talking about MGM, I mean about the rape. Nowadays you could go for some kind of help to get past it and move on - not that it doesn't leave scars, but this woman was completely alone in her struggle. It was very common. I had a bad accident in the '50s, totally traumatic, and no one in my family ever mentioned it. I was fortunate because I did get some help and I have a wonderful family, they just thought that's how you dealt with things.

I had the same feeling when I saw Mystic River and the kidnapped boy comes home. I can promise you his family never talked to him about what had happened to him. Sad.

[–] SweetD19 9 years ago

Right on!