This was more or less the KINSEY (2004) of its day, though clearly quaint in comparison; still, it is a measure of the times that the film caused a mild stir back then whereas KINSEY virtually made no ripples when it emerged! Anyway, HARRAD is mildly interesting (if perhaps too low-key to stay in the memory for long) in delineating the forward-thinking/experimentation that occurred in sexual relationships at the end of the 1960s. Incidentally, I rented the film as part of a small tribute to its recently-deceased star James Whitmore: of course, the middle-aged actor does not get in on the action (even if it is never particularly explicit); Tippi Hedren, then, appears as his still-attractive spouse/collaborator who even catches the eye of the campus hunk (Don Johnson, interestingly the long-time partner of Hedren's real-life daughter Melanie Griffith!). The rest of the cast is filled with fresh faces (including future comedian Bruno Kirby[!]
but especially notable is lovely and initially shy heroine Laurie Walters who, in her turn, is pursued by leering Robert Middleton at a nearby café). Unsurprisingly, partners get swapped (whether intended or not) which invariably cause heartbreaks, but there is also some cheap humor at the expense of a bespectacled and plump student. While director Post was more at home in action-oriented fare, he handles the delicate subject matter with directness and reasonable perception; besides, the film looks good, sports a typical 1970s pop score (one of the songs being performed by Johnson himself) and, for what it is worth, was even followed a year later by a sequel, HARRAD SUMMER.
24 Reviews
"free" lust?
silvrdal11 May 2007
I just watched a bowdlerized version of "The Harrad Experiment". I'd heard of this movie, but had never seen it. It stars Tippi Hedren, James Whitmore Jr., and a very ( almost unrecognizably ) young Don Johnson.
The story concerns a small college which has gone co-ed to an extreme. Boys are deliberately room-mated with girls, and the couples are encouraged to have sexual intimacy.
Now, had that sort of film been made, today, you'd have a mind-boggling, no-holds-barred sex-fest; but back in 1973, they made a sort of tentative pastel-water-color story with bland characters and dialogue, sprinkled with curses the actors seem to choke while saying. Mind you, I wasn't disappointed, I was relieved. This movie is sort of an icon of modern 'sex as salvation' subject matter in film.
The movie comes off as a kind of bland, sex-driven "After-School Special". The script is vanilla and cliché-ridden; with lots of pop-psychology and not-quite-there challenges to 'old-fashined' mores.
Hedren and Whitmore are the married professors conducting the experiment. We never quite know whether they're actually ( hypocritically ) condoning 'free-love' or whether they're trying to point out to the students that monogamous relationships really are the strongest. Either way, they are dangerously close to law-suits. The curriculum is so wishy-washy that, in comparison, Alfred Kinsey's 'research' looks like the Sodom and Gomorrah Pride Parade ( actually, it probably was ). Intimacy seems to be their real goal, rather than merely pandering to one's sexual gluttony, but they are terribly stupid in encouraging 'sexual freedom' as a means of discovering that.
The style of the film is so typically early-70's with its light, cheerful, guitar background music and sunny edge-lit cinematography; that I expected Karen Carpenter to start singing "Rainy Days and Mondays". It renders the film, unintentionally, quite funny.
There are three folk/pop tunes sung in the film's background, two beautifully performed by Lori Lieberman, and the last by ( what?! ) Don Johnson, himself, and not badly, either.
Other than the Lieberman songs, the only real highlight of the film is an amusing improv team ( The Ace Trucking Company -- featuring a young Fred Willard ) performing on the topic of 'group marriage'.
Most likely, the film would have seemed maybe 2% edgier with all the nudity and G-D's left in, but I seriously doubt it. I could tell where the cuts were made and there was precious little eye-poison in this watery Lorimar Production.
A real surprise is that one of the writers was ( and I blinked twice when I read his name ) Ted ( Lurch, the butler ) Cassidy. He has a cameo early in the film.
I can't recommend the film, due to its themes ( insipidly as they were presented ), but I'm glad that I've been able to check off and discount another cheesy step on the ladder to our current gradual cultural downfall ( "The April Fools", "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice" being others ).
The story concerns a small college which has gone co-ed to an extreme. Boys are deliberately room-mated with girls, and the couples are encouraged to have sexual intimacy.
Now, had that sort of film been made, today, you'd have a mind-boggling, no-holds-barred sex-fest; but back in 1973, they made a sort of tentative pastel-water-color story with bland characters and dialogue, sprinkled with curses the actors seem to choke while saying. Mind you, I wasn't disappointed, I was relieved. This movie is sort of an icon of modern 'sex as salvation' subject matter in film.
The movie comes off as a kind of bland, sex-driven "After-School Special". The script is vanilla and cliché-ridden; with lots of pop-psychology and not-quite-there challenges to 'old-fashined' mores.
Hedren and Whitmore are the married professors conducting the experiment. We never quite know whether they're actually ( hypocritically ) condoning 'free-love' or whether they're trying to point out to the students that monogamous relationships really are the strongest. Either way, they are dangerously close to law-suits. The curriculum is so wishy-washy that, in comparison, Alfred Kinsey's 'research' looks like the Sodom and Gomorrah Pride Parade ( actually, it probably was ). Intimacy seems to be their real goal, rather than merely pandering to one's sexual gluttony, but they are terribly stupid in encouraging 'sexual freedom' as a means of discovering that.
The style of the film is so typically early-70's with its light, cheerful, guitar background music and sunny edge-lit cinematography; that I expected Karen Carpenter to start singing "Rainy Days and Mondays". It renders the film, unintentionally, quite funny.
There are three folk/pop tunes sung in the film's background, two beautifully performed by Lori Lieberman, and the last by ( what?! ) Don Johnson, himself, and not badly, either.
Other than the Lieberman songs, the only real highlight of the film is an amusing improv team ( The Ace Trucking Company -- featuring a young Fred Willard ) performing on the topic of 'group marriage'.
Most likely, the film would have seemed maybe 2% edgier with all the nudity and G-D's left in, but I seriously doubt it. I could tell where the cuts were made and there was precious little eye-poison in this watery Lorimar Production.
A real surprise is that one of the writers was ( and I blinked twice when I read his name ) Ted ( Lurch, the butler ) Cassidy. He has a cameo early in the film.
I can't recommend the film, due to its themes ( insipidly as they were presented ), but I'm glad that I've been able to check off and discount another cheesy step on the ladder to our current gradual cultural downfall ( "The April Fools", "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice" being others ).
INTERESTING SUBJECT
germaniaosorio14 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
What can I say? I'm on a mission of tracking down most of Don Johnson's movies he made before becoming famous and I came across this one. I thought it was made for TV, but I was stunned to see naked people and a frontal nude by Johnson almost at the beginning of this flick.
It's very much a product of its era tackling topics such as sexual revolution, free love, the institution of marriage and possessiveness within a couple. They even talk about group marriages.
Don Johnson plays one of the students at the Harrad College who are involved in an one-month experiment in which they are paired with other students of the oppposite sex. They don't know each other, have been assigned by the couple of psychologists-sexologists leading this investigation, a sort of rip off of Masters and Johnson played by James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren. They're expected to start a sexual relationship and explore the dynamics of love, jealousy, exclusivity and honesty.
Stanley (Johnson) is paired with Sheila (Laurie Walters), a conservative, sweet and virginal girl who has self-esteem and shyness issues and wants to develop a loving relationship before starting to have sex. She wants to "make it right". So she is the quintessential "good girl". Sheila falls almost immediately for Stanley (and who wouldn't?, Don Johnson looks beautiful here), but Stanley has compulsive sexual encounters as if he drinks a bottle of cola and tosses it to the side. "No strings attached" or "as many as he can" should be his motto. Stanley is not capable of feeling love, but only lust. He doesn't want to connect at a personal level. Although, Sheila seems to touch something inside of him.
It's not the best movie, but it was entertaining...Sometimes I think how is it that the actors didn't burst into laughing during the naked yoga scene? However, it has a charm. It's a rarity.
I felt awkward watching Tippi Hedren getting hit on by her future son-in-law Don Johnson (I think this is the movie where he met Melanie Griffith. She worked as an extra).
It's very much a product of its era tackling topics such as sexual revolution, free love, the institution of marriage and possessiveness within a couple. They even talk about group marriages.
Don Johnson plays one of the students at the Harrad College who are involved in an one-month experiment in which they are paired with other students of the oppposite sex. They don't know each other, have been assigned by the couple of psychologists-sexologists leading this investigation, a sort of rip off of Masters and Johnson played by James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren. They're expected to start a sexual relationship and explore the dynamics of love, jealousy, exclusivity and honesty.
Stanley (Johnson) is paired with Sheila (Laurie Walters), a conservative, sweet and virginal girl who has self-esteem and shyness issues and wants to develop a loving relationship before starting to have sex. She wants to "make it right". So she is the quintessential "good girl". Sheila falls almost immediately for Stanley (and who wouldn't?, Don Johnson looks beautiful here), but Stanley has compulsive sexual encounters as if he drinks a bottle of cola and tosses it to the side. "No strings attached" or "as many as he can" should be his motto. Stanley is not capable of feeling love, but only lust. He doesn't want to connect at a personal level. Although, Sheila seems to touch something inside of him.
It's not the best movie, but it was entertaining...Sometimes I think how is it that the actors didn't burst into laughing during the naked yoga scene? However, it has a charm. It's a rarity.
I felt awkward watching Tippi Hedren getting hit on by her future son-in-law Don Johnson (I think this is the movie where he met Melanie Griffith. She worked as an extra).
Don't Buy The DVD
dsparks5556 October 2004
I just purchased the DVD of this movie and I wasn't very pleased. In fact the DVD was so bad that I can't really give the movie a fair rating or review. First, the print was awful..very washed out scratchy. Second, and worst of all, the film was obviously cut. It looked as if they used a "TV" version of the film. Every possible "bad" word was cut from the film any scenes that might offend, that is any and all nudity. And for a film such as this one that's really crime since the nudity is one of the main points of the film. The company that released this DVD (I think it was Platinum or something like that) deserves to go out of business. And if should be a crime to release any film on DVD that's been cut and that hasn't been remastered from the best possible source. A total waste of money.
Nudie Flick as social commentary
maeander9 May 2004
The 1970's brought the movie rating system. The system allowed both nudity and overt sexuality into American films. Hollywood was trying to capture the youth market in a way they never had. This led to a number of "hip" youth low budget oriented movies. Some tried to capture a moments in time such as "The Trip". Some worked only as satire such as "The Seniors". Some tried social commentary as "The Harrad Experiment". All had common dominators: young people, sex and skin.
Some hold up as a time capsule, "The Trip". Some as a silly nudie farce, "The Seniors". And some are just dull. "The Harrad Experiment" falls into this category. What was shocking to one generation, such as "The Chapman Report" and "Peyton Place", becomes boringly silly to future ones.
It's not a bad film, its just a dumb film. Still, if you are interested in seeing youngish Tippi Hedren in bra and panties or a very young Don Johnson's backside; it's worth a look. Just remember, you've been warned.
Some hold up as a time capsule, "The Trip". Some as a silly nudie farce, "The Seniors". And some are just dull. "The Harrad Experiment" falls into this category. What was shocking to one generation, such as "The Chapman Report" and "Peyton Place", becomes boringly silly to future ones.
It's not a bad film, its just a dumb film. Still, if you are interested in seeing youngish Tippi Hedren in bra and panties or a very young Don Johnson's backside; it's worth a look. Just remember, you've been warned.
Beware ..........
Scoopy11 March 2000
I got ripped off on this video. I bought an edition and it is a 90 minute version which has been radically cropped and censored, to the point where there is no nudity and the scenes often lose continuity.
Note: even the full 97 minute version is not worth watching, except to see nude and non-nude appearances from people who later became much more successful, like Don Johnson, Gregory Harrison, Bruno Kirby, Laurie Walters, Melanie Griffith.
It is a silly movie about college students in an avant-garde program that "encourages" students to have sexual relations with each other, in order to acquire important life skills and a better understanding of the type of long-term partner they will eventually require.
I think that back in the early 70's we thought that this film had merit because we agreed with its iconoclastic view of society's rules for male-female relationships. Today the expression of that iconoclasm seems naive and simplistic, the film moves at a snail's pace, and the casual coupling encouraged by the university seems downright dangerous in today's more hazardous sexual climate.
And it's just plain boring.
Note: even the full 97 minute version is not worth watching, except to see nude and non-nude appearances from people who later became much more successful, like Don Johnson, Gregory Harrison, Bruno Kirby, Laurie Walters, Melanie Griffith.
It is a silly movie about college students in an avant-garde program that "encourages" students to have sexual relations with each other, in order to acquire important life skills and a better understanding of the type of long-term partner they will eventually require.
I think that back in the early 70's we thought that this film had merit because we agreed with its iconoclastic view of society's rules for male-female relationships. Today the expression of that iconoclasm seems naive and simplistic, the film moves at a snail's pace, and the casual coupling encouraged by the university seems downright dangerous in today's more hazardous sexual climate.
And it's just plain boring.
Talk about dated!
preppy-320 December 2006
I caught this on cable years ago. It was the full uncut version--I hear some of the DVD versions are edited.
Something about a bunch of students (among them a very young Don Johnson) going to college and experimenting with sex, sexuality and male/female sex roles. What was probably fascinating in the 1970s is laughably dated today. The "insights" are obvious, the characters are bland, the dialogue is priceless ("zoom") and the 70s hair and fashions are scary. Also the casual sex going on in this is unsettling in this day and age. It's not a good movie but I kept watching--it's so silly that it's kind of fun.
The only thing that made this bearable are the nude scenes. There is plenty of casual male and female nudity--more than you would see in any modern film. Don Johnson is nude quite a bit and there is full frontal of him--but back then he had long hair and wasn't exactly in the best of shape.
So if you want a few good laughs and some nudity (in the uncut version) tune in. But this is really not a good movie. I give it a 3.
Something about a bunch of students (among them a very young Don Johnson) going to college and experimenting with sex, sexuality and male/female sex roles. What was probably fascinating in the 1970s is laughably dated today. The "insights" are obvious, the characters are bland, the dialogue is priceless ("zoom") and the 70s hair and fashions are scary. Also the casual sex going on in this is unsettling in this day and age. It's not a good movie but I kept watching--it's so silly that it's kind of fun.
The only thing that made this bearable are the nude scenes. There is plenty of casual male and female nudity--more than you would see in any modern film. Don Johnson is nude quite a bit and there is full frontal of him--but back then he had long hair and wasn't exactly in the best of shape.
So if you want a few good laughs and some nudity (in the uncut version) tune in. But this is really not a good movie. I give it a 3.
College of Sexual Knowledge
bkoganbing4 October 2015
It took 11 years for Robert Rimmer's novel written in 1962 to get to the big screen. In that time America had undergone a cultural sea change in its values. So a novel written in the beatnik years is updated to the middle 70s where it certainly would have been less shocking than the experimental college of Harrad headed by James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren had been brought to the screen in 1962 when the omnipresent Code was still in place.
This college promotes coed rooming and in this carefully selected group of students Don Johnson and Laurie Walters are paired as are Bruno Kirby and Victoria Thompson. It's the story of these four students that is the basis of the plot.
I won't go into it, but it is Johnson who challenges the mores of society far more than Whitmore and Hedren ever expected.
The movie made quite an impact when it came out, but by today's standards seems like really tame stuff. It's also quite a display of 70s fashions as well for kids and adults. Viewers will still find it enjoyable.
This college promotes coed rooming and in this carefully selected group of students Don Johnson and Laurie Walters are paired as are Bruno Kirby and Victoria Thompson. It's the story of these four students that is the basis of the plot.
I won't go into it, but it is Johnson who challenges the mores of society far more than Whitmore and Hedren ever expected.
The movie made quite an impact when it came out, but by today's standards seems like really tame stuff. It's also quite a display of 70s fashions as well for kids and adults. Viewers will still find it enjoyable.
The Harrad Experiment
austrianmoviebuff9 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A minor scandal when it came out in 1973, this melange of soft porn and drama doesn't quite work out today and is only of interest for Don Johnson or Tippi Hedren fans.
In one of her few remarkable roles since she left Universal, Hedren plays Margaret Tenhausen, who, along with her husband (played by veteran actor James Whitmore), teaches 'free love' at the Harrad College, where free and open sexual relations between students are not only encouraged but required in order to graduate. Don Johnson plays Stanley, a young student who breaks some of the College's rules by thinking it would be a sexual gymnasium. In a great scene at the end, Hedren confronts him with the remarkable line, "True people make love with their minds and their understanding, Stanley, not just their bodies."
"The Harrad Experiment" was based on Robert Rimmer's best-selling novel and was quite a success, so a sequel ("The Harrad Summer") followed one year later. The film hasn't aged well, though. It's too talkative and boring by nowadays' standards, and it often has unintentionally funny moments (i.e. the tennis scene in which Tippi gracefully hits the ground), but it somehow works for its campy aspects.
The DVD available in the UK is a little shorter than the US video tape, so we don't get to see the frontal nudity of Don Johnson (which is a pity) and Bruno Kirby (which I praise God for).
In one of her few remarkable roles since she left Universal, Hedren plays Margaret Tenhausen, who, along with her husband (played by veteran actor James Whitmore), teaches 'free love' at the Harrad College, where free and open sexual relations between students are not only encouraged but required in order to graduate. Don Johnson plays Stanley, a young student who breaks some of the College's rules by thinking it would be a sexual gymnasium. In a great scene at the end, Hedren confronts him with the remarkable line, "True people make love with their minds and their understanding, Stanley, not just their bodies."
"The Harrad Experiment" was based on Robert Rimmer's best-selling novel and was quite a success, so a sequel ("The Harrad Summer") followed one year later. The film hasn't aged well, though. It's too talkative and boring by nowadays' standards, and it often has unintentionally funny moments (i.e. the tennis scene in which Tippi gracefully hits the ground), but it somehow works for its campy aspects.
The DVD available in the UK is a little shorter than the US video tape, so we don't get to see the frontal nudity of Don Johnson (which is a pity) and Bruno Kirby (which I praise God for).
DISappointment in at least one DVD Version...
nature_okie29 May 2006
I had seen the release version without "regional editing for content," at the Naro Expanded Cinema in Norfolk VA.
It was an amazing, poignant, multi-faceted tale about inhibitions, and boundaries.
There was A LOT of casual frontal nudity, male and female.
Seeing this movie on DVD recently, AND I WISH I KNEW THE BRAND NAME TO TELL YOU WHICH TO AVOID, It was a hacked third rate print that had the sound cut-out on moderate swear words; and virtually ALL frontal nudity.
It angered me that when the film first traveled around the country, some power mongers, wanted to dictate what others should not view, after getting a good show themselves, of course.
This particular print was battle-scarred, but still had enough TRUTH sneak through the overzealous censors, who were too stupid to notice that while they cut out the nudity and profanity, the subtle dynamics of the various relationships SCREAMED for freedom. BOTH for the Characters AND the Viewers.
In respect to the plot, about students attending a co-ed school wherein the genders were integrated in the same dorm rooms, and physical relationships encouraged to be activated; the movie IF remade today would press forward with RACIAL STEREOTYPING and SEXUAL ORIENTATION as well.
I Fear, however, It would be, at the loss of the beautiful, lingering frontal nudity of 1970's American Art Cinema.
This beautiful little film, more especially if you can get a pure print, is a MUST-ADD to your movie appreciation club's program.
It was an amazing, poignant, multi-faceted tale about inhibitions, and boundaries.
There was A LOT of casual frontal nudity, male and female.
Seeing this movie on DVD recently, AND I WISH I KNEW THE BRAND NAME TO TELL YOU WHICH TO AVOID, It was a hacked third rate print that had the sound cut-out on moderate swear words; and virtually ALL frontal nudity.
It angered me that when the film first traveled around the country, some power mongers, wanted to dictate what others should not view, after getting a good show themselves, of course.
This particular print was battle-scarred, but still had enough TRUTH sneak through the overzealous censors, who were too stupid to notice that while they cut out the nudity and profanity, the subtle dynamics of the various relationships SCREAMED for freedom. BOTH for the Characters AND the Viewers.
In respect to the plot, about students attending a co-ed school wherein the genders were integrated in the same dorm rooms, and physical relationships encouraged to be activated; the movie IF remade today would press forward with RACIAL STEREOTYPING and SEXUAL ORIENTATION as well.
I Fear, however, It would be, at the loss of the beautiful, lingering frontal nudity of 1970's American Art Cinema.
This beautiful little film, more especially if you can get a pure print, is a MUST-ADD to your movie appreciation club's program.
Surprisingly
Kay77719 February 2023
Boring. I don't know what I expected but I did think it would be at least mildly entertaining. Sadly, it was not.
The character of Harry was played by Bruno Kirby, an actor I've seen in several films, may he rest in peace. I never liked his work in them, and the most interesting thing about this movie was the realization that even in his youth, he was still - well, Bruno, which is to say, annoying.
Ted Cassidy (Lurch in the Addams Family), Melanie Griffith (Working Girl, Milk Money), and Gregory Harrison (Gen. Hospital; Signed, Sealed, Delivered tv movies) have bit roles - uncredited, for which they are likely tremendously grateful. Save time and skip this one.
The character of Harry was played by Bruno Kirby, an actor I've seen in several films, may he rest in peace. I never liked his work in them, and the most interesting thing about this movie was the realization that even in his youth, he was still - well, Bruno, which is to say, annoying.
Ted Cassidy (Lurch in the Addams Family), Melanie Griffith (Working Girl, Milk Money), and Gregory Harrison (Gen. Hospital; Signed, Sealed, Delivered tv movies) have bit roles - uncredited, for which they are likely tremendously grateful. Save time and skip this one.
Great Movie!
gordonporch25 January 2006
The original, theater and maybe VHS, were excellent. I have bought two different DVDs of this movie and both were horrible TV versions. The first was from Amazon (Passion Productions, 98 minutes (?) and no nudity or language and the color was orange like from a really old film that hadn't been taken of. The BN (Platinum) had much better color (90 minutes) but it was about the same "cut to death" version losing the kids working on nudity and bleeped language that is on TV today. One really great lesson that hasn't been mentioned is Tenhousen's (sp?), James Whitmore, teaching, "People only recognize an action as love when it is the same kind of love that they give." I learned something from that and I have run across many real life examples to support that observation. I would still like to get a DVD that was the theater version that I saw but I don't know how I would recognize the version after being burned twice.
Love American Style, the college years, albeit with nudity
Wuchakk25 November 2023
A new college in the Los Angeles area is run by two professors (James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren) interested in experimenting with coed living conditions, intentionally placing males and females together who happen to be opposites. The story focuses on two couples: studly Stanley (Don Johnson) and shy Sheila (Laurie Walters), as well as conservative Harry (Bruno Kirby) and liberal Beth (Victoria Thompson).
Based on the 1966 tome for sexual awareness and responsibility, "The Harrad Experiment" (1973) is a drama/romance with a lighthearted score by Artie Butler and a couple of songs on the soundtrack written by Charles Fox, who's known for the music on Love American Style. (The other two songs on the soundtrack were sung by none-other-than Don Johnson). So, while this isn't a comedy, it's not deadly serious either. It's a relatively fun soap opera with a college milieu and cringe-inducing situations/ dialogues. Look no further than the eye-rolling nude yoga sequence. It's like Woodstock on campus.
The name for the college, by the way, is a conjunction of Harvard, which was a predominantly male school at the time, and Radcliffe, a women's university; hence, Har-rad.
With the counterculture revolution of the 60s, nudity became the hip thang, which explains the skinny-dipping sequence in "Woodstock" and, a year later, in "The Last Picture Show." "Stigma" upped the ante in 1972, which paved the way for this. Of course, nudity in mainstream movies was nothing new in light of the pre-Hays era. Look no further than "Tarzan and His Mate" from 1934. With the code lifted after almost three decades, movies like this seemed to exult in a new sense of freedom. But don't get too excited as the bulk of the nudity on display here is rather tame and what Seinfeld would call "bad naked."
Although some students in the "free love" environment are comfortable with the sexual libertinism, others are understandably shy about exposing themselves to relative strangers, physically, sexually or otherwise. Then there's the glaring issue of the couple in a monogamous marriage, the Tenhausens, overseeing a group of youths who are encouraged to experiment with uncommitted intimate relationships. Yet this and other potential issues are addressed in the film: The Tenhausens defend their position on the grounds that they're older and represent the traditional model. Nevertheless, it smacks of hypocrisy and even abuse since some of the students might be too immature to handle the complications linked to the morally loose lifestyle (guilt, jealousy, etc.).
Don Johnson was 22 during shooting and the king of cool. Tippi said she experienced "sheer panic" when it became clear that Don and her 14 years-old daughter were attracted to each other (Melanie Griffith plays an uncredited student). The two married when she turned 18 in 1976, but it only lasted half a year, although they would remarry years later, which lasted from 1989-1996.
While there are (unnecessarily) censored versions, the full-length movie runs 1 hour, 37 minutes, and was shot just north of Los Angeles in Pasadena (the college) and Sherwood Forest, which is 25 miles to the west (yoga sequence).
GRADE: C-/C.
Based on the 1966 tome for sexual awareness and responsibility, "The Harrad Experiment" (1973) is a drama/romance with a lighthearted score by Artie Butler and a couple of songs on the soundtrack written by Charles Fox, who's known for the music on Love American Style. (The other two songs on the soundtrack were sung by none-other-than Don Johnson). So, while this isn't a comedy, it's not deadly serious either. It's a relatively fun soap opera with a college milieu and cringe-inducing situations/ dialogues. Look no further than the eye-rolling nude yoga sequence. It's like Woodstock on campus.
The name for the college, by the way, is a conjunction of Harvard, which was a predominantly male school at the time, and Radcliffe, a women's university; hence, Har-rad.
With the counterculture revolution of the 60s, nudity became the hip thang, which explains the skinny-dipping sequence in "Woodstock" and, a year later, in "The Last Picture Show." "Stigma" upped the ante in 1972, which paved the way for this. Of course, nudity in mainstream movies was nothing new in light of the pre-Hays era. Look no further than "Tarzan and His Mate" from 1934. With the code lifted after almost three decades, movies like this seemed to exult in a new sense of freedom. But don't get too excited as the bulk of the nudity on display here is rather tame and what Seinfeld would call "bad naked."
Although some students in the "free love" environment are comfortable with the sexual libertinism, others are understandably shy about exposing themselves to relative strangers, physically, sexually or otherwise. Then there's the glaring issue of the couple in a monogamous marriage, the Tenhausens, overseeing a group of youths who are encouraged to experiment with uncommitted intimate relationships. Yet this and other potential issues are addressed in the film: The Tenhausens defend their position on the grounds that they're older and represent the traditional model. Nevertheless, it smacks of hypocrisy and even abuse since some of the students might be too immature to handle the complications linked to the morally loose lifestyle (guilt, jealousy, etc.).
Don Johnson was 22 during shooting and the king of cool. Tippi said she experienced "sheer panic" when it became clear that Don and her 14 years-old daughter were attracted to each other (Melanie Griffith plays an uncredited student). The two married when she turned 18 in 1976, but it only lasted half a year, although they would remarry years later, which lasted from 1989-1996.
While there are (unnecessarily) censored versions, the full-length movie runs 1 hour, 37 minutes, and was shot just north of Los Angeles in Pasadena (the college) and Sherwood Forest, which is 25 miles to the west (yoga sequence).
GRADE: C-/C.
A failed attempt to bring a then-classic to the screen
davidemartin12 January 2001
My friends and I read the HARRAD EXPERIMENT by Robert Rimmer as nervous teenagers in the early 70s. The book was a manifesto for sexual awareness and responsibility, a call for a rational development of sexual activity on a cultural basis. Of course at the time, we were just looking for the hot parts....
Anyway, the movie makers were given the thankless task of transforming the book and apparently cound not decide whether to make it a polemic or a soap opera. Worse, the plot they chose betrays the format of the book, where the narrative was shared equally buy two men and two women. The film concentrates on Johnson's character, maligning him and transforming the film into his character's unwilling education in sexual responsibility.
Bruno Kirby doing full frontal nudity? Brrrrr..........
Anyway, the movie makers were given the thankless task of transforming the book and apparently cound not decide whether to make it a polemic or a soap opera. Worse, the plot they chose betrays the format of the book, where the narrative was shared equally buy two men and two women. The film concentrates on Johnson's character, maligning him and transforming the film into his character's unwilling education in sexual responsibility.
Bruno Kirby doing full frontal nudity? Brrrrr..........
Strange artifact from alien culture
rickmacnamara20 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
It's been fifty years since I last saw this oddity in its original release and by now the controversies it created have been crowded into irrelevance by every similar movie about the "sexual revolution" made since. In the intervening years I lived a life: raised a family more or less successfully, served in the US Navy, struggled in a variety of jobs, earned a Master of Social Work in my Forties and became a Clinical Social Worker and psychotherapist; not a particularly remarkable life story but I mention it because ME 2023 has a few more filters through which to view this movie than did ME 1973. I also have strong memories of growing up during those times and participating in "encounter groups" and "t-groups" in which half dressed, hyper-hormonal college underclasspersons rolled around on the Student Center floor and ecstatically rubbed each other in the belief that such sexy antics would transform the world. I used to call these extracurricular activities "Group Grope" and admit that I was less interested in saving the world than I was in seeing naked classmates. I was 18-21, after all.
So. Seeing this movie again after all that living and growing, I have a question. Why? Why did so many elite intellectuals make their life mission the dismantling of millennia of social norms, many of which have practical foundations. In the movie, the elites represented by the Tenhousens are never questioned about the goal of their mandated habitation and intimacy. No empirical evidence is referenced, no meta analysis of peer reviewed studies and/or journal articles is mentioned, and there does not appear to be any attempt at assessment and reassessment during "the Experiment" with an eye to publishing their findings in service of the Greater Good of the World. In fact, early on we see a conversation between the married Tenhousens in which they have taken steps through their selection process to eliminate any applicant who they believe may cause them legal problems or even charges of rape. So this means that their sample is already skewed away from study participants who may challenge their views. They also utilized an ally on the college board to assure their funding in the face of mounting questions about the "Experiment". Another point is that there was no control group. Everyone was in the same group instead of being put into either A. The mandated habitation/intimacy group B. A mandated non-habitation/non-intimacy group or C. A group of participants given solitary lodging and advised that they could choose to accept or opt-out of intimacy as they wished. It would still be a flawed study, but closer to a scientific model. I'll leave the lack of LGB characters to other reviewers to skewer.
Yeah, it's only a movie based on a novel and did not actually happen but it calls to mind some of the real world "experiments" from those days, like those of Stanley Milgram and John Money, most of which were found to be highly unethical and would never be repeated today. It's been said that Politics is downstream from Culture, so intellectually bankrupt movies and even documentaries based on spurious assumptions and historical inaccuracy are still being made and still influencing beliefs and public policies.
Back in those days, we used to wear a button that said "Question Authority". It was a good idea then and a better idea today.
I gave this 2 stars instead of 1 or none because it was fun to see all the naked coeds. Maybe fifty years haven't changed me that much in some areas LOL.
So. Seeing this movie again after all that living and growing, I have a question. Why? Why did so many elite intellectuals make their life mission the dismantling of millennia of social norms, many of which have practical foundations. In the movie, the elites represented by the Tenhousens are never questioned about the goal of their mandated habitation and intimacy. No empirical evidence is referenced, no meta analysis of peer reviewed studies and/or journal articles is mentioned, and there does not appear to be any attempt at assessment and reassessment during "the Experiment" with an eye to publishing their findings in service of the Greater Good of the World. In fact, early on we see a conversation between the married Tenhousens in which they have taken steps through their selection process to eliminate any applicant who they believe may cause them legal problems or even charges of rape. So this means that their sample is already skewed away from study participants who may challenge their views. They also utilized an ally on the college board to assure their funding in the face of mounting questions about the "Experiment". Another point is that there was no control group. Everyone was in the same group instead of being put into either A. The mandated habitation/intimacy group B. A mandated non-habitation/non-intimacy group or C. A group of participants given solitary lodging and advised that they could choose to accept or opt-out of intimacy as they wished. It would still be a flawed study, but closer to a scientific model. I'll leave the lack of LGB characters to other reviewers to skewer.
Yeah, it's only a movie based on a novel and did not actually happen but it calls to mind some of the real world "experiments" from those days, like those of Stanley Milgram and John Money, most of which were found to be highly unethical and would never be repeated today. It's been said that Politics is downstream from Culture, so intellectually bankrupt movies and even documentaries based on spurious assumptions and historical inaccuracy are still being made and still influencing beliefs and public policies.
Back in those days, we used to wear a button that said "Question Authority". It was a good idea then and a better idea today.
I gave this 2 stars instead of 1 or none because it was fun to see all the naked coeds. Maybe fifty years haven't changed me that much in some areas LOL.
The charter members of a co-ed sex education college are willing but maybe not ready
moonspinner5510 September 2017
Young people stammering and fumbling their way through the rites of passage in this extremely mild adaptation of Robert H. Rimmer's novel. New enrollees at Harrad College, run by a sexually uninhibited couple who encourage their students to be intimate, approach the male-female roommate law differently. Nervous Bruno Kirby (billed as B. Kirby, Jr.) is amusing when coupled with a forward blonde (his voice goes up whenever he talks to her), while virginal Laurie Walters shares space with unassuming stud Don Johnson. The curriculum is rather obscure (only two classes on the first day, beginning with Nude Yoga!). The prurient-minded may find the semester's results disappointing; the film has unblushing nude scenes, but the agenda is to enlighten, to broaden horizons, which means the film is more pedagogic than titillating. Richard Kline should be demoted for his overly-bright, overly-bland cinematography. As the adults, James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren keep a straight face, but good intentions can only take the film so far. Followed by "Harrad Summer" the next year. ** from ****
A Psychological Look At The Outdated Sexual Revolution
Camelot_20006 July 2023
I just watched this flick tonight after ordering the DVD online. It was all a mellow affair with the grainy screen clearly showing the age of this ancient film. The 'Harrad Experiment' is all about the "sexual awakening" of young people back then. There's the modesty, the insecurities and, of course, the self consciousness about attending a college such as that.
There are those who willingly fit into that type of course, but others who don't. The nudity at the college's swimming pool clearly showed those who were modest compared to those who didn't give a damn.
There's a lot of psychological babble about it all and a planned manipulation on exploring the human reactions to jealousy and the social interactions that came with it. This was clearly an experiment and it did have its juicy moments, most notably when Don Johnson comes out of the shower after meeting his "new roommate".
I admit I was bored most of the time. It was all just a talky affair with scenes of nudity thrown in once in a while. Those students were apparently all virgins at the onset of this course and had trouble in dealing with promiscuities.
They were apparently raised on watching old TV shows where couples slept in separate beds and sex was a major taboo. That clearly shows in this outdated flick though there are some students who were comfortable about the arrangements and the nudity involved. It was indeed a clash with those who weren't.
This is indeed outdated stuff compared to how the world is now. Sex was indeed a taboo topic with North American society until the late 1960s and the 1970s came along and this old film explored the new explicitness involved in that. It also does so in a highly self conscious way.
Something like this belongs in a time capsule to be analyzed later. A good curiosity item though and a nostalgic one at that. Something like the "Harrad Experiment" would come across as completely laughable today if a college dared to set up something like that now. North American society has come a long way since then. The prude attitudes of the old era are no longer with us.
There are those who willingly fit into that type of course, but others who don't. The nudity at the college's swimming pool clearly showed those who were modest compared to those who didn't give a damn.
There's a lot of psychological babble about it all and a planned manipulation on exploring the human reactions to jealousy and the social interactions that came with it. This was clearly an experiment and it did have its juicy moments, most notably when Don Johnson comes out of the shower after meeting his "new roommate".
I admit I was bored most of the time. It was all just a talky affair with scenes of nudity thrown in once in a while. Those students were apparently all virgins at the onset of this course and had trouble in dealing with promiscuities.
They were apparently raised on watching old TV shows where couples slept in separate beds and sex was a major taboo. That clearly shows in this outdated flick though there are some students who were comfortable about the arrangements and the nudity involved. It was indeed a clash with those who weren't.
This is indeed outdated stuff compared to how the world is now. Sex was indeed a taboo topic with North American society until the late 1960s and the 1970s came along and this old film explored the new explicitness involved in that. It also does so in a highly self conscious way.
Something like this belongs in a time capsule to be analyzed later. A good curiosity item though and a nostalgic one at that. Something like the "Harrad Experiment" would come across as completely laughable today if a college dared to set up something like that now. North American society has come a long way since then. The prude attitudes of the old era are no longer with us.
Is the Harrad Philosophy relevant in 2001? Probably!
shapi18 January 2001
The fictional Harrad is a privately endowed auxiliary college where students attend classes at recognized schools (the acronym HARRAD comes from Harvard-Radcliff), but attend Harrad's human values seminars and live with roommates of the opposite sex.
I first saw `The Harrad Experiment' (rated `R') as a teenager, in 1973. The film was not only entertaining but, like many other teenagers, the story seriously impacted my life. I immediately dumped my boyfriend and made a pledge to never again be dominated or told what to do by a lover. Thanks to this picture, I chose a man who was able to deal with his jealousies and now our children are viewing this amazing film on video. While the 1973 film may seem dated and sluggish by '90s standards, today's teenagers are rediscovering Robert Rimmer's college manifesto of the '60s and finding that its philosophical views may be even more relevant in today's far more sexually up-tight society.
Last weekend, my eighteen-year-old daughter played a VHS copy of the film for her sorority sisters. The heated discussion that followed ran the gamut from embracing the, liberal, avant-garde ideology of Robert Rimmer's philosophy to the conservative position condemning the film as sophisticated porn.
Videos of the film are traded from college student to college student, much like the original novel. Whereas the novel was merely a free love manifesto, the film takes a slightly different approach. The film version concentrates more on the reduction of jealousy, which can be destructive in a relationship. The experiment attempts to accomplish this by requiring students to live in a dorm where they are assigned roommates of the opposite sex. The added wrinkle is that the roommates must change partners every thirty days. Little wonder that the film has become a cult classic.
Today many college dorms are co-ed. That is, rooms occupied by male and female are on the same floor, with some such rooms going so far as to share bathroom facilities. However, as we enter the new millennium the concept of being assigned attractive roommates of the opposite sex is even further from reality that it was when the film was first released.
I believe that the film's phenomenal boxoffice success is not due to the so-called Harrad philosophy but to a strong story, fleshed out characters and, of course, to the sex appeal of Don Johnson, in one of his best roles. However, as mentioned above, the film seems dated by today's quick cut, fast paced standards and suffers from budgetary limitations (I understand it was made for under $200,000). Its sequel, `Harrad Summer,' (rated `PG') made on a slightly higher budget, has much slicker production values, is faster paced, but is far less titillating (no pun intended). While I understand the sequel did solid boxoffice business (Variety summed up the film's grosses by stating, `Gidget goes to college; gets A +'), it lacks Don Johnson and bends over backwards to avoid the controversy of its predecessor.
I cannot help feeling that perhaps it's time for an updated remake. The possibilities are limitless.
I first saw `The Harrad Experiment' (rated `R') as a teenager, in 1973. The film was not only entertaining but, like many other teenagers, the story seriously impacted my life. I immediately dumped my boyfriend and made a pledge to never again be dominated or told what to do by a lover. Thanks to this picture, I chose a man who was able to deal with his jealousies and now our children are viewing this amazing film on video. While the 1973 film may seem dated and sluggish by '90s standards, today's teenagers are rediscovering Robert Rimmer's college manifesto of the '60s and finding that its philosophical views may be even more relevant in today's far more sexually up-tight society.
Last weekend, my eighteen-year-old daughter played a VHS copy of the film for her sorority sisters. The heated discussion that followed ran the gamut from embracing the, liberal, avant-garde ideology of Robert Rimmer's philosophy to the conservative position condemning the film as sophisticated porn.
Videos of the film are traded from college student to college student, much like the original novel. Whereas the novel was merely a free love manifesto, the film takes a slightly different approach. The film version concentrates more on the reduction of jealousy, which can be destructive in a relationship. The experiment attempts to accomplish this by requiring students to live in a dorm where they are assigned roommates of the opposite sex. The added wrinkle is that the roommates must change partners every thirty days. Little wonder that the film has become a cult classic.
Today many college dorms are co-ed. That is, rooms occupied by male and female are on the same floor, with some such rooms going so far as to share bathroom facilities. However, as we enter the new millennium the concept of being assigned attractive roommates of the opposite sex is even further from reality that it was when the film was first released.
I believe that the film's phenomenal boxoffice success is not due to the so-called Harrad philosophy but to a strong story, fleshed out characters and, of course, to the sex appeal of Don Johnson, in one of his best roles. However, as mentioned above, the film seems dated by today's quick cut, fast paced standards and suffers from budgetary limitations (I understand it was made for under $200,000). Its sequel, `Harrad Summer,' (rated `PG') made on a slightly higher budget, has much slicker production values, is faster paced, but is far less titillating (no pun intended). While I understand the sequel did solid boxoffice business (Variety summed up the film's grosses by stating, `Gidget goes to college; gets A +'), it lacks Don Johnson and bends over backwards to avoid the controversy of its predecessor.
I cannot help feeling that perhaps it's time for an updated remake. The possibilities are limitless.
Hilarious
espisolus10 December 2004
A review that came before me listed top 10 unintentionally funny moments in the film, which I am going to reiterate/add to. It is the only way to truly enjoy the film. Don't read this if you actually want to experience these priceless moments freshly for yourself.
1. The opening credits tree hug.
2. "You don't need to lose any weight."/"Neither do you!" (Then the two kiss passionately)
3. Make-out scene simultanously occurring as a conversation about stamp collecting takes place. By the same people.
4. The fashion and hair!
5. Don Johnson repeatedly in scenes with massive pit stains, without any trace of pre-occurring hard labor. (And then he proceeds to make out with whoever is there.)
6. The redhead girl saying "That was wonderful!" to her roommate, after he punches Stanley after he walked in catching her making out with Stanly.
7. The music really is overly dramatic. Both the score and the acoustic guitar-laden ballads with priceless 70's lyrics, one song sung by Don Johnson himself!
Good points in film:
1. Don Johnson in wonderfully tight clothes and sometimes without them.
2. The enjoyment coming from the whole 70's aesthetic and seeing a story line unfold that is so foreign to our 21st century minds.
3. A way of looking at the feeling of jealousy, and dealing with it, that isn't really presented anymore. I decided to shed some of my own hard feelings regarding relationships after some reconsideration prompted by this film.
1. The opening credits tree hug.
2. "You don't need to lose any weight."/"Neither do you!" (Then the two kiss passionately)
3. Make-out scene simultanously occurring as a conversation about stamp collecting takes place. By the same people.
4. The fashion and hair!
5. Don Johnson repeatedly in scenes with massive pit stains, without any trace of pre-occurring hard labor. (And then he proceeds to make out with whoever is there.)
6. The redhead girl saying "That was wonderful!" to her roommate, after he punches Stanley after he walked in catching her making out with Stanly.
7. The music really is overly dramatic. Both the score and the acoustic guitar-laden ballads with priceless 70's lyrics, one song sung by Don Johnson himself!
Good points in film:
1. Don Johnson in wonderfully tight clothes and sometimes without them.
2. The enjoyment coming from the whole 70's aesthetic and seeing a story line unfold that is so foreign to our 21st century minds.
3. A way of looking at the feeling of jealousy, and dealing with it, that isn't really presented anymore. I decided to shed some of my own hard feelings regarding relationships after some reconsideration prompted by this film.
Touching little movie
sol121822 October 2003
Sheila: Do you like a girl who makes it right away. Stanley: Yeah if I'm the guy.
The "Harrad Experiment", which is based on the 1960's free love novel by Robert H. Rimmer, starts out with Sheila, Laurie Walters, arriving at Harrad Collage. Later as all the students are paired off in the main collage auditorium by the collage founder and dean Dr. Philip Tenhausen ,James Whitmore, Shelia is alone in her dorm waiting for the boy she's to share her room with.
Sheila who's very introverted and shy and as it turns out later, to one one's surprise who's watching the movie, a virgin is the only one in the collage who's partner hasn't shown up making Sheila feel even more insecure. Later that night Shelia's partner Stanley, Don Johnson,picked by the collage, through a battery of tests and interviews, arrives in her dorm room. Stanley to her surprise turns out to be the exact opposite of Sheila! Outgoing non-inhibited about sex and having what turned out to be later in the movie a roving eye for every girl and woman on the campus.
During the course of the film we see Sheila coming more and more out of her shell and learning to have a lasting relationship with Stanley. Even though Stanley cheats on her and breaks her heart a number of times. The carousing Stanly at one point of the movie had Sheila so hurt and despondent over his infidelities that I thought that she would kill herself.
During the course of the movie both Shelia and Stanley learn the hard way that when it comes to living together with someone you have to accept the bad as well as the good to make it work. Stanley to his credit sadly finds out that playing the field, when it comes to relations with the opposite sex, without any commitments is not what he thought it would be. He soon realizes that it's far better to have a life long and lasting relationship with someone who loves you as much if not more then you love them then changing partners as often as you change your socks.
Far better then what most critics wrote about the movie the "Harrad Experiment" is not anywhere as wild and unfeeling as they say it is. The sex and nude scenes are very tastefully done and there is genuine feelings in the relationships between the couples involved in the film: Sheila and Stanley an also Harry, Bruno Kirby, and Beth, Victoria Tompson. There's not the uncontrollable lust between the couples like you would have imagine by reading many of the reviews about the movie. In fact in one of the scenes when Stanley and Sheila are in a diner a costumer Sidney Bower, Robert Middleton, who overhears that Sheila is a student at Harrad Collage tries to pick her up. Sidney must have thought,like many reviews of the film would make readers and viewer believe, that girls attending that collage are loose and easy and would think nothing of propositioning them without getting slapped in the face! Maybe Sidney read one of those reviews.
The scenes between Sheila and Stanley are emotionally and heart-fully done and are so touching in some cases that they bring the audience almost to tears as well as those very emotional scenes between Harry and Beth.
A postscript to the movie "Harrad Experiment". Don Johnson met his future wife in the movie Melanie Griffith, who was an extra in the film. Melanie is also the daughter of Tippi Hedren who played Margaret Tenhausen the wife of the founder of Harrad Collage Philip Tenhausen.
The "Harrad Experiment", which is based on the 1960's free love novel by Robert H. Rimmer, starts out with Sheila, Laurie Walters, arriving at Harrad Collage. Later as all the students are paired off in the main collage auditorium by the collage founder and dean Dr. Philip Tenhausen ,James Whitmore, Shelia is alone in her dorm waiting for the boy she's to share her room with.
Sheila who's very introverted and shy and as it turns out later, to one one's surprise who's watching the movie, a virgin is the only one in the collage who's partner hasn't shown up making Sheila feel even more insecure. Later that night Shelia's partner Stanley, Don Johnson,picked by the collage, through a battery of tests and interviews, arrives in her dorm room. Stanley to her surprise turns out to be the exact opposite of Sheila! Outgoing non-inhibited about sex and having what turned out to be later in the movie a roving eye for every girl and woman on the campus.
During the course of the film we see Sheila coming more and more out of her shell and learning to have a lasting relationship with Stanley. Even though Stanley cheats on her and breaks her heart a number of times. The carousing Stanly at one point of the movie had Sheila so hurt and despondent over his infidelities that I thought that she would kill herself.
During the course of the movie both Shelia and Stanley learn the hard way that when it comes to living together with someone you have to accept the bad as well as the good to make it work. Stanley to his credit sadly finds out that playing the field, when it comes to relations with the opposite sex, without any commitments is not what he thought it would be. He soon realizes that it's far better to have a life long and lasting relationship with someone who loves you as much if not more then you love them then changing partners as often as you change your socks.
Far better then what most critics wrote about the movie the "Harrad Experiment" is not anywhere as wild and unfeeling as they say it is. The sex and nude scenes are very tastefully done and there is genuine feelings in the relationships between the couples involved in the film: Sheila and Stanley an also Harry, Bruno Kirby, and Beth, Victoria Tompson. There's not the uncontrollable lust between the couples like you would have imagine by reading many of the reviews about the movie. In fact in one of the scenes when Stanley and Sheila are in a diner a costumer Sidney Bower, Robert Middleton, who overhears that Sheila is a student at Harrad Collage tries to pick her up. Sidney must have thought,like many reviews of the film would make readers and viewer believe, that girls attending that collage are loose and easy and would think nothing of propositioning them without getting slapped in the face! Maybe Sidney read one of those reviews.
The scenes between Sheila and Stanley are emotionally and heart-fully done and are so touching in some cases that they bring the audience almost to tears as well as those very emotional scenes between Harry and Beth.
A postscript to the movie "Harrad Experiment". Don Johnson met his future wife in the movie Melanie Griffith, who was an extra in the film. Melanie is also the daughter of Tippi Hedren who played Margaret Tenhausen the wife of the founder of Harrad Collage Philip Tenhausen.
Slightly Dated Cult Movie
jlabine15 August 2000
Robert H. Rimmer's manifesto for the love and sex generation was brought to the big (drive-in) screen by low budget director Ted Post in 1973. Unfortunately the book would have been better suited to have been done in 1968 by someone like Radley Metzger. Because though it may seem dated compared to today's standards. I've a feeling the movie was almost as dated in 1973. The book was written in 1966 by a horny square guy, that tried to punt the book as a "real" experiment in a college that's hidden away somewhere, with 4 kids writing fantasy masturbatory tales of their opposites. Something that would have suited Mr. Metzger, and he would have probably added a dimension of good honest seediness that would have benefitted the film adaption. Instead we have (5 years, too late) Ted Post's treatment of the book. While I do find the film pretty entertaining unlike most of the reviewers, it's just not relevent. And it's all done, as if you were watching a "sexual awareness" film in your high school class. The characters are treated as if they were all blosoming sexual flowers, waiting to picked at the right moment of their maturing intellect. But in it's own dated way, it's kinda cool. Obviously the ideas expressed in this film are dangerous to today's idealogy, but it was made in 1973!!! So with this in mind, it's like watching a drive-in "Eight Is Enough" with nudity. When I was playing hookie from grade school, I would have loved for a film like this to come on TV! All the actors in the film are very likeable. "Eight Is Enough" actress Laurie Walters is believable as the shy virtuous virgin Sheila Grove. While Don Johnson's third film outing is far more confident, and adds an air coolness to the miniscule budget. His character Stanley (after the film "The Magic Garden Of Stanley Sweetheart" (1970), Don can't seem to escape the name Stanley??) is one of the more interesting ones, because he's far more open with his sexuality and the desire to get down with the ladies. Yet later you find that he's not very open with his emotions, and his emotinal attachment to Sheila. Hence the lesson learned. You cannot runaway from yourself. Having said that, there's basically no other lessons to be learned from this (Harrad) college. The rest of the film indulges in naked Yoga scenes (with people connecting through Zooms???), naked swimming in college pool, discussing and understanding relationships, playing jokes with the outside world, and Don Johnson trying to bed down with every lady on campus. Sounds like the perfect Drive-in movie to me! But as an intellectually stimiulating film, your better off watching a John Cassavetes film. If you prefer something less tame, your better off watching some real 70's porn by Radley Metzger. But if you're interested in a Cult classic that's cool in a early 70's retrospect...you might find it as entertaining as I did. Curiously, Don Johnson sings two songs on the soundtrack, was his agent trying to sell him as a pretty boy rock star (ie: Leif Garrett, David Cassidy, etc)??? Strange?? Sounds like a mix of James Taylor and Bread. Bruno Kirby in one of his earlier roles is pretty much a natural playing nerdy awkward types, so the movie tends to pick up a little when he's in the film. Tippi Hendren has a small role as the loyal wife/ assistant to the founder James Whitmore. Her daughter Melanie Griffith was a 14 year old extra in the film, though I've yet to actually spot her in it. Apparently an early 20's Don Johnson courted this 14 year old with mother Tippi's blessings. Now that's when truth is really stranger than fiction. Double strange! Great little curio film, though.
A silly hippie drama, saved by it's unintentional humour.
fedor88 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Utterly silly story - based on a novel, amazingly - about a hippie-era coed commune/college where the students have nude classes, etc. This could easily have been a comedy i.e. satire/parody of the hippie era - that's how ludicrous and awful it is.
To say that time hasn't been kind to this laughable little oddity would be putting it very mildly; what was once regarded as a revolutionary new way of thinking about life and the universe comes off today as rather pathetic, extremely naive - and just downright idiotic. Hence it's no wonder that the dialog sounds unbelievably corny, phony, naive, and very often crosses over into B-movie territory. The beginning of the movie shows a girl hugging a tree: this pretty much sets the intellectual tone for the rest of the proceedings.
The movie's pluses are the unintentional humour (obviously), the 70s charm, and some nudity. The nudity unfortunately isn't on the usual 70s high level; namely, the women are mostly flat-chested.
The most inane moments: the lesson in properly doing the "zoom", Tippi Hedren trying to make a point to Don Johnson by suggesting sex in the field, the cowardly and unsatisfactory answer by Hedren and her husband when confronted with a question about their own hypocrisy of a monogamous marriage, Johnson getting punched in the nose, Kirby's initial encounter with his roommate and the ensuing dialog, Kirby being set up by Johnson suggesting a roommate switch - and the list goes on and on.
If this piece of crap is funny NOW, I can't imagine how it will look in a couple of decades.
To say that time hasn't been kind to this laughable little oddity would be putting it very mildly; what was once regarded as a revolutionary new way of thinking about life and the universe comes off today as rather pathetic, extremely naive - and just downright idiotic. Hence it's no wonder that the dialog sounds unbelievably corny, phony, naive, and very often crosses over into B-movie territory. The beginning of the movie shows a girl hugging a tree: this pretty much sets the intellectual tone for the rest of the proceedings.
The movie's pluses are the unintentional humour (obviously), the 70s charm, and some nudity. The nudity unfortunately isn't on the usual 70s high level; namely, the women are mostly flat-chested.
The most inane moments: the lesson in properly doing the "zoom", Tippi Hedren trying to make a point to Don Johnson by suggesting sex in the field, the cowardly and unsatisfactory answer by Hedren and her husband when confronted with a question about their own hypocrisy of a monogamous marriage, Johnson getting punched in the nose, Kirby's initial encounter with his roommate and the ensuing dialog, Kirby being set up by Johnson suggesting a roommate switch - and the list goes on and on.
If this piece of crap is funny NOW, I can't imagine how it will look in a couple of decades.
Save your money
froggy118 March 2000
Have to agree with a previous reviewer. Some outfit called Platinum Disc has put out a videotape of this movie that is not the theatrical version, but was instead apparently taped off a TV broadcast: low quality, no nude scenes, bleeped language.
And the worse part is, way dated. This version gets a "2". Even with the missing 6 minutes restored, probably no higher than 3-4.
And the worse part is, way dated. This version gets a "2". Even with the missing 6 minutes restored, probably no higher than 3-4.
Daring for its time, full nudity of male and female students.
TxMike4 December 2023
This is one of the movies that passed me by when it came out in 1973. I was 27, married, working, and had three young children. However I recall hearing about it because of its daring nature.
An incoming group of Harrad college students have been assigned a roommate of the opposite gender, "carefully chosen." They are becoming the experiment, to see what happens when the pairs share a room and are expected to become sexually exploratory. Don Johnson is one of the featured students, and he also sings a couple of songs written for the movie. He also comes close to romancing his real-life future mother-in-law, Tippi Hedren.
Many of the "featured" reviews here knock the movie because it apparently is available on DVD in a badly edited version and a poor print. It recently (2023) became available on Amazon Prime streaming and, judging by the 96 minute running time is the complete, uncut movie.
In fact, watching it you can see it has quite a bit of full frontal male and female nudity. However the video and sound are marginal, watched on a modern hi-def flat screen TV the images are very fuzzy. Don Johnson was about 23 during filming, he went on to marry Melanie Griffith who was only 15 here and is uncredited as one of the students.
It isn't a particularly good movie but an interesting watch for the 1970s sensibilities. It is mostly notable for its subject and the nudity.
At home, streaming on Amazon Prime.
An incoming group of Harrad college students have been assigned a roommate of the opposite gender, "carefully chosen." They are becoming the experiment, to see what happens when the pairs share a room and are expected to become sexually exploratory. Don Johnson is one of the featured students, and he also sings a couple of songs written for the movie. He also comes close to romancing his real-life future mother-in-law, Tippi Hedren.
Many of the "featured" reviews here knock the movie because it apparently is available on DVD in a badly edited version and a poor print. It recently (2023) became available on Amazon Prime streaming and, judging by the 96 minute running time is the complete, uncut movie.
In fact, watching it you can see it has quite a bit of full frontal male and female nudity. However the video and sound are marginal, watched on a modern hi-def flat screen TV the images are very fuzzy. Don Johnson was about 23 during filming, he went on to marry Melanie Griffith who was only 15 here and is uncredited as one of the students.
It isn't a particularly good movie but an interesting watch for the 1970s sensibilities. It is mostly notable for its subject and the nudity.
At home, streaming on Amazon Prime.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
