by Jon Warner
Judy Garland. There were always two sides of her. On the one side, there was the immense talent and capability to entertain an audience. Her visceral vibrato could grab you and shake you to your core, and the way she conveyed her joy of singing was always so heartfelt, connecting straight to the audience’s emotions. As a teenager, we saw her in perhaps the most iconic role in the history of cinema – Dorothy Gale in The Wizard of Oz (1939), something most of us recall in a primordial sort of fashion, identifying with her sense of wonderment. On the other side was the immense tragedy. She may have been perhaps the most tragic figure ever created and tossed aside by Hollywood. It’s all the stuff of legend now though: the pills and drugs, the weight losses, the weight gains, the failed marriages, and the suicidal behavior. What’s amazing is that for most of her career, MGM was able to somehow separate the two Judys and glossed over her immense personal struggles, despite her wildly erratic work behavior, to only present us the talent; the good Judy. One film, though, captures all of Judy. All of her intense personal pain and unbelievable talent in one film. George Cukor’s A Star is Born is the film that dared to take Judy as she was, which was both one of the most talented entertainers to ever live and the most tragic of stars.
Cukor’s film had a tumultous history, not the least of which was the path that Judy took to get into the film. She had a nervous breakdown and slashed her wrists with broken glass during The Pirate (1948) of which she missed 99 out of 135 days of shooting. She successfully teamed up with Fred Astaire in MGM’s Easter Parade (1948) and somehow completed In the Good Old Summertime (1949) but because of her addictions, she was fired from The Barkleys of Broadway (1949), barely made it through Summer Stock (1950), and was fired from Annie Get Your Gun (1950). The last straw was after she could not show up to work regularly for Royal Wedding (1951), she was fired by MGM. As noted in Gerald Clarke’s Get Happy, he quotes Judy regarding the moment when she cut her throat with broken glass following her firing: “I wanted to black out the future as well as the past. I didn’t want to live any more. I wanted to hurt myself and others.” She also had continued issues with her husband and during this period, divorced Vincente Minnelli. To get herself back on track she hired Sidney Luft as her manager, who realizing that Judy still had great promise, booked her for concerts in London that went smashingly well. She went on to New York where she played at The Palace for an amazing 19 weeks, including 184 performances. Critics and fans were on her side, she married Sid Luft, and amazingly she won herself a new contract and a new film role. This was going to be her comeback film with a new studio–Warner Brothers.
Sid Luft was going to produce A Star is Born, and he assembled a crew that he felt would work well for Judy. But of course, not all went as planned. Judy tried as she might, but her drug and health problems resurfaced as the shooting went on, leading to delays and budget problems. In Get Happy, Clarke recalls a letter from George Cukor to his friend Katherine Hepburn regarding Judy: “About 3 weeks ago, strange sinister and sad things began happening to Judy.” Cukor describes how Judy would call in sick and then be seen that night at a club. Cukor wrote, “This is the behavior of someone unhinged.” Finally after 9 months, the film was completed, including a partial reshoot from standard aspect ratio to CinemaScope lenses, and amounted to a massive 196 minutes. Cukor and editor Folmar Blangsted cut the film down to 181 minutes prior to the premiere. However, after the premier, Warner studios cut the film down to 154 minutes without consulting Cukor (who was in India scouting locations for Bhowani Junction (1956)), resulting in the loss of two musical numbers and other key scenes. All this footage was considered lost for decades, but film preservationist Ronald Haver, after extensive searches, found both missing song sequences, “Here’s What I’m Here For” and the brilliant “Lose that Long Face” and several other scenes, as well as missing soundtrack elements. A near-complete restoration that followed was completed in 1983, bringing the running time to 176 minutes. A Star is Born is now always shown in this restored version, that also incorporates some still photos to account for missing film images, while the complete audio soundtrack is played.
A Star is Born was filmed once before, in 1937 (a non-musical) and once after in 1976 (with Streisand). Cukor’s 1954 film is the definitive story though, filled with the kind of searing melodrama that Douglas Sirk was doing at the time. Judy Garland stars as Esther Blodgett, a talented singer, but someone who has never gotten the big break. She has a run-in with fading, alcoholic Hollywood star Norman Maine (James Mason) during a Hollywood engagement. They hit-it-off, and after he sees her sing, realizes she has immense talent and decides to get her a screen test at the studio. She of course gets the job, marries Norman and we follow Esther (who gets renamed Vicki Lester) and her rise to stardom while we also get the parallel story of Norman and his Hollywood decline through alcoholism. So many elements in the script of course are so closely biographical to Judy’s life. Not only the references to Judy’s young years on the stage around the country doing Vaudeville (that’s told in the “Born in a Trunk” sequence), her rise to stardom and the troubled marriage, but also in the story of addiction that plays out through the Norman Maine character. Clearly, the story of Norman Maine is the sad story of Judy Garland in her latter years, only it’s James Mason playing the character and not her. There’s a deeply felt and utterly sad moment where Vicki is recounting to the studio head the troubles she is having dealing with a husband who is an addict. This must have been a devastating scene for Judy to complete with the scenario hitting so close to home.
A Star is Born contains some great music by Harold Arlen and lyrics by Ira Gershwin. Among all the musical numbers in the film, there are two clear stand-outs. One is the stupendous 15-minute “Born in a Trunk” medley. We are introduced to the scene in a film-within-a-film, as we watch Vicki’s premier at the theatre. It’s a colorful and brilliantly composed sequence of scenes where the sets are switched in and out and Judy is given a great collection of songs to sing, including “Swanee”, that highlight her range as a singer. Of course, the other scene to highlight can rightly be claimed as one of the best musical numbers that ever appeared in any musical. It is “The Man That Got Away”. In the scene, Esther (prior to being renamed Vicki) is with her traveling band, late at night in a club, when they improvise a moment for themselves and they tell her to sing it. It’s hard to describe the power with which Garland sings the song. She seems to summon some kind of tidal-wave of emotion that rides on her powerful vibrato, and I mean powerful. She doesn’t just want you to hear the song. She wants you to feel it. If you don’t get chills while listening to her sing this song, you might need to check your pulse. It’s a perfect song and a perfect scene, done in one take.
This film’s greatest achievement is that it captures and preserves the essence of Judy Garland, including all her worn-in, unfiltered emotions, and the sweat and guts of someone who had been living through addiction and personal strife for nearly her entire life. I’ve always thought Garland was an underrated actress. When you consider her work in Oz (1939), Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), The Clock (1945) and A Star is Born, it’s hard not to be in awe of her ability to project emotional honesty and transparency. If you watch her passionate performance in the non-musical, The Clock by Minnelli, you can see her talent as an actress laid bare. You watch her for a few minutes and you immediately are pulled in by her openness. In this way, A Star is Born allows her the chance to be dramatic and emotionally naked for much of the film, but, it also lets her belt out a tune, something she was gifted with beyond all measure. Her performance in A Star is Born is one of the greatest performances by an actress that I’ve ever seen. Time once maintained that her performance was “just about the greatest one-woman show in modern movie history.” However it should also be noted that James Mason’s work here as an alcoholic is nearly as good and should be praised for giving a performance that supports, but does not upstage the film with showiness. It feels like his performance is a precursor to his masterful work in Nicholas Ray’s Bigger Than Life (1956). But, this is still Judy’s film. Sadly to say, this really wasn’t her comeback. Following her devastating loss on Oscar night to Grace Kelly, she wouldn’t appear again in a film until 6 years later. No studio wanted to take any more chances on her and couldn’t afford to spend days idle, waiting for her to show up on the set in some kind of decent shape. A Star is Born thus acts as the final great testament to one of the greatest entertainers and actresses of the Hollywood era and one of the greatest singers who ever lived. Judy Garland will always be remembered as Dorothy, but to see the real Judy, see this one.
How A Star is Born (1954) made the ‘Elite 70’:
Pat Perry’s No. 10 choice
Greg Ferrara’s No. 14 choice
Dennis Polifroni’s No. 17 choice
Judy Geater’s No. 34 choice
Marilyn Ferdinand’s No. 48 choice
Allan Fish’s No. 59 choice
Jon, you have scaled a mountain with your first review for WitD. Rightly, your focus is on Judy Garland, whose film this is, and whose troubles had reached a crisis stage at the time the film was made. You do a beautiful job in connecting her personal life with the narrative of the film, and asserting that Garland put her all into the role. You trace the history of the film, astutely examine some of the key musical sequences, and pose a number of persuasive arguments that Garland made this oft-film story her own, and problems and all she triumphed spectacularly in this role. It was always a shoch to many that Garland didn’t win in 1954.
I am of course somewhat embarrased that I was the only one on the panel who didn’t vote for the film. There are songs in the score I do love (“The Man Who Got Away” as you note is a major classic) and Garland is extraordinary, yet I was for most of my life too much in love with the 1937 version, so much so that I always charged that the Cukor film lost it’s wide-eyed innocence. In direct comparison of the big scenes at the end of each film I always favored Janet Gaynor over Garland. It was a comparison of film and actress that always succeeded in giving the film you just reviewed here short shrift with me, and this is a major irony considering I’m a big musical guy. Mason is exceptional, probably more impressive even than March was in the original.
In any case Jon, this is not only a superlative review of a beloved musical film, but it’s a deeply moving tribute to the great Judy Garland.
Bravo!
Hey Sam thanks for the comment and for your honesty! I’ve always been incredibly drawn to Garland, her life and her personal narrative. You’re the first person I’ve known who has really had a thing for the 1937 version, which I have not seen in some time, but it’s probably worth a revisit. Yeah and as for the music, there are some outstanding sequences, and although I didn’t go into it, “Lose That Long Face” is pretty tremendous and a great example of Judy’s enthusiasm and joy onscreen. I don’t know if you’ve seen the new Blu Ray disc of ASIB, but it looks spectacular! Also, there are some really interesting outtakes of Judy doing The Man That Got Away in multiple types of sets, outfits, and hairstyles. Interesting stuff.
Jon, I haven’t seen the blu, but I must definitely obtain it! The extras and the stellar visual presentation make it a must.
I love Judy as much as any other single female performer. In WIZARD I fell in love with her like so many others, and she had me lock stock and barrel in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS. I loved her in EASTER PARADE, ME AND MY GAL, IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMERTIME and THE HARVEY GIRLS. And in others. I must explore the reasons why I have not held the 1954 up to the 1937, and I do need to see this again in the great presentation the blu-ray promises.
Sam, Yes I love many of those films you mentioned too. And, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed in the new BR disc of the film. It’s simply stunning.
This is on BLU-Ray????? I have to look this one up on Netflix or AMAZON!!!! I now have certain capabilities on my computer, if you know what I mean!!!!!!
Jon, I wanted to let you know that Lucille and I were unable to open the BITMAP images you sent. WordPress can’t negotiate them. So I was forced to go with the pictures above. If you send JPEG images I can still replace the pictures that are up there.
Hey no biggie! I like it the way you did it. I think it looks fine:) Thanks Sam.
Before I even get started, lemme get something out of the way. I love BOTH Judy Garland and Julie Andrews, and I thinlk they were the two greatest woman to dominate the musical form on film. Period. Done. That’s it.
Don’t wanna be called a lunatic because people have a tendency of misreading my comments.
Now, that said…
I LOVE this film. It’s a mnusical that blurs the lines between a drama with music in it and “pure” musical as the music is part of the language here and it’s the stuff that bouys the story and the drama of it all. I oprefer this version of the story to the earlier Colbert/March version from the 30’s and James Mason plays the heel husband in this film with such unnerving presence it could, possible be Mason’s finest hour on screen. Cuckor is in top form her roaming everywhere with the camera and allowing the editing of the film move along with the same vibrant energy the choreographers created with the dancing… This is a great, solid musical if there ever was one…
However, what sets it apart from all the others and rockets it into the stratosphere is the absolutely breathtaking performance of Judy Garland. Raw at times, always professional and, in the music numbers, just flat out jaw-dropping, she delivers a balanced turn between pure over-the-top showmanship and wrentching drama. As much as I love Judy Garland in THE WIZARD OF OZ (it’s her most iconic performance), it’s really her turn here in A STAR IS BORN that shows off every facet of her talent and levels itself as her best performance of all. She’s gutsy and she’s letting it all spill out and I think part of that has to do with how close her own, personal life was being mirrored in the character she plays here in the film. It really is a titanic performance in every way, shape and form and it absolutely deserved the prize for BEST ACTRESS at the Oscars…
So, lets see if anyone want’s to contend with my “lunacy” now…
Haha Dennis! Love it. No I am totally with you and we’re on the same page as these are the same reasons why I love this film and her performance. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say she was robbed of the Oscar. I love Grace Kelly too, but come on? On Mason, I still think he’s given more screen time in Bigger Than Life and he’s amazing in his lead role there. But, he supports this film magnificently.
Well, as Allan said below (and I TOTALLY agree with him), Garland gave the best AMERICAN performance of the year by leaps and bounds in 1954 and only performances from countries outside the States did she really have competition. I have seen all of the performances that Allan mentioned and I cannot argue with his knowledgable assessment there…
Jon, a great post that made a lot of interesting points. I absolutely agree that the four Garland performances you name are Judy’s signature performances, all of them worthy of Oscar nominations. Many consider her failure to win the Oscar for “A Star Is Born” the biggest single oversight in the history of the awards. I’ve read that she lost to Grace Kelly by only a handful of votes, and I’ve always suspected her loss was a punishment for her reputation for unprofessional behavior, something that was anathema to all those in the industry who relied on stars like her to keep them in work. The story of the butchery of the movie by Warners is a sad one. Cukor has said that the reduction of Judy’s role in the truncated version–much of what was cut came from the first part of the film, where Esther is young, hopeful, and naive, and which really showed the range of Judy’s acting ability–was responsible for the loss. He also said that neither he nor Judy could ever bear to watch the edited version. To have that happen to a project she had so much invested in must have been a devastating experience to someone as insecure and sensitive as Judy.
The thing I get from Judy in all of her great performances is her need to be loved by the audience. That may have been her biggest dependence of all, her need for massive doses of reassurance. This comes through especially in the recordings of her live performances. The other thing I get from everything I’ve ever read or heard about her life is how this need and her great talent were exploited by others for their own purposes. Even those who really tried to be unselfishly supportive of her found her behavior and her great neediness to be too much.
You write about her great performance of “The Man That Go Away”: “She doesn’t just want you to hear the song. She wants you to feel it.” That’s a very insightful war of putting it, and I would say that it applies to every song she ever sang. Good singers have expert technique. Great singers not only sing the song but act it out. The rare genius like Judy (or Edith Piaf or Frank Sinatra) has the ability to make you feel they’re actually living the song as they perform it and draw you into their experience, and I think that’s what you identified in that statement.
I’m glad you gave James Mason his due. This is one of the three or four greatest performances by this underappreciated actor. He brings tremendous poignancy to his character. It’s a fearless performance in a role that would have scared others off. I’ve read that Cary Grant agreed to do the part but had second thoughts during the production delays and backed out. As much as I like Grant, I have to say they hit it lucky when Mason took the part. I thought Charles Bickford and Jack Carson also lent wonderful support. Carson was especially impressive playing against type as a very mean-spirited person.
I could write so much more, but I’ll stop with saying how impressive your statement about the real Judy being BOTH Esther Blodgett and Norman Maine was. That was an idea that really made me stop and think.
It all depends on what bad behavior comes into play.
Garland lost favor with the Aacdemy and alot of the higher-ups she worked for (but they still needed her talent as she was a box-office draw) because of her insane alcoholism, drug-abuse, tardiness on the sets and her notorious drunkeness on the sets that held up productions. That kind of BAD BEHAVIOR wasn’t tolerated. She was doomed to lose the Oscar because of that.
Grace Kelly was loaded with the kind of BAD BEHAVIOR everyone in the big chairs in Hollywood liked: She fucked everyone that moved (mostly her male co-stars and her bosses)… This was one of the few reasons she WON the Oscar for THE COUNTRY GIRL…
Dennis, By the time ASIB was completed, she had already lost favor with Warner Studios. They didn’t sign her up for anything else. Of course, to MGM, she was dirt by this time. Too many bridges burned for her, despite her talent and draw.
Yes, one thing that does come out of the film is the mutual affection between Mason and Garland. I think he was an easier co-star for her because he came largely without Hollywood baggage, plus he had a very dry wit which I hear kept her easier on the set. Mason was exceptional, so that though the 1937 version is the better film, the 1954 is only half a length behind.
As for Judy not getting the Oscar, I think Groucho got it right calling it the biggest robbery since Brinks. There was no better English language performance that year, and when the only performances to rank with her in 1954 were Masina in La Strada, Tanaka in Sansho, Valli in Senso and Takamine in 24 Eyes, she belonged in that company.
And Dennis, Kelly didn’t sleep with all her co-stars. Some were gay. But yes, had she died in 1956 she’d have been buried in a Y shaped coffin.
Allan,
I agree Mason and Garland were a good match in this. Mason’s personality and Judy’s are a good contrast on screen. But, both you and Sam think the 1937 film is better. I’m definitely going to have to revisit it now.
LOLOLOL!!!!! A Y-Shaped coffin!!!!!
Norton: “and Grace Kelly’s father…”
Ralph: “what does Grace Kelly’s father have to do with this?”
Norton: “He cooked up a pretty sweet dish!”
-THE HONEYMOONERS
ALLAN-
I am in total agreement with you on this all the way. As you know, I have been ripping through Sam’s entire CRITERION collection. Just last week I made it into R, S, T’s and I rewatched SANSHO. I finally got to see LA STRADA (one of only two on the Fellini filmography I hadn’t seen) and, as with NIGHTS OF CABIRIA, I find the camera is not only in love with Messina on a physical and facial level (could there have ever been a more pouty or cherubic face?-not a stunner but something cute and lovable about her-when she gets mad or upset her face becomes that of an animated character in a cartoon), but in love with her naturalistic ease in performance (a hallmark of the realism movement that was coming out of Italy at that time and pretty much invented by guys like Rossellini and Fellini and DeSica). Funny that you mention 24 EYES as I have it sitting here next to me after a viewing of it I did last night after watching gore horror films with Sammy, “Psycho Dan” and Jeremy last night (who were promptly burping up meatballs and giggling at Sam’s renditions of songs from the sccore of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF that were wafting out of the computer room behind us-funny, we could still here him over the THX enhanced screams of JAMIE LEE CURTIS). I watched it when I got home and was touched by Takamine’s performance (easily on the top rung when you think of the performances of that year).
In all honesty, I don’t know who I would have picked (most likely Messina or Takamine) if those five were nominated. Garland would have had a shot for my affections though as her performance was right up there with those four others. I think the reason I love her performance here in STAR IS BORN so much is that, because we know now, she was really putting herself up on the screen, warts and all, and still able to slow down, let the orchestra crank up, and level the viewer with her vocal and physical abilities.
She AND Julie Andrews cornered the screen musical…
As for Grace Kelly… She was fine with what she did (I still prefer her in films like REAR WINDOW and HIGH NOON, where she’s not much of an obtrusion), but she was really no more than a pretty face and a sexy presense on screen.
If the Academy only made there awards about real merit we’d have a great reference for what needs to be talked about rather the “should-have’s”, “could-have’s” and “did’s”…
Yup, yup, yup…
I also agree with you on JAMES MASON. His performance is a perfect contrast for Garlands more reactive turn and his wit and precision really allowed him to ascend to heights we really hadn’t seen him fly to prior to this movie.
Of course, his nomination for BEST ACTOR was a long shot for a win. While he absolutely deserved the nomination, he knew it was only going to be a cocktail party for him at the ceremony as he was placed in a category that was already decided the moment the nominations were read a month earlier. But, hey, to even contend with Brando’s turn in ON THE WATERFRONT must’ve been a great honor. There was just no way any other actor in 1954 was giving a better performance than Brando’s game changer in that Elia Kazan directed drama…
@ Dennis, I’m not a big fan of Fellini, nor of Masina in La Strada. I think the film seems very strained at this period of time. I don’t think her performance is nearly on the level of Garland here either, but perhaps my fanboyishness is blinding me a bit.
JON-I know where you’re going with that and I have to agree with you in variation. Messina is a personal choice with me as I love the film and I am in love with her as a presence on screen (I don’t think the camera loved anyone as off-putting on screen as her-she is no knock out by a long stretch but there is a cherubic sexuality to her that is undeniable). As for the three others Allan mentioned they woould all figure into a race that runs for best performance of the year. Any day you can hear me give a different selection. However, the one you’ll NEVER hear me yell out for is Grace Kelly. Her performance in THE COUNTRY GIRL is lackluster at best and the film has all but been forgotten. As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, Kelly is best when she doesn’t become too obtrusive. She’s great at playing wealthy socialites in love with broken legged photographers in REAR WINDOW and she’s fine playing the sexual interest to cat-burglar Cary Grant in TO CATCH A THIEF. She is, primarily, like the final tinsel dressings on an already expertly decorated Christmas tree. She had beauty and a definite sexual presence that made men happy to see her on screen but she was no great actress.
I’d probably go with Messina or Garland in the end….
Dennis agreed on Kelly. She was fine when she wasn’t asked to do much. In fact she does add a great screen presence for Hitchcock’s icy blonde requirements. That’s where she really shined, as it was all about his hang-ups. I would add Dial M For Murder too in that mix. Outside of Hitch, I don’t have anything more than High Noon.
R.D. Finch,
Thanks for a tremendous comment with lots of great insights in it. You’re absolutely right in that her bad working behavior probably set many people against her for that Oscar, not to mention the fact that people weren’t seeing the film that we are seeing today, minus lots of material! Yes and you can see how Judy really needed love and affirmation. I definitely agree with this and how her she displayed this in her performances. Great point. As for her singing, you’re right about how she makes you feel her songs. There is something so moving about how she sings. In this film especially, it is The Man That Got Away that moves me even more than the others. Perhaps it’s because it’s a torch song, with great changes in pacing and tone, but it seems especially filled with depth. I watched it again on Youtube last night. Simply stunning.
Yes Jon, R.D. again raised the bar for comments at this site. He has been utterly tremendous since the start.
As a young man, I recall critics characterizing this film as potentially great but flawed. They were of course talking about the hatchet job, mentioned here by Jon, that occurred behind Cukor’s back. But even after having seen the restored version when it debuted, I still feel as if the film is great at times but neverthelesss flawed.
One of my problems involves casting. Great as Garland is in the film, it’s difficult to buy her character as played. Maybe this is the baggage she took into the role that doesn’t meld with a young, innocent character on her way up. Maybe I’m being subjective. But then the public, even then, knew she had offscreen problems, so I’m not alone. Great as she was in the musical portions of the film, and honest as she was in her dramatic scenes, I just don’t buy the performance as appropriate to the character. As I see it, Garland’s talents overwhelm the character and hijack it while at the same time mesmerizing up with her spectacular talent and star power.
Granted, Cukor created some great images and moments — I love the opening scene at the premiere, for example. There are other great moments just as there were great moments in George Stevens’s films.
So, I guess the upshot is that, when I rewatch this film when it is screened on TV, I enjoy the many great aspects of it that indeed make it eminently more watchable than many a film. However, as a film it doesn’t add up to a cohesive whole.
That said, I loved reading your well-done piece, Jon, which is quite interesting, enjoyable, and a fitting tribute to great talent and achievement.
Hi Pierre de Plume,
Thanks for your comments and for explaining your reservations. I guess I don’t see her character the same way you do. I don’t think she’s playing a young, innocent character on her way up. In the film, she’s been hoofing it across America with a two-bit band for years, without ever catching a break. I saw it as someone whose number had finally been called and catches a lucky break. Plus I love the melodrama which I’m becoming a huge fan of in general, when done right.
“In the film, she’s been hoofing it across America with a two-bit band for years, without ever catching a break.”
I missed that in my viewings of the film. Maybe my reaction is more subjective than I thought. It’s just that, to me, the tremor in her speaking voice (not her singing voice) comes awfully quickly and easily. Although she and Mason (who I agree was very good here) may have clicked on the set, I didn’t really buy their relationship onscreen. That said, I do think that her performance overall was better than Kelly’s that year. (I’ve also read that Kelly did sleep with at least some of her costars, such as Gable in Mogambo. I’m not sure about Gary Cooper.)
Your knowledge and persuasiveness may win me over.
Haha Pierre! I wouldn’t totally discount your feelings. Well Judy does i guess, have something that could be called a tremor or a waver in her speaking voice, but I think it’s just her speaking naturally the way that she does. I think it’s rather charming though. It another way in which she seems so “real”. Yes and more to the point of her character, there’s a moment where she’s really not sure she wants to give up the only thing she knows, which is her relationship to the band she has had and the gigs that she plays. She’s not sure she wants to leave the comforts of this way of life, however meager they may be.
I applaud this fantastic interchange with Pierre, another brilliant veteran moviegoer who specializes in this genre!
Yes, she f***ed Gable while doing MOGAMBO. Yes, she f***ed Cooper during the making of HIGH NOON (the word is “Coop” was just as much of a slut in in Hollywood as Kelly). But, the one that shocks me to this day (but doesn’t when you consider his alcoholism) was that she was getting herself an oil change and lube from Bing Crosby when working on THE COUNTRY GIRL (I summize she definately had a thing for the “daddy” figure).
She’s not the first to do so (Crawford was notorious for f***ing her directors and male leads), and she won’t be the last.
The only thing that sucks about it was that Kelly probably slept with alot of the Academy members that voted for her and, aside from that, she was just the kind of pretty face the Academy loves to put up on the screen (remember, this was the first decade the Academy Awards was being televised live on television-they weren’t gonna take the chance of putting a burn-out like Garland up there to splash up on the screen totally tanked from the promotional sized Gin bottle she was drinking from)…
Oh yes. Now I remember the liaison with Der Bingle. As far as Cooper goes, as you may know, he apparently was quite free with his affections earlier in his career — specifically pre-Code — when his attentions were enjoyed by members of both sexes.
Jon,
The tragic backstory of Judy Garland’s life and as R.D. points out about Garland’s need to be loved in every film is so true. You can almost feel it in every frame of every movie she made. It’s also the reason I dislike Liza Minnelli who tries too hard to emulate her mother. She’s a talent in her own right but it just comes across as trying too hard to be what she isn’t, her mother.
Both Garland and Mason richly deserve the praise bestowed upon them and Ms. Judy certainly deserved to be recognized by the Academy. Her denial is just another misstep of many they have performed. I actually admire both the1937 version and this one, though I lean toward the original; however this film richly deserves the accolades you inscribe. A wonderful review, Jon.
Thanks John. I don’t dislike Liza the way you and Marilyn do (she commented on this in the Chicago post), but I’m certainly one to prefer Judy and I don’t think Liza is near the actress, although she can sing pretty well. I must admit I think I’ve underestimated the 1937 version, which I have never given much more than a passing thought to in my one and only viewing of it.
My view is that, as an actress, Garland’s persona was so strong that her range was inhibited. I dare say this was true as a singer, as well. Her vocal range was limited — but, of course, what she did within that range was untouchable by others.
Regarding Liza, I don’t believe she consciously tries to emulate her mother. I think it’s in her genes and a result of her environment. I never did feel that her acting in Cabaret, for example, was Oscarworthy, though like her mother her singing was quite good.
Regarding the 1937 version, which I haven’t seen in quite awhile, maybe Gaynor was more believable as her character in the earlier sequences but not as believable as Garland in the later ones. Like you, Jon, now I need to see the earlier version again to feel more confident in making comparisons.
Hmmm. This is interesting. I tend to believe that Garland was more typecast than anything, which is something I think common to most musical stars. I mean the studios gave her roles, in mainly musicals. There are only a couple instances, like The Clock, which is tremendous, where she was given something slightly different, or a chance to be really dramatic. I’m not sure I agree that she didn’t have range but it’s probably worthy of a healthy debate. I’m not the best one to examine someone’s vocal range, but I don’t think it ever occurred to me that she didn’t have range. I think this is where Jamie could probably chime in from the singing aspect.
“Hmmm. This is interesting.”
If we have different opinions, that’s fine. But to clarify, what I’m trying to say is that Garland’s personality and presence were unique and quite strong, which limited the types of characters she was suitable for. Within these confines, I believe she did some good work. But I feel that her biggest talent was as an entertainer as opposed to an actress. From a singing standpoint, her vocal range, in terms of her low register to her high register, was slim compared to most other accomplished singers. Within that range, though, her stellar accomplishments were achieved through vocal richness, effective phrasing, and great feeling.
Pierre de Plume,
Yes I understand where you’re coming from, I guess I just include her acting abilities when it comes to the definition of “entertainer” in her case. It’s all wrapped up together for me. Point taken though.
I’ll chime in on this thread with regard to Garland’s vocal range, and say that, yes it was pretty limited. She doesn’t have any high notes and doesn’t hit many really low ones, either. But, as Pierre rightly notes, what she did with the notes she had is phenomenal.
Yes regarding her range I think I agree with what we’re saying here now that it has been explained more. I guess then I’ll take passion over range any day.
I think we can all agree that Judy ain’t no Yma Sumac:
@ Pierre,
Yeah now that’s some range! Not my cup of tea, but I’ll give her that.
“Yeah now that’s some range! Not my cup of tea, but I’ll give her that.
A friend once dragged me to a live performance of Yma Sumac. She was bizarre, with a lower register that suggested she was an alto with a growl that would frighten away all the wolves within earshot.
A great review of the film, but an even greater one on Judy Garland, a larger than life American entertainer, who I mentioned when we discussed the greatest geniuses of the century. I’m surprised Sam doesn’t like this film more than he does, but I can see the earlier film setting the bar with some. I’ve seen both, and I will say that the famous final scene when Esther Bologett (Vicki Lester) speaks to the worldwide audience (“This is Mrs. Norman Maine”) works better in the earlier version. There a more natural feel to it. I’m figuring Sam might have felt that way or close to it. Jon Warner’s love for Judy Garland shines through in this lovely piece.
Frank I agree with you on Judy’s larger than life status as an American entertainer. I think that’s why this film is so important. If in 100 years, someone asks “Who was Judy Garland”? I would say they should watch this film. Don’t get me wrong, Oz is the better film, but which film displays fully who Judy Garland is? That would be A Star is Born.
Garland’s greatest performance of them all. Have also loved that Groucho Marx quote that Movie Man brought out. You did a great job weaving Garland’s troubled persona into the film’s subject matter. Garland was born to play this role.
Thanks Peter for the kind words! I think it’s hard to separate Judy’s troubles from this film’s narrative. They are hand in hand.
This is the first movie to beat out Fiddler on the Roof??
Well, okay, I guess I’m not that angry about that, although I do think Fiddler is a significantly better film. But A Star Is Born does have moments of greatness. It is, as noted Judy Garland’s movie from beginning to end, and she gives one of the truly great performances here–it’s a travesty/tragedy that she lost the Oscar to Grace Kelly that year. I watched “The Man Who Got Away” on YouTube again just now, and it gave me shivers, especially when she smiles singing the line “–Suddenly you’re older.”
But the problem is, I don’t really like anything outside of Judy. I really hate James Mason here, I’m not sure why. Everything he did just got on my nerves. He was so arrogant-seeming, and he was so self-destructive that he really didn’t deserve the devotion he got, and every time he got drunk was just so incredibly cringe-inducing…I dunno, he just really really irritated me. And while I miss the fact we still have missing footage from the film, I still think it’s too long by a long shot. Every scene takes forever to get through, and the movie wants to drag you through all these melodramatic emotions in a way I’m not sure the musical form is really best suited for.
So like I said: A flawed film, too long and occasionally boring, but with moments of greatness and one of the greatest of all female performances in Hollywood. I don’t know what that makes it–a mess, but a mess that everyone ought to watch, I guess.
But excellent essay, Jon. You really made me remember all the good parts again, and you captured Judy Garland perfectly. I think you did all right following Sam. 🙂
Thanks Stephen I appreciate your comments! On the whole, I think I like the film better than you and have come to a greater appreciation of Melodrama (that’s a capital M) over the last year or so. In general I prefer shorter musicals, but for some reason I get into this one the whole way through. I actually think Mason is a bit understated here, compared to other screen drunks: Lemmon, Cage etc. Yeah and also I just think the film’s true calling-card is Judy. She makes it sing and makes it essential for me.
I’d encourage anybody who wants to know more about this movie to get a copy of the book “A Star Is Born: The Making of the 1954 Movie and Its 1983 Restoration by Ronald Haver” It goes into the whole process and makes for fascinating reading.
Martin you make a great point and I really wanted to get a copy of this book, but had a hard time tracking it down in time for this review. I’m sure it would make a great read.
Nice perspective on Garland, who really is the most important element of this film (although I always like Mason). That said, I’m with Sam & Allan: the ’37 version is better. Tight, economical, but just as emotionally effective. I’ve yet to see the ’76 version but I always find it striking that the actresses they cast in the starlet role are all older, quite experienced, and past their prime (in terms of stardom, anyway, not necessarily talent).
Interesting conversation on Kelly too – I did not know this stuff. Hers was not even the best performance The Country Girl, where Bing Crosby steals the picture in a truly great performance (like Garland’s, one that hits close to home).
And Fish, you make me laugh – I’m gonna steal that line someday.
MovieMan,
I think you hit the nail when you say Garland is the most important element and that’s why I say that is this film’s legacy. I also like the terrific nature in which Garland’s real life plays off the film’s storyline. These are the reasons for loving this film. I still maintain that the 1954 version is better and filled with more depth because of this, but I will have another look at the 1937.
Jon –
I’m sorry my comment here is so late, but I most congratulate you on a fititng tribute to Garland and her greatest film role. (Particularly love the phrase “visceral vibrato” – that says it all. Garland sang from her heart and her gut, few singers have ever had such a brilliant, instinctual feeling for a song.) I’m absoutely in agreement with you about her performance in THE CLOCK, another of her greatest.
Hi Pat, Never too late! Thanks for your comment. I figured if there was any essay on this countdown that deserved to be a tribute to Judy, it would be this one. Yes glad you like the The Clock too!
I’m late too – but a great tribute both to this film and to Judy Garland, Jon. It’s such a shame that this film was butchered as it was – according to some articles I’ve read about it, Cukor was forced by the studio to include the ‘Born in a Trunk’ sequence and then other completed footage was cut out to avoid the film being too long. I know the restored version has an audio track for these scenes, and it is wonderful that this has been added back in – you can see how the cuts lost a lot of their original relationship, including Mason’s desperate search for Garland after they lose touch early on.
However, I rather wish it was still possible to get hold of the cut version too, as the long audio sequences do slow down the film and make it feel very long. (There are rumours that a full print of the movie does exist in the hands of a private collector – wouldn’t it be great if this turned out to be true, though the fact that it has been restored so painstakingly with footage missing makes me doubtful. Anyway I must read the book recommended by Martin above.)
Great as this movie is, even in its incomplete form, I tend to prefer both the Wellman 1930s version and Cukor’s even earlier pre-Code ‘What Price Hollywood’, which was really the first film version of this story, where Lowell Sherman gives a devastating performance. In both the 1930s films I think the doomed alcoholic really dominates and is the performance you remember most, but in the musical of course it is Garland who gives the most powerful performance, since she has the songs which pour out her heart, even though Mason is excellent too. I have seen the Streisand/Kristofferson version and have a feeling Streisand is the standout in that one, but it is a very long time since I saw it – I do wonder what it would have been like if they had managed to get Elvis for the Kristofferson role, as originally hoped.
Judy thanks for your tremendous and knowledgable comment! You are right, they had to go back and add the “Born in a Trunk” sequence after the studios thought the film didn’t include enough musical elements. I know what you mean about it getting rather long, but that sequence is so terrifically done that I’m glad they added it. You’re also right about most of what was cut was the developing nuances in the relationship. Re-watching it lately, the use of the still photos is mainly relegated to that sequence of about 10 minutes, of and on.
I do know that you have a great deal of knowledge on 30’s and pre-code stuff and your information here definitely adds to the context and history around all of the different versions of this film out there. It does seem like Garland is certainly given a more starring role and is let to shine brighter, and I think this is also an understanding that Mason must have felt as well. I think he could have been far more showy in this one, but left in some subtlety and understatement that comes off today as introspective and filled with depth and also feels like it supports Judy, whom he must have known this film meant alot. Again thanks!
There was an aura that surrounded Judy Garland by the time she had taken up this role. I’m not sure that her persona fit into the mold that Wellman and Gaynor had established some 16 years earlier. Yes the Gaynor Esther Blodget was more innocent, but there was a homespun simplicity that Garland couldn’t capture. Still, Garland used her sheer talent to make up for any short comings in believability and molded the role to her own specs, which means far more flavorful than anything Gaylor could muster. I love both films, but for sheer star power I agree this is the definitive ‘A Star is Born’.
Jon Warner has an abiding regard for Judy Garland. That’s clear enough from the opening lines. By giving the readers a painstaking recall of her problems at the time she made the film, he sheds more insight on the character psychology behind its success. Great work!
David, your comments are right on the money.
David yes that’s a tremendous comment from you. I appreciate your appraisal of the comparison of the two films and especially what makes this one tick. Many thanks!