User Reviews (186)

Add a Review

  • Is it possible to watch this fictional story without digressing to thoughts about the real life story of Judy Garland? For me it isn't. Both are permanently intertwined. And it's not just the parallel between fiction and fact, but also the dark, brooding, melancholy mood they engender, like ghosts calling out to us from a Hollywood that no longer exists.

    The film's storyline is well known. I won't belabor it here, except to say that it communicates an honest and introspective indictment of the entertainment industry as it once was. The story can be thought of as a kind of archetypal Hollywood memoir, expressed as a musical.

    But musicals are supposed to be upbeat, lighthearted, fun. This one isn't. Moments of humor and joy are swept away in a cascade of emotional pain and tragedy. Fiction mimics real life. How appropriate that the film's signature song "The Man That Got Away" is one that is so uncompromisingly serious, poignant, and smoldering ... a perfect vehicle for Judy Garland.

    Some say she had the greatest singing voice of any entertainer in the twentieth century. This film lends credence to that assertion. Every song she sings is performed with such consummate verve, such emotional commitment that she seems to be singing not just for her contemporaries, but also for generations to come. Indeed, she is. My personal favorite is the "Born In A Trunk" segment, all fifteen minutes of it. Surrounded by sets of true cinematic art, she belts out one tune after another, including, of course, the poignant "Melancholy Baby".

    Judy's singing and the music itself are what make the movie so memorable. But she also demonstrates her considerable acting talent. And the acting of other cast members is fine, especially the performances of James Mason and Jack Carson. I do think that the film was, and still is, too long, the result of an overly ambitious screenplay.

    That Judy Garland was denied the Best Actress Oscar is poignant. But her talent was so massive, her uniqueness was so special, maybe fate required a compensatory level of pain and tragedy, as a prerequisite of legend.
  • In a career of classic performances this may be Judy Garland's best role and one that certainly uses her many talents to the hilt. James Mason gives an Oscar caliber performance as well and I believe in almost any other year that he wasn't up against Brando's "On the Waterfront" performance he would and should have won.

    This George Cukor film features gorgeous color and beautiful cinematography, but does suffer from choppy editing that may be the result of restored footage. The project to restore over an hour of missing footage scrapped by the producers after the original length was in excess of four and a half hours may have been done with the best intentions, but is still incomplete and leaves the film disjointed and obviously lacking. I certainly wish the original footage was never scrapped, but this spotty attempt at restoration makes you feel like your watching more of a project than a classic film. Sometimes less is more and definitely in this case.

    Whatever you do make sure you see the widescreen version of this film that was originally shot in Cinemascope or you will only see about a third of the actual picture and I assure you, you won't want to miss any of it.
  • This movie is not without its flaws, but overall, it is a masterpiece.

    The quintessential story of a couple, one who's career is on the rise, the other on the decline- is made extraordinary by the performances.

    Ester Blodgett, aka: Vicki Lester (Judy Garland) plays the unknown talent with pipes that would put an organ to shame. Her singing in this movie is definitely a HUGE reason to watch it- especially the show stopper, "The Man that got away." Ester meets, by chance & some help from the bottle, the cinematic icon, Norman Maine (James Mason.) Even though he's drunk, he is taken with her. Much later that night, he finds her at a club just "kickin' it" with the boys in the band. In what is probably the best 5 mins of music in the history of musicals- Judy lets it all out in "The Man that got away." Sincerely, I MYSELF, have never heard singing like that. So absolutely raw, almost uncontrolled and full-out and all heart that it always gives me goosebumps! And an unobserved Norman Maine comes out of the shadows to tell Ester that he TOO has never heard singing like that. He tells her, (completely sober after sleeping off a little) that she has a great talent. And he makes her believe it.

    She eventually gets her chance with some help from Norman, and makes a big hit movie. She starts to make a lotta hit movies. Meanwhile, Norman gets cut from the studio by his longtime friend & boss, Oliver Niles. One thing leads to another & even though he is happily married now to Ester, his drinking starts up again. In a scene that is almost too awful to watch, he stumbles in on her acceptance speech at the Academy Awards. I dunno if that slap was real, but it looked real. And the ashamed look on his face afterwards looks real.

    I won't give away the ending, but I will tell you why I liked this movie. First of all is Judy's singing. There are many memorable songs and moments. She always gives it her all when she sings. Or to paraphrase Ester in the movie, it's when she is her most alive. Her acting is terrific too. In a scene that is so well written and ahead of its time (and timeless), Ester tells her friend & studio head that she is worried about what's happening to her & Norman. That she hates him for the lies, for the promises to quit, and for failing. That she too feels like a failure. This scene encapsulates the ripple effect caused by alcoholism. Judy is absolutely mesmerizing as the wife who has discovered that love is not enough.

    James Mason delivers one of the best & most convincing performances of an alcoholic on the decline that I've ever seen on screen. First of all, his charm & sincerity are apparent. When Libby (his Publicity Agent) says that his appeal & charm escape him, it's because he didn't see this side of him. He only saw the mean drunk and that wasn't who Norman Maine really was. James Mason is LOOKS so convincing that you'd swear he had a quick 6 or 7 drinks before the shoot. And his pain is real. In the scene where she gets him out of night court, his self-disgust and shame are vividly on his face. And the scene where he over-hears Ester & Oliver talking about him is enough to make anyone reach for the hankies. He has so much chemistry with Judy that you'd swear they were really in love. Many a reviewer has mentioned this- and I won't speculate on it- suffice to say that it adds tremendously to the movie, because it seems palpable how much Ester & Norman care about each other & are desperately in love. Definite Oscar-calibre performance by Garland & Mason here. This is the story of the Oscar that got away. In any world that was just, they both would've gotten one.

    All the supporting roles are well done and not too obtrusive. My only complaint with the movie is the editing. I'm happy to have the restored version, but the editing could've made a more intense, compact version of the film. I will give one of many examples: The scene towards the end where her friend from the band arrives at her house to take her to the benefit. It is a very important scene. The next scene is at the benefit location. We have several minutes of them showing the backstage bustle before Ester & her friend enter. They already showed in the beginning of the film all the backstage confusion- it slows down the story. They could've cut directly to the part where she & him walk in. You still get a sense of what's going on around them without that long lead-in. That is just an example, there are more. But it is a minor complaint - I have a DVD & can scan when I need to. Overall this is a timeless movie with outstanding performances. A must see!!
  • The 1954 musicalized version of A Star Is Born is a great film. Judy Garland and James Mason (both Oscar nominated) turn in terrific performance as Esther and Norman. Like its 1937 predecessor (which starred Janet Gaynor and Fredric March—both Oscar nominated), the 1954 version follows the ups and down of two people set against the vicious world of Hollywood. The newer version sticks to the basic story but adds some great numbers for Garland, including "The Man That Got Away" and "I Was Born in a Trunk." In a major comeback, Garland had not worked in films since Summer Stock (1950), and her performance here is the best of her career. That she lost the Oscar to Grace Kelly for The Country Girl is one of Hollywood's great inequities. Mason lost to Marlon Brando for On the Waterfront. Garland sings superbly and is a great comic and dramatic actress. Her Esther is more vulnerable than Gaynor's just as Mason's Norman is more pathetic than March's. I love both versions. Charles Bickford and Jack Carson play the other major parts, played by Adolphe Menjou and Lionel Stander in 1937. Two major supporting roles from the 1937 version were cut from the 1954 version: Esther's first Hollywood friend (Andy Devine) and her intrepid grandmother (the great May Robson). But Garland's musical numbers make up for their absence. Oddly, despite the great hullabaloo surrounding A Star Is Born, it was not nominated for best picture, and George Cukor was bypassed in the directing category. One of the best musicals ever made.
  • This is a great film. Yes it is long. Yes some of the songs should have been cut but they weren't but we get a masterpiece anyway.

    In this film Esther Blodgett is a talented aspiring singer with a band, and Norman Maine is a former matinee idol with a career in the early stages of decline. When he arrives intoxicated at a function at the Shrine Auditorium, the studio publicist attempts to keep him away from reporters. After an angry exchange, Norman rushes away and bursts onto a stage where an orchestra is performing. Esther takes him by the hand and pretends he is part of the act, thereby turning a potentially embarrassing and disruptive moment into an opportunity for the audience to greet Norman with applause.

    Norman then takes Esther under his wing and gets her a screen test at the studio in which he works. She ends up homecoming a major star and his drinking escalates!

    After the film was released Warner Brothers recalled the prints. 30 minutes were edited out. In 1983 Ron Haver was able to restore most of the film. Where he could not find footage for the missing scenes he used productions stills. People claim this halts the picture. It doesn't! Besides it only last a total of 7 minutes. It is not 7 minutes all at once!

    Now in 2010 it was reported that film restorer Michael Arick had a print of this film. He will not let Warner Brothers use the print. Some people claim that he doesn't have a print however "He has never publicly denied it".

    It is also Rumored that Tommy from Beverly Hills has hours of the films outtakes on VHS however it is silent footage. Maybe it might include the missing 7 minutes.
  • Marked by a pervasive sense of melancholy, the 1954 musical version of the familiar Hollywood warhorse will forever be remembered as Judy Garland's most acclaimed work in films. Even though she would go on to a handful of films in the early 1960's, this was her last leading role in a major Hollywood production, an ironic point since she plays an emerging movie star on the rise. True, she doesn't look her best in the film, but her fulsome talent is on full, heart-wrenching display as Esther Blodgett, an obscure but thriving band singer who becomes movie star Vicki Lester thanks to Norman Maine, an alcoholic has-been movie star in career free-fall. Their love story and the opposing trajectories of their careers are tracked meticulously by Moss Hart's shrewdly observed screenplay and George Cukor's sensitive direction.

    The double-sided 2000 DVD provides the 176-minute restored version, which is just five minutes less than what was shown at the original premiere. Until 1983, the half-hour of footage excised after the premiere was thought lost, but film historian Ron Haver found much of it and supervised an extraordinary restoration effort that includes a necessary albeit brief use of production stills to match up with the complete soundtrack. Even with such technicalities, the resulting film is even more of a landmark musical drama, emotionally resonant in spite of certain pacing issues with the storyline. Cukor's approach is probably more leisurely than the relatively hard-boiled material requires since he includes so many establishing and lengthy shots, but his direction shows his legendary sensitivity toward actors.

    While he comes across a bit too robust as a fading matinée idol, James Mason vigorously captures Norman's scornful pride and self-pity. He may lack Fredric March's innate sense of vulnerability in the original, but Mason makes the character's inner torment more palpable. As for Garland, she brings so much of her own history to Esther/Vicki that her scenes feel alive with her vibrant, masochistic personality. She is aided immeasurably by the masterful songs of Harold Arlen and Ira Gershwin, most significantly her torchy rendition of "The Man That Got Away", as perfect a musical movie moment as has been ever produced. While her work in the fifteen-minute "Born in the Trunk" sequence is impressive, it is really later in the film when she soars, in particular, when she segues from the tap-happy "Lose That Long Face" into a breakdown scene in her dressing room with sympathetic studio head Oliver Niles portrayed with his typically stentorian fervor by Charles Bickford.

    The print condition and sound quality on the DVD are superb. There are also some fascinating extras on the B-side starting with three alternative takes on "The Man That Got Away", each distinctive in presentation with costume and lighting changes, a must for Garland fans. Also included is a very brief deleted number within the "Born in the Trunk" sequence", "When My Sugar Walks Down the Street". Three vintage pieces have been gathered - a brief newsreel piece of the premiere, a four-minute clip of the Coconut Grove premiere party held after the premiere, and most interestingly, a half-hour kinescope akin to the current-day red carpet pre-shows with an amazing parade of period stars expressing little more than good wishes on their way to the theater. Lastly, the theatrical trailers for all three versions of "A Star Is Born" are also included.
  • This, Contrary to Many, is not Judy Garland at Her Peak. It is More like an All Out Performance that says with Bravado, "Don't count me out quite yet." After Seeing this No One did, and it Reaffirmed that Her Talent had not Dissipated, but was on Demand Anytime She Wished it.

    It is a "Pull out all the stops." Movie with Technicolor, CinemaScope, Top Talent, and a Length that would have Judy's Fans Saying give us more, but Others saying that a Good Trimming is in Order.

    What is Available Today is Mostly its Full Length and the Movie is Full to the Brim with Garland Singing at Every Turn and some of Her New Found Belting Style is Either Ecstasy or Cacophonic, depending on Taste. There are some Charming Musical Numbers, but the Often Praised "Born in a Trunk" is Clunk and at 15 Minutes it does Test the Tolerance of Anyone not Hypnotized by Judy's Personal Charm.

    You can Feel the Strain Many Times in this Overlong Attempt to Give Them Everything (those wishing for a Garland comeback and her masses of admirers) and the Movie cannot be Faulted for its Effort. But the Film does not Fully Succeed.

    James Mason is Fine and Judy's Dramatic Acting is Soulful, but Overall it Seems Disjoined, Uneven, with what may be a Sub-Conscience Apologetic Embrace that Might just be Hugging the Fragile and Charming, Multi-Talented and Ever Popular Judy Garland as a Performer more than this Inconsistent Picture.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The year 1954 proved to be one of the professional best for Judy Garland, as she did an outstanding comeback in A STAR IS BORN, a part that if not meant for her originally when the first version of this movie was filmed as WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD?(1932), was the one which she made her own and to this day is the most referred to and remembered for the sheer emotional honesty and power to which acted the part of Esther Blodgett. That is was not awarded by the Academy in favor for a more "correct" acting by Grace Kelly is one of those great injustices that has been done, and that its competition with ON THE WATERFRONT was too tight to garner it any of the major awards was just bad timing on its release (today the results would have been different, dividing the awards), but time has eventually healed these major slips -- at least on Judy Garland's favor, the greater of the two actresses by a long shot -- and as a movie, it still holds up today in its poignant portrayal of a marriage destroyed by alcoholism and the coldness of the media closely watching its disintegration.

    Originally at 154 minutes, the restored, 179 minute version is the best to watch because it does effectively tie up some plot holes and the way Mason's character eventually meets up with Garland's who is wondering if he was serious about making her a star -- the transition in the first, cut version would have been too easy and unbelievable, a borderline fairytale. Both Garland and Mason tackle difficult parts flawlessly without going over the top in histrionics but giving both their characters a painful, human dignity that should not have been lost on the Academy even then, and Mason's descent into alcoholism and later, self-sacrificial suicide is one of the most heartbreaking ever committed on film, even if in reality, it was Garland who was the ravaged, addicted star.
  • BrentCarleton23 May 2006
    Not a few persons consider "A Star is Born" to be Judy Garland's finest film, and there is, indeed, a great deal to admire in it.

    Among the good: First, Sam Leavitt's Cinemascope cinematography may well be the best demonstration of wide screen Technicolor photography ever committed to celluloid. His compositional balance in each frame is rarely less than breathtaking, and this also applies to the Technicolor whose chroma is similarly balanced and visually thrilling. The reds and blues achieved in the opening backstage sequence startle the sensibilities in their effectiveness.

    Ray Heindorf's orchestrations are the finest in any Garland film, even surpassing those of Lennie Hayton and Johnny Green. The use of brass in many of the orchestrations attains a big band blues perfectly in pitch with the rueful story about to unfold. This is particularly true during the overture where the picture's principal themes are laid out in swinging rhythms drenched in deep emotion.

    Art direction is similarly distinguished perhaps most evidently in the otherwise expendable "Born in a Trunk" segment.

    Alas, we come at last to the screenplay. Few would argue with the choice of Moss Hart as a scenarist, but despite the best efforts of those involved, the story fails to cohere.

    This failure has less to do with the situations themselves, than with the characters as they are delineated in both script and performance.

    Norman Maine is ostensibly intended to be a charming and attractive man, despite the fact that he is in the throes of a losing battle with dipsomania. However, as etched by James Mason, Norman fails entirely to transmit even the remotest appeal. Consider his opening sequence, as he smashes mirrors and attempts to pinion showgirls, not to mention a whole raft of similar offenses. Where is the charm in this? Where is the appeal? What on earth would endear him to a total stranger? Most people would be running for the hills to get out of his way. His only genuine moment comes when he describes Esther's talent to her after hearing her in the after hours club.

    If Mason had brought some of the smoldering appeal he had manifested in "The Man in Gray" perhaps the audience could buy Esther's infatuation. As it stands, her interest in him seems wholly contrived.

    Judy Garland's Esther Blodgett is a woman of considerable appeal, but the emotional instability she suggests throughout, throws the whole script off kilter. Surely, Mr. Hart intended that she provide the ballast to Mr. Mason's portrayal. After all, she is the woman who thinks she can save Norman Maine. As it is, however, she is so utterly neurasthenic in not a few of her on screen moments, that the viewer is forced to conclude that, of the two of them, Norman appears far more psychologically self possessed.

    Then there are simply blatant inconsistencies in the script. For example upon meeting Norman, Esther recalls working for a band, and painting her fingernails in gas station washrooms. "Wow that was a low point," she intones, "...and no matter what I'll never do it again." What kind of "low point" was it ? however, when she is later depicted working as a car hop!

    Musically the film serves to transition Miss Garland from MGM sweet miss to international concert diva, sometimes at the expense of the introspective plaintiveness she had displayed so often in the 40s.

    Presumably the premiere of her "new voice" as she called it, was the by-product of her play dates at the Palladium and Palace, where she embraced a powerhouse style of belting not found in her MGM vocals. Certainly the voice is deeper and harder hitting. How appealing the change is considered varies according to the taste of the listener.

    Nelson Riddle later averred that he had difficulty in convincing her to revert to her earlier style, though when he succeeded, (as in her late 50's Capital recording of "Just Imagine" )the results were enchanting.

    Still it must be admitted that vocally she is at her peak, both in depth of interpretation and emotional resonance.

    Though Garland's voice may have changed for the better, however, her appearance had most certainly not. Unlike her fellow MGM alums, Jane Powell, Gloria De Haven, June Allyson, Kathryn Grayson or Ann Miller who had changed but little during the preceding decade, Garland bears little visual connection to her Metro ingénue period. She is not helped at all by a new (very dark and very short, with nary a hint of her Metro auburn) hair-do which is scarcely flattering.

    Though she looks smashing in the Academy Awards sequence and "Melancholy Baby," these are the only two sequences that recall her former prettiness, or find her successfully gowned.

    Then, as Noel Coward (a huge fan of hers) confided to his diary after seeing the unexpurgated version, it's "interminable." The picture was in severe need of trimming, and though it's undeniably true that the cutting was ham fisted, with the removal of worthy sequences, there can be no denying that "Born in a Trunk" (yes it has virtues--such as the stunning "Melancholy Baby" with Garland in the swank gray gown with opera gloves) is padded and unnecessary, bringing the whole momentum of the story to a dead halt, and causing British critic Leslie Halliwell to conclude that the "musical numbers add very little except length." All of which probably contributed to the picture's commercial failure. Certainly, none of the blame lies with Garland, who does turn in an arrestingly emotional performance. In this connection it must be recalled that musicals were collapsing at the box office at this time, and many such extravaganzas were failing to reap back their production costs.
  • Alcoholic movie star Norman Maine (James Mason) meets singer Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland) and gets her the screen test she needs to become a big star (and change her name to Vicki Lester—has any name ever so desperately needed changing?).

    This was not my first viewing of A Star Is Born, but it was illuminating. I certainly already believed it was a great movie, but it is far more subtle and complex than I had previously known. The movie is working on several levels at once. In one way, it's a straight-ahead musical, with some wonderful songs and production numbers. At another level, it's an 'inside Hollywood' story, and that level works remarkably well. Some of the 'events' (the opening, the Academy Awards) look almost raw in their filming style, almost like news footage, creating a powerful impression of being behind the scenes. The production numbers support that impression, with numerous bits and visuals lifted from other musicals, so that we are clued into the idea that we are seeing what "really" happened, or might have happened, on any number of film sets (at one point, An American in Paris is referenced directly).

    Finally, it is a remarkably honest and true portrayal of alcoholism and marriage to an alcoholic. Esther's co-dependence is seen for what it is, her pain is real, her self-flagellation is real. If anything, the movie is overly sympathetic with Norman Maine, portraying the publicist (Jack Carson) who is disgusted with him as a villain. When I saw A Star Is Born for the first time, I was in *my* one and only relationship with an alcoholic. I wept with Judy Garland and I knew firsthand how accurately her agony was depicted. All these years later, quite recovered from any desire to go THERE again, I sympathize almost as much with the publicist. Kick the bum out! A few weeks ago I saw the train wreck that is New York, New York. It seemed like Scorcese's intention was to deconstruct, while at the same time celebrating, the 40s Hollywood musical. He wanted to show the ugliness behind those magical romances, the meanness behind those amusingly bossy men, and he still wanted to enjoy the glamour. Upon re-viewing A Star Is Born, I wondered why he bothered. It's already been done, as well as could possibly be done.
  • Sometimes when a film goes through the restoration process the result is like replacing a missing piece of a puzzle. The result is a more complete vision of what the work was intended to be.

    Other times it is like putting a removed appendix back into a patient; it may not harm the patient, but it really doesn't do much good either. It is especially bothersome if the restored portion is incomplete or strangely deformed. Nothing good can come of that, other than maybe a scholarly understanding of the film-making process. A STAR IS BORN, the 1954 Judy Garland version, famously underwent such a reconstruction back in 1983 and it was praised for restoring a masterpiece. It is debatable whether A STAR IS BORN was ever really a masterpiece, but it is clear that the restoration made the film bigger, though not necessarily better. At two and half hours the meager story would seem sadly stretched and restoring another supposedly lost half hour makes the film lose its focus even further. And a portion of the restored version featuring black-and-white production stills, replacing lost or incomplete film footage, make the film stop dead in its tracks.

    A STAR IS BORN is the oft-told tale of two stars whose paths cross briefly while speeding in opposing trajectories. Garland's Esther Blodgett (a.k.a. Vicki Lester) is on the rise as a young singer, while her mentor and lover, movie star Norman Maine (James Mason), is in a downward spiral. He pauses briefly in mid-air to give her a career boost and a crack at being a movie star. It is pure soap opera, though any student of Tinseltown knows it is rooted in more than one Hollywood legend. This is the third of four versions of the tale, with the key plot twist being that it is a musical, designed to showcase Garland's distinctive talents as a bona fide song and dance legend -- which is both the film's saving grace and its ultimate undoing.

    Using flimsy boy-meets-girl stories as an excuse for all-singing, all-dancing musicals is part of Hollywood tradition; the stories never being as important as the musical moments they frame. When the framing story is merely a light-hearted romp, in the Astarie-Rogers mode, it doesn't seem to matter that much. Indeed, the plot is sometimes just a bother. But when the melodrama begins to get heavy and the film strives for pathos, the reality of the drama and the artificiality of the music can compete more than contrast. Either the musical numbers seem extraneous or the drama seems trite -- and with A STAR IS BORN, it is more than a little of both.

    Like the lamentable Streisand version that would follow, this was clearly intended as a vanity production, produced by Garland and her husband Sid Luft to rejuvenate Judy's sagging career and her damaged reputation. Therefore, it is not surprising that as a musical it is designed to play to her formidable talent (and it's not surprising either that the Norman Maine character is just an actor and not a singer as well -- thus there is no one to upstage Judy in the musical numbers). The various numbers are generally well staged and Garland belts them out with gusto, though the songs themselves are strangely banal; only "The Man Who Got Away" really endures, possibly because it does reflect the film's theme of love and loss. Otherwise, the other songs seem intrusive and beside the point. The "Born in a Trunk" number, for instance, may tell us a lot about Judy Garland, but not much at all about Esther Blodgett. Overall, the musical and melodrama never quite meld together -- often it is like switching back and forth between two unrelated films.

    The film is mostly revered for the Garland showstoppers, but it comes at the expense of the love story. Which is a shame because the main story is handled fairly well. Garland, always hyper and a bit theatrical, gives a performance that nicely contrasts Mason's quiet intensity and skilled underplaying. As much as Garland is overly praised for this film, Mason is equally underrated, lending a haunted quality to his character with his sad, grave eyes and solemn voice. On the other hand, Garland seems needy, almost desperate to be loved in her role, which may have been what put off Academy Award voters who denied her the much anticipated Oscar that year (she lost to Grace Kelly's bitter and melancholy performance in THE COUNTRY GIRL). It was Mason's star that was born as it bumped him up to leading man status; he proved he could more than hold his own against Garland, even as the film brushes him into the wings during the long stretches when Judy holds the spotlight hostage.

    And ironically, though the film was meant to revitalize Garland's film career, it slowed, but didn't stop, her downward slide. Not only is Garland a bit old to once again be playing the spunky wide-eyed ingenue, in reality she was more like the self-destructive Norman Maine character, a troubled and troublesome star struggling with too many demons, real and imagined. A STAR IS BORN was meant to be her Esther Blodgett, the second chance at redemption. Instead, though many triumphs and tragedies would follow, including a Oscar-nominated performance in the drama JUDGMENT AT NUREMBURG, Garland took the film's relative failure as a personal affront and more or less shunned Hollywood thereafter. The film would eventually enhance her post-mortem status as a legend, but as an attempt to recapture her place as a film star, it was more a last hurrah than a rebirth.
  • tabuno3 March 2019
    Judy Garland and James Mason star in this captivating 50s movie that brings to the big screen a rather eclectic and to this day a unique challenging portrayal of the movie business, alcoholism along with true love and sacrifice. Some standout scenes that have been rarely incorporated into movie in the fashion this movie accomplished include: Behind the movie industry scene and starting out as a contract actress business. The movie premiere scene that flashbacks to getting into the movie business from a young child. The living room playful scene. And the poignant need a job at the Academy Awards presentation scene.

    This movie includes one of the strongest and most penetrating self-reflective scenes with Judy Garland about love not being enough. This second movie version contains emotional gut punches that hit the heart and riddle one with memorable and meaningful relevance even today. The love and sacrifice towards the end of the movie pours out with waves and waves of most rippling understandable universal pain and compassion. In short, this movie in a rather difficult amalgam though not perfectly paced in its effort to showcase, in part, Judy Garland's singing brilliance while presenting a story about discovery, love and commitment, and the torturous role that alcohol dependency while not trivializing it can take while avoiding to focus blame and portray any black and white notion of character defects. A most powerful human interest movie about dreams and the ultimate meaning of living and dying and the purpose of individual human existence at its finest with all its flaws thrown in.
  • I have nothing against musicals. The story can be told by regular acting or through singing and dancing and both ways have their own charm. But when you make regular 90 minutes movie and then add the same length of musical numbers that contribute to story only by extending the movie twice, you end up with 3 hours of agony. Although the movie is great, I barely held until the end. It is a remake of 1937. movie of the same name with added musical numbers and if we cut out all of them it would have no impact on the story, but we would be deprived of fantastic singing. So, in my opinion, they should have interpreted the original story through singing and dancing instead of adding musical numbers to a regular movie. They should have made 90 minutes or real musical that would keep our attention from beginning to the end. Like "Moulin Rouge" was done, for example...

    7/10
  • I was disappointed with many aspects of a Star is Born. The restored version of the film is more than an hour too long. There are so many drawn out scenes and musical numbers that any tension between the characters is completely dissipated by the time we come to the tragic ending. The two great scenes -- Judy Garland's night club performance of the Man that Got Away and her song and dance routine in her living room using a lamp shade as a Chinese hat -- don't make up for all of the other overly long and unnecessary (as far as the plot or the character development is concerned) musical numbers. This is a showcase for Garland's considerable musical talents, it is not a well scripted movie. It's ashame because James Mason is terrific in his scenes.
  • Much has been written about this movie (to extremely great length) in other reviews, so I'll try to keep this fairly brief and concise.

    First, the restored version runs at 176 minutes. The movie originally ran at 181 minutes, but was cut to 154 minutes when theater owners complained that they were losing money due to the excessive length. The cut destroyed the integrity of the movie - director Cukor never saw the movie again. However, the restored version contains stills to replace some of the cut footage, and gives a better sense of the film's power and scope.

    Second, all four major studio versions of the story (including "What Price Hollywood?") have their own merits and differ greatly from one another. If you like the story, see them all and compare for yourself. It's quite fun to compare!

    Third, definitely see this version for Judy. Sure, Judy's "The Man That Got Away" may be the greatest musical moment on cinema, but it's her dramatic performance that will keep your attention over almost three hours. James Mason is on target, and the supporting cast is fine, but Judy just dominates the screen. It's an opportunity to see a true genius in action at the absolute height of her powers. For more dramatic Judy, see her in "The Clock".

    George Cukor was acclaimed as the great director of actresses, and he raises Judy to the height she deserves. I love Judy. This is a 10 out of 10.
  • btreakle22 August 2020
    10/10
    Judy
    I love this adaptation of a star is born with Judy Garland James Mason. Though it got average of 7 stars out of 10 I felt it deserved 10. judy's performance alone rose this film's rating to a 10 in my book. This is my favorite version of this screenplay
  • The story of "A star is born" was adapted at least four times (apart from similar stories under different names, such as "The artist" (2011, Michel Hazanavicius)). In 1937 the lead roles were played by Janet Gaynor and Fredric March (director William Wellman), in 1954 by Judy Garland and James Mason (director George Cukor), in 1976 by Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson (director Frank Pierson) and in 2018 by Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper (director Bradley Cooper).

    When the same story is adapted multiple times I like to compare the different versions. That is, when the remake(s) (as is unfortunately often the case) is (are) not vastly inferior to the original. This is not the case by "A star is born". The 1976 and 2018 versions are about popstarts, the 1937 and 1954 versions are about filmstars. I shall compare the 1937 and 1954 versions.

    The 1937 version has more elements of a comedy, the 1954 version is more a pure tragedy. The 1954 version is also more big budget with expensive musical scenes. In 1954 the Hollywood system was at its peak, just before the fall caused by television (a threat which is alluded to several times in the 1954 version as "rough times for the business"). The story is in essence about the replaceability of stars in the Hollywood system and the 1954 version makes very clear that behind the dream factory there is a relentless business model.

    The 1937 version is more about the rise of the woman than the fall of the man. In the 1937 version we see Janet Gaynor leaving her old farm house in North Dakota, heading for Hollywood full of dreams and ambitions. When in Hollywood she does an awfull lot of effort to attract attention. In the 1954 version Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland) is already in Hollywood and catches the attention of Norman Maine (James Mason) by accident. In a cynical scene at the beginning of the movie we see Norman asking a waiter if there are new girls that are ambitions and willing. Also in 1954 Harvey Weinstein types of men were never absent in Hollywood.

    With respect to the fall of Norman two scenes are crucial to see the difference between the two versions. The first one is the speech of Esther accepting an Oscar which is disturbed by a drunken Norman. In 1937 Fredric March plays the drunken Norman as angry, in 1954 James Mason plays the drunken Norman as desperate. The second scene is the scene in which Esther tells the studio boss about the hopeless struggle Norman is waging against his alcohol addiction. Judy Garland puts much more emotion in this scene then Janet Gaynor. This is understandable when one realises that Judy is playing Esther but her real life was very similar to that of Norman.
  • I read the review The Star That Fizziled with great interest. It's about time that someone has seen the imperfections in this movie and its problems. I know that there are a great many Judy Garland fans out there that probably do not remember her when she was at the peak of her movie career at M.G.M., but she never was at the top after she left M.G.M. and with A Star Is Born and others to follow, she just didn't have that magnetism on the screen that she had, let's say, with Meet Me In St. Lous, or Easter Parade.

    I have to agree with the other reviewer, this movie is just Judy Garland playing Judy Garland. I have to agree with the fact that some of these songs should have been deleted, or even not filmed, and I have to agree that if they would have had Judy do a rousing version of Swanee, instead of the overlong and boring Born In A Trunk, which could have brilliantly been used in one of her T.V. Variety Show, it would have a much better effect as to why Vickie Lester was born for Stardom in Hollywood! They should have completely deleted Somewhere There's A Someone For Me, and when she tries to bite into that sandwich that was bigger than her mouth, have the door bell ring, and have Mason answer the door, etc. etc. etc.. This would have had a more powerful effect on the scene.

    It's A New World was a perfect spot, and showed us the old Judy Garland as we all remembered her - a great singer! They should have deleted the Long Face number, and instead, have her talk to the head of the studio, Charles Bickford, as played, maybe with a little less hysterics, and then have them call for her on the set, and then film a musical number with her sing "Melancoly Baby" singing by a piano like in the Born in a Trunk number. As she's singing, she could show the pain she's going through with shots back and forth to Bickford showing the pain he feels for her. Then at the end of the number, she turns to the piano in tears; Bickford quickly goes to her side, and they both,in Bickford's arms, cry and share the pain with each other. Now, if they had done that; there would have been no dry eye in the theater, and even I would not have been able to contain myself, and there would have been no amount of boxes of Kleenex to go with what I would be feeling for Vickie Lester. That would have made more sense! Now, everyone will probably hate me for this, but James Mason was all wrong for the Norman Maine role. Originally, Judy Garland wanted Cary Grant, and he would have been great. Just think of Grant going from the debonair Cary Grant to the depths of degradation to suicide. He would have been perfect and I'm willing to bet that he would have been awarded the Oscar for his performance!

    As for the length of the film. There were scenes in it that looks like they were drawn out because they felt that the longer the movie, the better the movie. Many of these sense could have been scaled down or deleted to make a more powerful punch to the story, for instance, the ride in the car after Norman picks up Vikie, Esther at that point in the movie, it was just a scene of babbling and could have been cut to get to the excellent scene when she asks him how he knows that she's a great singer and he simply says, "I heard you sing!" This whole scene is brilliant! They could have also deleted all that business on Norman going to sea on a movie and loosing touch with Esther. I wish, at the time, I had been able to get my hands on that script!

    The one actor in the film that has been overlooked is Tommy Noonan playing Judy Garlands pianist/friend. His performance near the end of the film with Judy Garland as she's in her self-pity state and not wanting to go to the benefit is a great scene for Tommy Noonan while doing a better acting job in that film than Judy Berharts acting.

    And one more thing before everyone decides to put my head on a chopping block: George Cukor was all wrong for the director. Who they "really" should have hired was Michael Curtiz. He was still alive and working for Warners. He would have seen all the problems and I believe,with Cary Grant playing opposite Judy Garland, would have got such powerful performances out of them that both would have received the Oscar!
  • Cineanalyst29 November 2019
    Judy Garland's role in "A Star Is Born" is one of the greatest in film history and likewise the film itself is enhanced by the image of its star. Counting the original "What Price Hollywood?" (1932) and, now, with the 2018 Bradley Cooper-Lady Gaga version, there've been five Hollywood iterations of this meta narrative of performers playing performers, but none of the others resonate at the level the 1954 one does due to both the fame of Garland, as both a film actress and singer--arguably the greatest performer ever recorded when combining the two talents--and compounded by her real-life image as a tragic figure. Moreover, her star and tragic images play into each other, as Hollywood cast her as the relatable girl-next-door type and a perpetual ingénue. The emotive and low-range of her contralto voice always made her seem more mature, too, even as a juvenile actor. When she sings such lyrics as, "the road gets rougher; it's lonelier and tougher," for the Oscar-nominated "The Man That Got Away" song in the nightclub scene, there's no doubt that she knows of what she speaks.

    The film, too, was made something wonderful by Tinseltown and, then, quickly ruined--treated as another commodity to be cut to pieces and discarded by industry demands rather than be preserved and treasured. How utterly fitting that the picture's narrative takes place in the very same Hollywood (complete with Garland not being rightly honored at the Oscars, albeit in a different way than that of her character within the film). Today, we're left with an incomplete restoration. In other words, it's an imperfect picture, but so was its star, which only makes them more precious and beloved. It was imperfect to begin with, too. The early use of CinemaScope is a mixed blessing. Properly restored, the color and production design may be striking, but the anamorphic lenses create a shallow depth of field. Take the nightclub scene again, for instance, when Judy lunges forward in song, she's momentarily out of focus before it's conspicuously racked. And I don't know where the blame belongs for some awkward edits, such as the jump cut during the rear-projected driving scene. But, then, there are more moments that standout for their beauty, such as the process shot for the waves reflected in the glass of the beachfront home.

    Perhaps, the picture was, if not still, overly long, as well. The stills added in 1983 to the recovered soundtrack, to approximate something of the original cut is interesting historically and for getting a fuller understanding of the narrative, but the picture would probably flow better, especially for casual viewing, without these scenes. The lengthy "Born in a Trunk" number in the film-within-the-film, allegedly added without director George Cukor, gets some of the blame here, too, but its layered thoroughness is congruent with the picture's self-reflexivity. Like the outer narrative, it's part semi-biographical of its star, with her being born into show business, then reflects the narrative we've already seen a version of in her being discovered by an older man. It's sort of a film-within-a-film-within-another-film sequence--building the picture up to four levels before intermission: the story told in "Born in a Trunk," the storyteller character played by Vicki Lester in the musical film mise-en-abyme, Garland's Vicki Lester/Esther Blodgett character in the main outer story, and, finally, the real Judy Garland/Frances Gumm, with each narrative playing off the others.

    Some of the musical numbers aren't anything special, but besides the ones aforementioned, "Someone at Last" appreciably makes some fun of filmmaking and musicals in particular. Judy was an amusing comedienne when given the opportunity. Here, she does a Charlie Chaplin shrug before launching into an impersonation of Marlene Dietrich--20 years before Madeline Kahn was nominated by the Academy for a similar parody in "Blazing Saddles" (1974). Although, since this was 1954, after all, Judy, then, mocks ethnic stereotypes. Oh well, she, at least, left out the blackface this time when singing "Swanee," which is best remembered as sung by blackface performer Al Jolson. The sequence involving Garland singing "Lose That Long Face," by contrast, is emotionally devastating, as her up-beat song-and-dance performance stands beside her hysterical and weeping confession in her dressing room.

    Moreover, any qualms in the case of this film seem beside the point; this is Judy's picture. Part of this is her camp appeal and status as a gay icon--how she transgresses traditional Hollywood aesthetics of beauty and even emotional stasis, then brings the house down with her singing. Having Cukor, who besides being gay, understood production design and performance (the so-called "woman's director"), as director here certainly helped. Additionally, whereas others have suggested the character of Esther's friend Danny as being secretly in love with her, I prefer a queer reading of him--the on-screen representation of the friends of Dorothy. Note that he's the one who supports her in her darkest moment.

    What makes Judy's performance doubly transcendent is that she's effectively occupying two characters: both the one she physically plays, the protégé whose star is on the rise, as well as the part played by James Mason as her alcoholic lover whose star is waning. From this perspective, this is a very dark construction. He's the tragic image of Judy's real-life tribulations, abuse, drug addiction and otherwise--that shadow occupying a space between the surface of the screen projecting her acclaimed comeback in "A Star Is Born" and the light from Judy's star backstage. He literally shadows her in an inebriated state to join her in her first stage performance in the film. Although I wonder what would've been the result had Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart or Frank Sinatra--all of whom were considered at one point--been cast as Judy's co-lead (likewise had William Powell taken an expanded press agent's part), Mason does admirably here; while he doesn't sing, he has one of the more memorable voices in film history, which compliments Garland's remarkable voice well. Like Mason's character, we also sense "that little something extra" in her voice, or infer it from her appearance or a look here or there, of an inner torment shadowing her. Indeed, Judy's star was born and shone brightly, but she had few great performances left by this point, before she burned out all too quickly and devastatingly.
  • Holdjerhorses26 November 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    First, I agree with Tony Bennett (and so many others) that Judy Garland was THE entertainer and singer of the 20th Century. "No one could touch her," he said. But he was talking about her stage concerts. Having seen her live, I think Bennett is probably right. Electrifying (at least on her good nights).

    Second, I own this film but seldom watch it. Why? It's simple, really. I find it tedious, talky and full of clichés. Judy's song performances (mostly) are wonderful. Yes, "The Man That Got Away" is cinematic history. "Melancholy Baby" is the best arrangement of that song I've ever heard, but it's truncated to fit in with all the other snippets of the infamous "Born in a Trunk" sequence, as is the rousing "Swanee." "It's a New Day" is just mediocre treacle, musically and lyrically, and was never heard again. "Somewhere, There's a Someone" is interminable showing-off that, one supposes, is supposed to showcase Garland's comedic versatility but instead reeks of "look-at-me-aren't-I-brilliant?" egotism. Plus it displays Garland at her least attractive. The song and her "improvisations" with banana leaves, throw pillows and the bearskin rug are silly, rather than impressive. It feels uncomfortably forced and contributes nothing, either musically or emotionally, to the story. It's, for me, an utter waste of her talent and the film's time.

    Garland could be a terrific actor. Yet in scene after overlong scene, she's given hackneyed lines.

    Others have mentioned, for instance, the scene in the car when James Mason drives her home to her apartment, where she recounts her struggles to get where she is. Sure, Judy acts up a storm.

    Or when she tells Tommy Noonan she's leaving the band because she has a screen test. "Then why do I feel this way?" she bleats breathlessly about her newfound feelings for alcoholic Norman Maine, in yet another clichéd scene.

    Or her almost unwatchable overacting with Oliver Niles (Charles Bickford) in her dressing room when she confesses her helplessness to deal with her husband's alcoholism. Director George Cukor was reportedly so impressed with her playing in this scene that he had her do it several times, and each time she supposedly brought something new and different to it. When he complimented her, she pointedly replied, "Oh, you should come by my house any afternoon. I do that every day. But I only do it ONCE at home." (See Gerald Clarke's remarkable biography of her, "Get Happy.") All the actors are excellent, really, including Judy when she wasn't allowed to be overindulgent. But the script keeps lapsing into bathetic pathos, particularly after Norman Maine is let go by the studio.

    James Mason is remarkable. He's so convincing as a self-loathing, mean-spirited egotistical drunk in his initial scenes that it's impossible to see what ANYBODY sees in him, much less the supposedly innocent and trusting Esther Blodgett.

    That plot point makes her look like an idiot, as a character. Even in those days, NOBODY would abandon a perfectly decent and relatively secure career as an up-and-coming band singer for a "screen test" promised by what everybody else recognizes as an abusive alcoholic has-been actor. "What was she THINKING?" you keep asking, as everything works out exactly as you knew it would.

    By the time poor Norman wades into the Pacific to drown himself while Esther / Vicki sings (a capella) the excruciating "It's a New Day" out the kitchen window in Malibu, you almost wish you could join him, having given three hours of your life to a string of cheap sentimentality and painfully obvious (and tiresome) emotional manipulation.

    But wait! There's more! Tommy Noonan gets his last (terrifically acted but soap-opera dialogued) scene where he berates Judy to convince her to fulfill her obligation to appear onstage at some awards ceremony that night.

    She ultimately does, of course. And gets to deliver the film's famous supposedly heart-tugging final line, "This is Mrs. Norman Maine." Good thing this was a musical. (The only non-musical Garland ever made was "The Clock.") Because, without the songs, "A Star is Born" is just an overproduced, overacted (by Judy) B-movie soap opera that would have long ago faded into oblivion.
  • "A Star Is Born" (1954) uses the same storyline of the 1937 version, i.e., the story of the rise of a new star and the fall of the old one, who is her beloved alcoholic man that discovered and promoted her career. However, the 176 minutes of this 1954 restored version is tiresome in some moments with dated songs in 2019 but it is still a great movie. Judy Garland and James Mason have great performances and the beautiful use of Technicolor make this film an unforgettable classic. My vote is eight.

    Title (Brazil): "Nasce uma Estrela" ("A Star Is Born")
  • I think my expectations were a bit too high while starting to watch this. I don't know why I just thought this was going to be something magnificent, well it didn't. But it turned out to be a good musical.

    The plot is quite easy and the acting won't be the best you'll see, but the musical score is something I'd like to flatter. And not just the music, the musical scenes were well directed and played. Judy Garland did a good job.

    The version I saw, was the restored version, which was almost 3 hours long and the missing scenes were placed by pictures and dialog. I think it worked quite well, except when the "picture scenes" started to last for like 10 minutes. But I guess it's better than no scenes at all.

    But in a summary: a decent good movie, with an interesting story, well acted, but maybe a little too long.

    6/10 A decent good film
  • It didn't work for The Maltese Falcon, but with A Star Is Born we managed to get three classic films from the same story. I'm guessing that people like a love story that's entertainment based.

    This version that starred Judy Garland and James Mason is quite a bit more expensive than the 1937 United Artists film that starred Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. Warner Brothers bought the rights from David O. Selznick who produced it for United Artists as a vehicle for the comeback of Judy Garland.

    As we all know Judy suffered a nervous breakdown and was four years off the screen after Summer Stock. I'm sure it was with some trepidation that Jack Warner signed Judy for this musical version of A Star Is Born.

    Dropped from the 1937 film is the wide eyed innocent fresh off the farm Esther Blodgett that Janet Gaynor played. Judy has a minor career, she's singing in a band with friend Tommy Noonan. But at a benefit where she's performing, her quick thinking prevents drunken screen star Norman Maine from making a spectacle of himself.

    James Mason as Norman Maine actually remembers what happened and the young lady intrigues him. He finds her at a club singing the Academy Award nominated song The Man That Got Away and he sees star quality in her. A little pushing with studio head Charles Bickford and A Star Is Born, renamed Vicki Lester.

    In her singing and her acting no one was more vulnerable than Judy Garland. She had no other life other than performing from the time she was a small child. That Born In A Trunk number is quite autobiographical. She had all the hard knocks of Born In A Trunk before she was signed by MGM and she had to deal with a lot of heartache as Vicki Lester does. The role got Janet Gaynor a Best Actress nomination and Judy got one also.

    In fact A Star Is Born might be unique among films in that both leads both the first and second version got Oscar nominations. James Mason repeated Fredric March's nomination from the first version. And Norman Maine is a difficult role. He's essentially a weak man who has indulged himself too much and can't seem to stop the downward spiral. But he's bright and intelligent and the tragedy is that the love of his life came too late for him.

    Like the other version this A Star Is Born earned a flock of Oscar nominations, but not one award. Judy was the favored choice, but she lost in an upset to Grace Kelly for The Country Girl. Ironically that's another film where a woman has to contend with an alcoholic husband. James Mason unfortunately was nominated in a year where after three straight nominations, the pressure was overwhelming to give Marlon Brando his Oscar for On The Waterfront. It would have been one egregious slight.

    Another part of consequence is Jack Carson's as the studio press agent and general factotum for Mason, a job he hates. Mason does treat him like a doormat at times and Carson's got every right to feel resentful. But sad to say he gives Mason far more than the comeuppance required. Carson was equally good in drama and comedy, he made his blowhard persona work in both.

    The last film of this story with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson was also acclaimed and Barbra got a few hit songs out of it. Something tells me this will not be the last version of A Star Is Born.

    Can you see Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes doing it?
  • A Star is Born begins at a big Hollywood event. Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland) is singing at the event with her band. Norman Maine (James Mason) is a film star who is supposed to appear before Blodgett's band, but like usual, he's drunk. They try to keep Maine from heading out on stage, but he ends up waltzing out while Blodgett is performing, anyway. She tries to make him appear as part of the act. Later he thanks her, and at the same time, becomes infatuated with her. When he looks for her and finds her later, singing in a dive, he becomes equally entranced with her artistic abilities. He convinces her that she can become a star. There are some complications, but eventually Blodgett is on her way. At the same time, Maine is on the downslope of his career, and seeing Blodgett so loved just makes it worse. How will these relationship complications resolve?

    A Star is Born has been quite a popular story, and not just with film fans. It was first made, by the same director, George Cukor, in 1932 as What Price Hollywood?, with Constance Bennett and Lowell Sherman. The first remake appeared in 1937 as A Star is Born, with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. Later, it was remade again in 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. Maybe the Hilary Duff and Orlando Bloom version is right around the corner.

    Why is the story so popular? From the audience's perspective, it seems to give them an inside look at their dreams--a plain-Jane gets lucky when she's seen by someone with power in the industry, and ends up being given the keys to the kingdom. From a film-making perspective, there is probably more than a nugget of truth to the story. A large part of success in the arts & entertainment industries rests on contacts--who you know and how you know them. It also provides an opportunity to give a bit of a self-reflexive look behind the curtain. In some respects, including this as well as other plot similarities, there are resemblances to the much superior Singin' In The Rain (1952).

    As a self-reflexive portrait, and in the music and the story overall, A Star is Born is a success. Viewers particularly enamored with Garland or Mason will love it even more. However, there are a number of problems, most sourced in the facts of making the film.

    A Star is Born was planned as a comeback for Garland, who had been absent from the screen for four years, partially due to breakdowns and substance abuse. Her husband at the time, Sidney Luft, was one of the film's producers; he planned a big showcase for Garland's talents. They hired Cukor, who had helmed many hugely successful films throughout the 1930s and 1940s, to direct. Cukor tended to work slowly and regularly came up with additional ideas for shots and small scenes. Harold Arlen and Ira Gershwin were hired to write the songs; they turned at least seven. Moss Hart was to adapt the previous films to a musical format, and he did so by additions--he added songs and depth of characterization. All these factors contributed to a film that grew out of control in terms of shooting time and budget, and at the same time, kept growing in length. And it feels like it when you watch the restored version. A Star is Born could benefit from about an hour's worth of judicious cuts.

    This was one of the earlier films shot in Cinemascope. There is an odd lack of close-ups, probably caused by trying to come to terms with the new process. Cukor has said, "We couldn't move the camera up or down because of distortion, and we couldn't move back and away from the camera. Everything had to be played out on a level plane." Cukor didn't want to film A Star is Born in widescreen, but Jack Warner was adamant about it.

    Another odd but related aspect to the cinematography is the plethora of rear projection shots. These are very obvious and give the film an unintended kind of surrealism. Many have a "veiled" appearance, as if you're seeing the background through a screen door. Occasionally the projection is from the front and ends up on top of an actor (look at Mason coming out of the door of their house--the ocean is projected on him), and occasionally rough edits to create loops are visible (again, the ocean as reflected in the home's windows is a good example).

    Also not helping was the fact that the original, complete film is not intact. After Warner Brother's chopped off about a half-hour, that original footage seems to have been lost over the years. The present DVD version is the "partial restoration" done in 1983. At times, the film stops and a slide show with rougher sound tries to fill in the blanks. It's a bit difficult to follow in these sections. There still seems to be chunks of exposition missing. It probably would have been better to re-edit it with extant film only.

    Making it a bit more difficult for me to like A Star is Born is the fact that Garland doesn't do much for me. I don't find her particularly attractive and her performances--both acting and singing--come across as more affected than they should to me, primarily because it's very difficult for me to watch them without thinking of her daughter, Liza Minelli, aping her, and I'm not the biggest Liza fan. I do love Garland in The Wizard of Oz (1939), which is one of my favorite films, but here, she seems prescient of Liza's disturbingly schmaltzy campiness. On this respect, aspects of A Star is Born, including Mason's disposition, unpleasantly reminded me of Cabaret (1972).

    So, a 7 may seem slightly high from me, but that's a "C", and the film does deserve that for its positive aspects.
  • Recently my Wife and I (I'm 40 and she's 31) have been watching Classic movies in HD on Sky Movies. We've watched some really good films of late, and I was keen to watch a James Mason film. Coming from the same county as James Mason, and having already seen a selection of his movies I was looking forward to this film.

    We watched what must have been the version where missing scenes were supplemented by publicity stills, and the original audio. After the first hour all was going well, and we both accepted the 50's plodding momentum of the film, but stuck with it. Not really commenting on the movie, we continued for another hour or so, until I said, "I've gotta take a break from this film"... my Wife said "me too, her voice is doing my head in"...

    We are both educated adults, and understand the definition of a musical, but this film is just too long, and if I had to listen to Judy Garland sing again, I'd have thrown my drink into the surround sound to stop it once and for all.

    It was a massive shame that we couldn't stick with it... but each to their own... if you love this film then that's great, but I'm afraid our fickle 2010 minds couldn't hang in there.
An error has occured. Please try again.