Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Judy Garland's "A Star Is Born"

I just watched Judy Garland's "A Star Is Born" and I've got to say that I find it shocking she didn't win the Oscar for that performance. There are so many scenes that were phenomenal: The Man That Got Away, the 'dinner show' sequence at home, the Academy Award scene, the dressing room breakdown scene, the screaming scene at home after Norman's death....any one of them would have propelled another actress onto an Oscar. It just boggles my mind that Grace Kelly's subdued performance beat this dazzling star turn. And everyone always talks about how amazing it is that The Man That Got Away is filmed in one, long take--and it is amazing, Cukor said no other actress in Hollywood could have done it that way--but there is also one extraordinarily long take in the 'dinner show' sequence that is nearly as jaw-dropping. It is a tour-de-force performance in every sense. Yes, her weight fluctuated (who cares?) and she does not always look her best (fault of the DP if you ask me; the lighting is downright bad in some scenes) but it is still Garland at her peak and she is thrilling. She was robbed of that Oscar.

by Anonymousreply 410October 22, 2021 6:29 AM

That bastard Sid Lift ruined it, he ruined everything. Everything that horrible creep touched turned to dust- including Judy.

by Anonymousreply 1May 20, 2015 9:56 AM

I agree OP she was fantastic in it, heartbreaking too.

by Anonymousreply 2May 20, 2015 10:06 AM

Judy was a complete mess by this point. Although she deserved that Oscar, i suspect there were many Academy voters who had been burnt by her antics and were completely over her by this stage. Her asshole husband wouldn't have helped. In comparison, Grace Kelly looked like Hollywood royalty, and soon became real royalty.

by Anonymousreply 3May 20, 2015 10:09 AM

No, r3, Judy would become a complete mess, but really not until 1963-64 as her series was ending from which she never recovered.

She had been a smashing success at the Palace in 1951-52, and toured with that show to sensational reviews and business.

It's a wildly lavish and entertaining film, and both Judy and James Mason give the performances of their careers, I can watch it over and over. It is Hollywood-1950s melodrama at its dizzying peak.

I know, MARY!

by Anonymousreply 4May 20, 2015 7:09 PM

Oh Judy was a mess since her MGM days. It got worse in the decade by decade.

by Anonymousreply 5May 20, 2015 7:13 PM

Er, OP, the last ASIB thread generated some VERY intense debate over Born in a Trunk, so watch OUT!

by Anonymousreply 6May 20, 2015 7:19 PM

I agree, OP. I was watching the colorized Lucy episodes Sunday night, and in the episode where Bill Holden tells Lucy and Ricky, "We just finished shooting 'The Country Girl' with Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly" it breaks my heart. To me, it's one of Hollywood's saddest moments!

by Anonymousreply 7May 20, 2015 8:25 PM

I thought she was awful in this.

First of all, she was too old to play an ingenue.

Second, she looked even older and frumpier than her actual age.

Third, she was so hammy.

Fourth, that "Born in a Trunk" sequence is a self-indulgent mess that completely hijacked the plot, what there is left of it.

Fifth, the film was hacked to bits in editing so the story is lost.

by Anonymousreply 8May 20, 2015 8:33 PM

She already had an Oscar. What was she going to do with another one?

by Anonymousreply 9May 20, 2015 8:37 PM

Get fucking HapPY!

by Anonymousreply 10May 20, 2015 8:40 PM

I've only seen bits and piece of this movie but it beggars belief that the footage from the original cut that was subsequently excised has been lost. One would think such an expensive movie would have its elements better looked after.

by Anonymousreply 11May 20, 2015 8:43 PM

R8 turn in your gay card, get in your Ford Taurus, and go back to shopping at Wal-Mart.

by Anonymousreply 12May 20, 2015 8:48 PM

"One would think such an expensive movie would have its elements better looked after."

Not really. Back then, they stuffed all the unused footage into a carboard box and stuck it in a storage room where it disintegrated or was burnt in a fire.

Johnny Carson was very angry when he was doing The Tonight Show because none of it was being saved. I think he finally took over producing it so that the shows would be recorded and saved.

Lucille Ball was a genius when she insisted that I Love Lucy be filmed. That's why we have such well preserved episodes of that show.

by Anonymousreply 13May 20, 2015 8:51 PM

[quote]One would think such an expensive movie would have its elements better looked after.

Here's where you can thank Did, any other producer would have knocked ASIB out of the park, IMHO.

by Anonymousreply 14May 20, 2015 8:52 PM

[quote]turn in your gay card

It has been several generations since the gay men loving Judy Garland cliche ran its course.

Thank god.

by Anonymousreply 15May 20, 2015 9:06 PM

It is a timeless, great performance. The best performance in any musical ever. Judy and the movie have endured. When did you last see Grace Kelly in the Country Girl on tele?

by Anonymousreply 16May 20, 2015 9:21 PM

"When did you last see Grace Kelly in the Country Girl on tele?"

You can't judge great art by the number of times it's fed to the masses.

by Anonymousreply 17May 20, 2015 9:29 PM

[quote]When did you last see Grace Kelly in the Country Girl on tele?

Probably around the last time I saw Judy Garland in A Star is Born on television.

by Anonymousreply 18May 20, 2015 9:32 PM

Grace Kelly had a banner year: REAR WINDOW, THE COUNTRY GIRL, DIAL 'M' FOR MURDER. They were the #3, #8, #17 movies of the year. She was the #2 movie star of the year, according to Quigley's, which has long been regarded as one of the most reliable barometers of a movie star's box-office power. Plus, she was a beautiful woman "uglying it up," which Oscar always loves.

Modern audiences forget all these factors that came to play. I agree that Garland gave the best performance, but Kelly had goodwill on her side.

by Anonymousreply 19May 20, 2015 9:40 PM

[quote]Lucille Ball was a genius when she insisted that I Love Lucy be filmed. That's why we have such well preserved episodes of that show.

Ahhh that genius would be Desi Arnaz who came up with that idea and changed TV forever. Give credit where's it due.

by Anonymousreply 20May 20, 2015 9:41 PM

[quote]She already had an Oscar. What was she going to do with another one?

She was given a non-competitive Juvenile Oscar at age 17 for THE WIZARD OF OZ, which were given intermittently from 1934 (Shirley Temple was the first recipient) to 1960 (Hayley Mills was the 10th and last recipient). They were also smaller in scale than regular statuettes (Garland dubbed hers "the munchkin").

But the two times she was nominated -- for A STAR IS BORN (1954) and JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG (1961) -- she failed to win.

by Anonymousreply 21May 20, 2015 9:47 PM

As R3 stated, Garland had burned bridges at MGM with her behavior (getting fired from ANNIE GET YOUR GUN didn't help) and the powers that be wanted to shove one more knife in her back. To be fair, the way MGM (and her stage mother) ruthlessly exploited her (and giving her all those pills) is a fundamental reason why she became such a mess.

I agree that the Oscar should have been hers. Having seen THE COUNTRY GIRL, there's nothing terribly special about Grace Kelly's performance - she was a great beauty but a limited actress. I've seen that role played far better on stage; hell Faye Dunaway in that middling 1982 version for TV with Dick Van Dyke is better.

by Anonymousreply 22May 20, 2015 9:48 PM

R8 prefers Babs singing "Black Widow"

by Anonymousreply 23May 20, 2015 9:49 PM

The only thing good about Streisand's version was the behind-the-scenes stories about how out of control the filming was because of her and her coke-addled boyfriend.

by Anonymousreply 24May 20, 2015 9:55 PM

Ms Streisand clothes from her closet (or some credit along those lines)

by Anonymousreply 25May 20, 2015 9:58 PM

Streisand sings circles around Judy in her version of ASIB. Judy sounds like a frog compared to Barbra.

by Anonymousreply 26May 20, 2015 10:18 PM

I'm the I COULD GO ON SINGING troll, and I happen to agree with R8. Her performance in ICGOS is superior to ASIB. More natural, relaxed and spontaneous, no competition for an Oscar, just Judy singing and acting - very well. She seems so keyed up in STAR. That living room scene is excruciating, and I'm one of the biggest Judy fans ever.

Just something to chew on, and if maybe you haven't seen SINGING, you owe it to yourself!

by Anonymousreply 27May 20, 2015 10:24 PM

Judy screwed herself out of the Oscar when she pulled all the unprofessional stunts that got her fired from MGM.

As co-producer of A Star is Born she was supposed to prove that she had pulled herself together and that the studios could trust her to show up on time, sober, and ready to work. She failed miserably. Hollywood wasn't about to throw away a perfectly good Oscar rewarding an actress they could not afford to star in any more films.

Why crown her comeback with an award when it was plain that her bad behavior was still going to eat up any profit her movies might have made?

by Anonymousreply 28May 20, 2015 10:25 PM

R21 I think she deserved the Supporting Actress for Judgment at Nuremberg (as did Clift the Supporting Actor). They did such fine work with genuinely small roles. But it was the year of WSS and so Chakiris got it for looking hot and appearing passably straight for once and Moreno for lip-synching well.

by Anonymousreply 29May 20, 2015 10:39 PM

Judy was overly mannered in ASIB. It was just too, too much.

by Anonymousreply 30May 20, 2015 10:45 PM

This is going to sound like heresy but the one with Janet Gaynor was my favorite. I love the cozy look of the set for her hometown, The Hollywood Bowl, the house in the hills and I think Gaynor was one of the most likable actresses, ever.

She was cutesy enough where it was believable that she should could hide family dysfunction behind a smile.

by Anonymousreply 31May 20, 2015 10:47 PM

How is a Child Is Waiting? Judes and Cassavetes, strange combo.

by Anonymousreply 32May 20, 2015 10:48 PM

I agree with everything you said, r29. She gives the best acting performance of her life in Judgement, and so does Clift.

by Anonymousreply 33May 20, 2015 11:02 PM

[quote]It has been several generations since the gay men loving Judy Garland cliche ran its course.

That. My dear, is just not true, you're living proof.

by Anonymousreply 34May 20, 2015 11:02 PM

R22, are you aware that EVERYONE at MGM lived on pills?

Garland's problem was that she was bi-polar.

by Anonymousreply 35May 20, 2015 11:11 PM

[quote]That. My dear, is just not true, you're living proof.

How long has it been since you and punctuation had your falling out?

by Anonymousreply 36May 20, 2015 11:47 PM

Judy, James Mason and Jack Carson were great in this. It's a gorgeous looking movie with a fantastic score--I love to watch it.

by Anonymousreply 37May 20, 2015 11:51 PM

R28 nailed it. That is the real truth. Judy might have started out with good intentions but she quickly fell back into her old undependable patterns and habits from her MGM days. George Cukor vowed never to work with her again he was so frustrated with her. Zanuck lost interest in promoting Judy OR the film for any Oscars after his disastrous dealings with Luft and Judy. She did, indeed, burn her bridges with Warners, her last chance to prove that, with all her talent, that she could behave responsibly, professionally. She NEVER was respectful of all those who depended upon her, at least not since her early MGM days. Not during the shooting of ASIB, not during her few live TV appearances in the 50's, not during her many concert appearances in the 50's, not during the taping of her CBS series in the 60's, (she would be okay for a few days then miss key rehearsals, etc.) She was all the wonderful things people loved (love) her for but she could not or would not adhere to the rules of professional responsibility. It irreperably damaged her career. Blame it on drugs or being bipolar or whatever.

by Anonymousreply 38May 21, 2015 12:04 AM

Blame it on the rain.

by Anonymousreply 39May 21, 2015 12:14 AM

OP here.

Here's my take on a few of the things brought up so far in this thread.

As far as Judy burning bridges and pissing people off, yes she did, but she was an addict. She didn't do it intentionally, she did it because her behavior was altered through heavy doses of drugs. She was probably bipolar and was self-medicating. I really can't blame her for that, knowing what we know today and knowing what hell it must have been to be an unmedicated bipolar while at the same time being an incredibly creative artist who was loved and sought after. And all these years later, we're still watching her movies and still talking about her. I know she was a pain in the ass, but considering how great she was on screen, it was worth whatever it took to capture her talent onscreen.

I think Born In A Trunk should never have been added to the film. What Esther and Norman watch in the theater, and what the audience sees, should have only been Swanee. That would have been quite enough to convince everyone watching that Esther was indeed star material. The Born In A Trunk number in its entirety bogs down the film. And I say this even though I think I'll Get By is one of the most ravishingly beautiful moments Garland ever put on film.

I understand that Grace Kelly had had a great year and was gorgeous and popular. All reasons that actresses still win today over more deserving candidates. But as I continued watching A Star Is Born--and it's a long movie but it's so good that by the end it doesn't seem long--I was stunned by how good Garland actually is in it. This isn't the Garland of MGM. This is a mature actress with some very meaty scenes that she can truly dig her teeth into. And she handled them superbly.

by Anonymousreply 40May 21, 2015 12:56 AM

One other thing: knowing that Cary Grand had been offered the part, and that Garland and Cukor both desperately wanted him to do it, one can't help but wonder how different the film would have been with him in it. He'd have brought a different feel altogether and I think we'd understand more why Esther was attracted to Maine in the first place.

Another actor whom I'm surprised they didn't ask--although maybe he was contracted to MGM--was Spencer Tracy. Tracy would have, dramatically, knocked it out of the park. It was basically his story except that he never lost his box office clout.

That said, James Mason is superb and did a great job.

by Anonymousreply 41May 21, 2015 1:05 AM

This was the first of her movies I've seen - except for The Wizard of Oz. She was pretty good. Why wasn't she a bigger star?

by Anonymousreply 42May 21, 2015 1:27 AM

Judy Garland was a huge star!! Do you know much film history. However she was worked to the bone, had breakdowns, substance abuse problems (after the studio hooked her on pills) and MGM released her from... oh brother never mind. Read a bio...

by Anonymousreply 43May 21, 2015 1:33 AM

Judy was a massive star in her day. However, pills and booze killed her career (and Judy herself).

by Anonymousreply 44May 21, 2015 1:35 AM

Quigley's, which publishes an annual list of the top ten movie stars and has long been regarded as one of the most reliable barometers of a movie star's box-office power, had Garland on it three times: 1940 (#10), 1941 (#10), 1945 (#8). Only a select few make the list. For instance, Audrey Hepburn never made the list, and no one considers her a bust.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 45May 21, 2015 1:44 AM

[quote] Back then, they stuffed all the unused footage into a carboard box

But the footage was used, wasn't it? It was released in a long version and then re-cut and re-released in a truncated form. So there should be several prints.

If old Doctor Who episodes turn up, and that was a cheap TV show that wasn't thought of as "quality", why not a big prestige movie print like the original ASIB?

by Anonymousreply 46May 21, 2015 1:46 AM

[quote] Audrey Hepburn never made the list, and no one considers her a bust.

And rightly so.

by Anonymousreply 47May 21, 2015 1:47 AM

W&W for R47!

by Anonymousreply 48May 21, 2015 1:49 AM

Kelly also had studio support which helped her win. Judy as it turns out wouldn't make another film for 6 years. From what I understand ASIB was an incoherent mess from footage that was cut when it was released. Not like the extended version that was on TCM. But all the bridges she burned all those MGM years cost her the most.

by Anonymousreply 49May 21, 2015 1:55 AM

Nobody has really felt like looking for it R46.

Maybe you could volunteer?

by Anonymousreply 50May 21, 2015 2:00 AM

Correction to my above post: I meant to say "My Melancholy Baby', the number she sings in the club right before Swanee, is one of radiant, ravishing beauty, not I'll Get By.

by Anonymousreply 51May 21, 2015 2:02 AM

Judy was the greatest star and talent, and really should have won the Oscar. Why begrudging her is beyond me!

by Anonymousreply 52May 21, 2015 2:14 AM

God, I thought I was a Judy Queen.

by Anonymousreply 53May 21, 2015 2:17 AM

It was simply Hollywood politics. Judy had created a lot of bad blood with her unprofessional behavior. Grace Kelly was the current Hollywood "it" girl; young and gorgeous and well-liked. Judy gave the better performance but Kelly won the Oscar. This continues to this day, this practice of giving Oscars to the undeserving.

by Anonymousreply 54May 21, 2015 2:21 AM

Yeah, but the studios ruined Judy for prescribing pills and making her an addict. They owed her the Oscar.

by Anonymousreply 55May 21, 2015 4:37 AM

r46, you're right. it seems very odd indeed that not even one copy of the original road-show version of this movie has survived.

by Anonymousreply 56May 21, 2015 4:40 AM

It is rumored that someone has the full print but refuses to part with it.

by Anonymousreply 57May 21, 2015 4:48 AM

One copy of the full cut is believed to survive. Supposedly its owner has been dicked around by Warner Brothers, who refuse to cut any sort of deal with him over profits from the release of such a treasure. WB asserts that it's stolen property and they own all the rights to the entire film. He counters that his print containing the missing scenes is abandoned property, dating back to when they first melted down the negatives.

Supposedly the owner was also treated poorly by the man who supervised the restoration of the film as we know it. Ronald Haver, I think his name was. I don't know any details but Haver is alleged to have driven this bootleg collector even further underground than he had been.

by Anonymousreply 58May 21, 2015 4:53 AM

Streisand was amazing in the movie and absolutely should have won an Oscar for her performance!

by Anonymousreply 59May 21, 2015 4:56 AM

[quote]He counters that his print containing the missing scenes is abandoned property, dating back to when they first melted down the negatives.

He's be wrong. Warners owns the copyright in all versions of the film. He, however, owns the physical print (assuming he didn't steal it).

by Anonymousreply 60May 21, 2015 4:57 AM

Stop all the palavering, she was a magnificent talent.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61May 21, 2015 5:03 AM

The Man That Got Away outtake

fantastic

No one has ever touched her.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 62May 21, 2015 5:04 AM

Fuck everyone.

by Anonymousreply 63May 21, 2015 5:07 AM

That is fascinating r58. I had never heard any of that information before.

by Anonymousreply 64May 21, 2015 6:07 AM

Versions 1 and 2 of The Man That Got Away are both interesting and have some beautiful moments, but the final released version is best as we get the energy of her body in the scene and not just a close up of her face. I'm glad they filmed it a third time.

by Anonymousreply 65May 21, 2015 8:20 PM

I hate her dress and hair in the third version - much prefer the frankly dowdier brown blouse of version two. And the third version sets in stone her overblown concert hand-gestures she would use for the rest of her career. For better or worse, it's J*U*D*Y to the nth.

A thrilling vocal no matter how it was staged.

by Anonymousreply 66May 21, 2015 8:37 PM

I hadn't heard that either, r64. I sort of don't blame the owner for wanting something for it given they held onto it and have cared for it and it's the only known copy existing. Maybe someday...

by Anonymousreply 67May 21, 2015 8:47 PM

Supposedly Liza Minnelli fucked Peter Sellers because he told her that he had a pristine and complete print of A STAR IS BORN. True that there is some collector out there who claimed to also have a copy of thev roadshow print but failed to part with it. Probably dead now

by Anonymousreply 68May 21, 2015 8:48 PM

The out takes look like rehearsals. While they were probably truer to life, they lack the cinematic quality of the third version. And the color schemes of the first two are horrible. Cukor was right to dim the lights on that set. And that Mamie Eisenhower hairstyle did Judy no favors.

by Anonymousreply 69May 21, 2015 8:58 PM

Those hand gestures are not overblown, not in my opinion. It's part of what made her such a thrilling live performer.

She does look dowdy in the first two versions although kind of sexy too in that open pink blouse. But the 3rd version is infinitely better than the other two, IMO.

I'm shocked that Sid Luft didn't keep a copy of the original ASIB. Surely at some point a copy will surface.

by Anonymousreply 70May 21, 2015 9:39 PM

Have they checked Santa Anita?

by Anonymousreply 71May 21, 2015 10:45 PM

Checked Santa Anita for what, Sugar?

by Anonymousreply 72May 21, 2015 10:55 PM

If WB know that the collector has the print, couldn't they get the cops involved?

by Anonymousreply 73May 21, 2015 10:59 PM

For Sid Luft's copy of ASIB.

Gambling debts.

by Anonymousreply 74May 21, 2015 11:23 PM

The open pink blouse version is lit like a production number. All wrong. But Judy does little things in it that are fascinating...like the ways she toys with the glass on the table and looks distracted before getting up and singing.

Given that Warner does not have the road-show version, it's a miracle that that these rehearsal tapes survived.

Another example of the Warner mindset towards unwanted film was their mid-50s junking of the original two-strip Technicolor negatives and copies of many of their early sound films. At best they would make grant 16mm copies for TV before dumping the originals.

by Anonymousreply 75May 21, 2015 11:41 PM

"I Could Go On Singing" is available on youtube- check it out. I agree with an earlier poster, my favorite, most relatable performance.

I was introduced to this film by a drag queen who insisted I would LOVE IT in 1989- bitch was right, I have the dinner going and will be enjoying Judy's last film- it is terrific!

by Anonymousreply 76May 22, 2015 1:28 AM

The alternate versions aren't rehearsals - they're fully done alternate shoots of the same scene.

by Anonymousreply 77May 22, 2015 1:54 AM

It's finally out ladies- Judy liked pussy!

by Anonymousreply 78May 22, 2015 4:28 AM

The End: this is heartbreaking.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79May 22, 2015 10:04 PM

Vicki Lester Lives!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80May 22, 2015 10:06 PM

Had Judy lived longer I think that she would have been great on Broadway in Applesause instead of Lauren Bacall.

by Anonymousreply 81May 23, 2015 8:01 PM

They would have to retitle it Happypills.

by Anonymousreply 82May 23, 2015 8:05 PM

[quote]No one has ever touched her.

Bit of an overstatement.

by Anonymousreply 83May 23, 2015 9:18 PM

R81 Garland would also have done a killer "I'm Still Here" from FOLLIES.

by Anonymousreply 84May 23, 2015 9:27 PM

No one could emote those classic ballads like Garland. She was truly the GOAT!

by Anonymousreply 85May 23, 2015 9:32 PM

I did a killer "I'm Still Here" in NO, NO, NANETTE. Or at least I tried to.

by Anonymousreply 86May 23, 2015 10:04 PM

R81, Garland could barely get through 30 minutes on stage at the end of her life. Being in a Broadway musical like Applause is an fan fantasy that would never have happened had she lived.

by Anonymousreply 87May 23, 2015 11:07 PM

She could have lipsynced and gone to see her pharmacist at select performances.

by Anonymousreply 88May 23, 2015 11:14 PM

There are a lot of 'what ifs' regarding Garland's career. Had she been properly medicated for bipolar disorder, she might have stopped self medicating and had a long and productive career well into her 60s or even 70s. Bacall acted into her 80s I believe. What's most enticing to think about are all the 'lost' musicals she might have done when she was in her prime, from around 1947-1963. Had she been in good shape and able to work, we might have had a Garland Show Boat, Carousel, and Gypsy among many other possibilities. Even had her 3 picture deal with Warners panned out, who knows what the other two pictures might have been? It's tantalizing to think about.

by Anonymousreply 89May 23, 2015 11:21 PM

She probably could have done GYPSY. She managed to make I COULD GO ON SINGING even if she had to be threatened to complete some of the filming.

by Anonymousreply 90May 23, 2015 11:24 PM

Judy never could have pulled herself together long enough to sustain even a short run on Broadway. And forget about her doing matinees. Jerry Herman did his best to convince the producers of Mame let Judy step into Angela's shoes as her first replacement. But they were unwilling to risk the production on Garland's precarious health and she was most likely not insurable anyway.

by Anonymousreply 91May 23, 2015 11:26 PM

You know, Garland had an impeccable record when she did her two-a-day shows at the Palace. She always showed up and she always did amazing shows. And that ran for nearly a year, from October 1951 to June of 1952.

by Anonymousreply 92May 23, 2015 11:32 PM

Didn't she do ok, attendance wise, at her final Palace run circa '66/'67?

by Anonymousreply 93May 23, 2015 11:34 PM

How did she ever handle vaudeville?

by Anonymousreply 94May 23, 2015 11:37 PM

Pre MGM?

Headlining a variety show at the Palace, Palladium etc. post-movies meant she had to do less.

by Anonymousreply 95May 23, 2015 11:40 PM

The fact that she showed up regularly and on time for her live shows says to me that it was something about movie-making that got under her skin. There is the fact that in the midst of her disruptive behavior at MGM, she had the brief, shining moment while making "In The Good Old Summertime" when she apparently behaved perfectly and was happy during filming. But the producer of the film made sure she felt valued and cared for, placed a rose on her dressing room table every morning and note, etc. Those little things apparently meant a lot to Judy. I guess she didn't just feel like she was being used and abused.

by Anonymousreply 96May 23, 2015 11:41 PM

No, she fucked up on TV and live concerts as well. There's a video on Youtube about a disastrous Australian concert circa '64. And there's the "What's My Line" story where the producer prepared himself to go on as the Myster Guest because she wouldn't come out of her fucking dressing room.

by Anonymousreply 97May 23, 2015 11:44 PM

that was all after 1963. Pre 63 she had an excellent record with live shows.

by Anonymousreply 98May 23, 2015 11:47 PM

"The fact that she showed up regularly and on time for her live shows"

WTF??? What are you on?

by Anonymousreply 99May 23, 2015 11:47 PM

[quote]Didn't she do ok, attendance wise, at her final Palace run circa '66/'67?

Yes, she gave 24 performances at the Palace in July and August of 1967.

by Anonymousreply 100May 23, 2015 11:50 PM

It was post television show, starting with the disastrous Melbourne concert in 1964 and the subsequent 'death' in Hong Kong in which she went into a coma and was declared dead, that she began behaving erratically. Before then, her live shows were dependably performed with hardly any absences.

by Anonymousreply 101May 23, 2015 11:54 PM

[quote]Bacall acted into her 80s I believe.

Lucille Ball (b. August 6, 1911) was 77 when she croaked (d. April 26, 1989).

by Anonymousreply 102May 23, 2015 11:59 PM

She could have done so much great stuff in the late 50s and through the 60s. In terms of age she was still in her prime. Imagine her doing the films of Gypsy and Mame.

And on stage she certainly been an entertaining Dolly. I like to think of her singing "I went away from the lights of 14th Street..."

She looks awful in those clips from Annie Get Your Gun but I first heard the recordings on record and she sounded terrific.

by Anonymousreply 103May 24, 2015 12:03 AM

What does Lucille Ball have to do with Lauren Bacall, R102?

by Anonymousreply 104May 24, 2015 12:08 AM

I wasn't talking about Lucille Ball, r102. I was talking about Lauren Bacall.

by Anonymousreply 105May 24, 2015 12:08 AM

Gary Morton should have talked you out of that joke, Ba(ca)ller.

by Anonymousreply 106May 24, 2015 12:12 AM

The thought of Lucille Ball playing Margo Channing in Applause is enough to make you appreciate the husky cigarette tones of Lauren Bacall's scratchy octave.

by Anonymousreply 107May 24, 2015 12:55 AM

R104/R105 oops! I totally misread that. Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 108May 24, 2015 1:01 AM

Judy missed no shows during the '67 Palace run.

by Anonymousreply 109May 24, 2015 1:07 AM

Vicki Lester remains alive and well...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110May 24, 2015 1:17 AM

Cary Grant would have been too tall for Judy.

by Anonymousreply 111May 24, 2015 1:26 AM

I love the moment in the film when Esther reacts to the paymaster saying "Go to L". Hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 112May 24, 2015 1:28 AM

Was Grant taller than James Mason?

by Anonymousreply 113May 24, 2015 1:29 AM

Mason was 5'11". Grant was nearly 6'2".

by Anonymousreply 114May 24, 2015 1:41 AM

r112, I love that moment too. It made me laugh out loud.

by Anonymousreply 115May 24, 2015 1:48 AM

R100, if you are going by the performance total on IBDB, it is wrong. She played seven nights a week from July 31 through August 26, 1967. The total was 27 performances. She had no night off during those four weeks and missed no performances.

by Anonymousreply 116May 24, 2015 1:58 AM

I think I would have voted for Audrey Hepburn in "Sabrina." She was so elegant and amusing.

by Anonymousreply 117May 24, 2015 2:53 AM

R117 I love the scene in the Judy Davis TV movie ME AND MY SHADOWS, where Judy's in in bed in the hospital room, holding newborn Joey, and Sid and their friends are also present watching the Academy Awards.

As William Holden reads down the list, Judy and her friends make snarky remarks about each nominee: Dorothy Dandridge ("Too exotic!"), Audrey Hepburn ("Too skinny!"), Grace Kelly ("Can't act!"), Jane Wyman ("That should be Rock Hudson's").

Then when Kelly wins, Judy's friends try to comfort her by calling Grace a slut, implying that she utilized the casting couch. XD

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 118May 24, 2015 3:48 AM

What was up with Grace Kelly and her faux English accent? I recently watched her last 20/20 interview she did three months before her death, and she sounds so haughty and like a British grand dame. It was very off-putting. Her own children don't even talk like that. They sound like typical Americans -- and they were raised in Europe!

Wallis Simpson was another American who married a would-be (English) king and she perfected that faux British accent. When I've seen her interviews I think to myself, "Bitch, you were from Baltimore!"

by Anonymousreply 119May 24, 2015 3:52 AM

Her vocal chords suffered damage in the Hong Kong incident and she never sounded the same afterwards. You can first hear it on the Judy and Liza at the Palladium CD from later in 64 I think it was, or 65. So really, the television show, which captures her at her Carnegie Hall peak, was the end of her great period. The final five years of her life had her in compromised physical health and compromised vocal health.

by Anonymousreply 120May 24, 2015 7:52 AM

Cary Grant may have been 5'10". Don't believe what Wiki states about actor's heights.

Here's a picture of 6'2" James Stewart, 5'9" Ingrid Bergman, 5'10" Grant:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121May 24, 2015 12:57 PM

Judy should have gotten that year's oscar.

Having said that, Grace Kelly had a stellar year that year. Not only had she given a fine performance in The Country Girl but she also made Rear Window (in which she was wonderful), Dial M for Murder, Green Fire and The Bridges of Toko-Ri.

These movies represent the lion's share of Kelly's amazing career.

by Anonymousreply 122May 24, 2015 1:02 PM

Judy Garland looks too old, campy and blowsy to be believable in the role. She looks and acts like someone who's an even bigger has-been than the James Mason character.

The story would have been more believable if Garland had played a character the same age as Mason and they'd depicted a showbiz couple who are both old and forgotten until Garland's career is revived for a bit due to her cult-like status among some top gay male directors.

by Anonymousreply 123May 24, 2015 4:06 PM

It's too long. There are too many pointless musical numbers like the zzzz inducing one where she acts/dresses up in that ugly ranch house by the ocean. She is manic in some scenes. I never quite got why they said her acting was brilliant. James Mason is vampire ugly. It needs some comic relief here and there--Eve Arden should have been a co-star. The fashions are are ugly (I know, it's the fifties.) Liza had to have a walk-on? It had potential and is not a bad movie, but I could not sit through it again. WHO THE HELL IS AMANDA BLAKE IN THE OPENING CREDITS?The lady from Gunsmoke? She is not in the movie? AND who--after playing/working all night in some crummy club, wants to sit around four more hours and play instruments and sing? No, they want to GO HOME AND SLEEP!

by Anonymousreply 124May 24, 2015 4:19 PM

Complaining about the length of movies is a sign of undiagnosed ADD.

by Anonymousreply 125May 24, 2015 4:28 PM

Yes, Judy did fine, relatively speaking, attendance-wise at her 1967 Palace engagement. I was able to get a free ticket on a Saturday night at the USO though.

I have major reservations about "A Star is Born," I could interstand Garland winning for her body of working, but if it came down to Garland vs. Kelly that year, I would have voted for Kelly.

by Anonymousreply 126May 24, 2015 4:46 PM

For the most part, I thought Judy was costumed beautifully in A Star Is Born. Was it Edith Head?

by Anonymousreply 127May 24, 2015 6:26 PM

[quote]WHO THE HELL IS AMANDA BLAKE IN THE OPENING CREDITS?The lady from Gunsmoke? She is not in the movie? AND who--after playing/working all night in some crummy club, wants to sit around four more hours and play instruments and sing? No, they want to GO HOME AND SLEEP!

It is entirely credible to show working musicians having a late night jam session after work. They don't have to be anywhere until the next evening and they can sleep all morning if they choose.

Amanda Blake appears briefly, I think in the Academy Awards scene. She had a bigger part but they cut it down to nothing. The cuts were last-minute and they didn't want to spend any more money to re-do the opening credits.

by Anonymousreply 128May 24, 2015 7:24 PM

[quote]who--after playing/working all night in some crummy club, wants to sit around four more hours and play instruments and sing? No, they want to GO HOME AND SLEEP!

Though Patti LuPone complained how taxing EVITA was, after the curtain came down, she went to perform at Les Mouches immediately after.

by Anonymousreply 129May 24, 2015 7:30 PM

Amanda Blake was played by Niko (Pat Walsh).

by Anonymousreply 130May 24, 2015 8:12 PM

Aa a musician I can testify to the fact that after a performance you are up up up, not tired at all, the last thing you want to do is go home and go to bed. Showing them at another club having a rehearsal/jam session is absolutely credible.

by Anonymousreply 131May 24, 2015 8:13 PM

R126, what do you mean by "Judy did fine, relatively speaking, attendance-wise at her 1967 Palace engagement"? She missed no performances and played twenty-seven nights in a row. How could she have done better?

by Anonymousreply 132May 24, 2015 10:20 PM

[quote]She always showed up and she always did amazing shows. And that ran for nearly a year, from October 1951 to June of 1952.

Not really. Judy's entire run was 19 weeks. I believe she was originally scheduled for a four-week run, and it was extended two or three times for a total of nineteen weeks, which is closer to five months.

by Anonymousreply 133May 25, 2015 2:43 AM

Isn't it odd that even though Frank Sinatra was at MGM making movies throughout the 40's, he and Judy were never paired together? You'd think they'd have thought up some vehicle for them to star in. I think they'd have made an interesting pair in IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMERTIME, both singers, both working in a music store.

by Anonymousreply 134May 25, 2015 10:07 PM

[quote] She looks and acts like someone who's an even bigger has-been than the James Mason character.

Maybe Judy should have played Norma Maine. Who should have played Vic Lester? Sinatra?

by Anonymousreply 135May 25, 2015 10:15 PM

R122 also, Kelly had been nominated for Supporting Actress the year before for MOGAMBO and according to Quigley's was the #2 movie star of the year.

There were other more important factors for why Kelly beat Garland. It certainly wasn't just for her COUNTRY GIRL turn. Just like Sandra Bullock didn't win in 2009 for THE BLIND SIDE alone, but she also had a banner year (the mega hits THE PROPOSAL and THE BLIND SIDE) and was the #1 movie star of the year.

by Anonymousreply 136May 25, 2015 10:41 PM

Hollywood loves a comeback, but Garland had pissed off lots of people by this point and wasn't going to win.

by Anonymousreply 137May 25, 2015 10:46 PM

Also - wasn't the film only a modest success with business plummeting after the first few weeks? One critic described the film as "wallowing in degradation".

One flaw in the film for me is James Mason. He seems too strong, too smart and savvy to be the pathetic Norman Maine. Jack Carson would have a much more believable Norman Maine. He's also a much better actor than Mason.

by Anonymousreply 138May 25, 2015 10:58 PM

A STAR IS BORN was one of the top ten grossing movies of the year, but it was so expensive to make that it barely recouped and didn't make much of a profit. It cost $5 million and it only grossed $6 million.

by Anonymousreply 139May 25, 2015 11:05 PM

R129- nose candy helped get her through those nights

by Anonymousreply 140May 25, 2015 11:09 PM

Well, one of the touching aspects of A Star Is Born is that Judy actually WAS Norman Maine and everyone knew it at the time. They even discussed, she and Sid, turning the story around and having her play the Norman Maine part if I'm not mistaken. I believe I read that somewhere.

And speaking of has-beens, the tragedy of Streisand's A Star Is Born is that Elvis Presley didn't play John Norman. Now THAT would have been an interesting movie. Especially since it is rumored that Streisand and Presley had a fling while she was playing Vegas around 1970.

by Anonymousreply 141May 25, 2015 11:23 PM

[quote]And speaking of has-beens, the tragedy of Streisand's A Star Is Born is that Elvis Presley didn't play John Norman.

I will forever hate Colonel Parker for preventing Elvis from starring in BUS STOP. When Marlon Brando bowed out of BUS STOP, the role was offered to Elvis. It could have been a career-making move in Hollywood for Elvis. Many producers in Hollywood salivated at the prospect of Elvis and Marilyn in the same movie. But his manager Colonel Parker turned down the juicy role, preferring Elvis to remain in the exploitation films he selected for him.

Can you imagine the two greatest icons, Elvis and Marilyn, in the same movie? Oh, what might've been!

by Anonymousreply 142May 25, 2015 11:36 PM

She is wonderful in it, but the whole thing is so fucking LOOOOOONG.

by Anonymousreply 143May 25, 2015 11:38 PM

R121 maybe Grant shrunk in old age. It happens.

by Anonymousreply 144May 25, 2015 11:44 PM

MGM was all about type casting their stars and Judy was most often in sweet and sugary period musicals, whereas Frank was cast in contemporary ring--a-ding-ding roles and most of them were not until Judy's last futile years in the late 1940s.

I can't really imagine either of them in each other's biggest hits.

Could Frank have really played opposite Judy in Meet Me in St. Louis, Easter Parade, The Harvey Girls, The Pirate or In the Good Old Summertime, for instance?

But it is odd to think that throughout the WWII years, the height of the MGM Golden Age musicals, MGM really had no male singing star of note.

I don't understand why they didn't promote Ziegfeld Girl star Tony Martin who had the voice and the looks.

by Anonymousreply 145May 26, 2015 12:09 AM

Irene Sharaff designed the entire Born in a Trunk number, art direction and costumes.

I think either Walter Plunkett or Charles Lemaire designed the costumes for the rest of the film.

Edith Head worked primarily at Paramount in the early 1950s, not Warners, unless a leading lady at another studio demanded her (e.g. Claudette Colbert on Fox's All About Eve, though we all know what happened there).

by Anonymousreply 146May 26, 2015 1:03 AM

R145 Judy was slated to star in "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" with Gene and Frank but couldn't do it.

MGM put Esther Williams in it but Gene hated her and gave her hell throughout the filming.

Bing Crosby wanted Judy for "Here Comes The Groom" but I don't think the studio would agree to her.

It would have been great to hear her do In the Cool, Cool, Cool of the evening. They had such great chemistry on the radio.

by Anonymousreply 147May 26, 2015 1:15 AM

Wasn't the film of Carousel once proposed for Frank and Judy, and we know Frank was cast and then quit because he objected to making the film twice for Cinemascope. Maybe Judy was in her 1950s fat period so that worked against the idea too.

by Anonymousreply 148May 26, 2015 1:46 AM

She could have kept her film career going after MGM but she was too mentally ill to handle the stress of making a film.

Too bad.

by Anonymousreply 149May 26, 2015 1:49 AM

Yes R148. Sinatra showed up for the first day of location shooting. He was told that the scenes would be shot twice once for regular CinemaScope and the second scene for 20th answer to Todd-AO 70 MM films, Cinemascope 55. he balked, got in his limo and left the set. Gordon Mac Rae was offered the role. he took it because his gambling debts and drinking were getting out of hand. His weight gain from the alcohol was noticeable.

Two films were shot in CinemaScope 55 ("More Than Your Eyes Have Ever Seen") Carousel and The King and I although the latter was released in reduced 35mm prints and the process was abandoned. Fox went back to traditional CinemaScope and for their 70MM productions, Todd-AO.

by Anonymousreply 150May 26, 2015 1:54 AM

[quote](e.g. Claudette Colbert on Fox's All About Eve, though we all know what happened there)

What?

by Anonymousreply 151May 26, 2015 2:15 AM

I thought Colbert couldn't do it because she hurt her back so Bette did it. For R151

by Anonymousreply 152May 26, 2015 2:35 AM

I had no idea Elvis had been offered Bus Stop. That is, indeed, even more tantalizing than Elvis and Barbra in A Star Is Born. Why in the hell did Elvis listen to that idiot Colonel Parker? Elvis must not have been very bright himself.

I see that costume design is credited to Jean Louis, Mary Ann Nyberg and Irene Sharaff. I absolutely hate the look of most of Born In A Trunk. In fact, the art direction on the movie, in general, I don't like too much. There's that hideous garish orange-red that shows up in so many scenes. Even Swanee looks kind of hideous. Lose That Long Face is a case in point: who ever heard of staging an upbeat musical number in shades of GREY only accented by that hideous red-orange?? It boggles my mind. MGM would have made a much more beautiful movie, visually.

by Anonymousreply 153May 26, 2015 3:34 AM

Elvis was also offered West Side Story and Col. Parker wouldn't let him take it.

Gordon MacRae tried hard to get the role of Billy Bigelow but was turned down when the producers thought they had Sinatra. In fact, he was doing a tour of Carousel he had taken on to prepare for the role when he got the call they wanted him.

Although Sinatra was famous for hating retakes, many people think he was scared of the role and that had as much to do with his backing out as the double shooting.

Ironically, two weeks into shooting the Fox technicians figured out a way convert CinemaScope 55 into regular CinemaScope in the lab and the double shooting ceased.

by Anonymousreply 154May 26, 2015 3:40 AM

I agree with you r153 but my guess is that George Cukor didn't want the film to have the look of a musical, particularly an MGM musical, except for Born in a Trunk, which he wanted very much to look like an old-fashioned musical.

But that's just my guess.

by Anonymousreply 155May 26, 2015 3:41 AM

Cukor had nothing to do with Born in a Trunk. Shooting was complete and he was on an extended trip to Eurpoe when Jack Warner decided Judy's musical talents hadn't been sufficiently showcased and ordered a big production number for her. Roger Edens oversaw its creation.

Whatever Cukor thought of it as an individual sequence, he didn't like it in his film. He thought it upset the overall flow and pacing.

by Anonymousreply 156May 26, 2015 3:51 AM

Gordon looked like he gained 35 lbs. between the shooting of Oklahoma and Carousel.

by Anonymousreply 157May 26, 2015 3:52 AM

Cukor was right.

by Anonymousreply 158May 26, 2015 3:54 AM

"Born in a Trunk" ruins the movie. It's a ripoff of Freed Unit numbers and it almost burlesques the production design of the actual Cukor-directed film around it. It stops the movie dead and it runs counter to the feel of the rest of it.

We are already tired and over-entertained by the time Judy gets to that long song and dance in the living room. That number would have felt much more like a highlight if the audience had been left to imagine Vicki's screen debut as Cukor had intended. There was supposed to an intermission where "Born in a Trunk" is. They ended up cannibalizing the rest of the movie to shoehorn in that pointless exercise in production values.

by Anonymousreply 159May 26, 2015 4:07 AM

I am another one who marvels that Frank and Judy were never put in an MGM movie together. Even a drama! Judy was wonderful in The Clock. Frank could certainly have played the Robert Walker role. He was still young enough to be convincing as a young soldier in 1944-45. He scored big with Gene in Anchors Aweigh that year. I DO remember hearing Frank and Judy sing together on some radio show at that time, the song "This or That." The lyrics went as follows" Frank to Judy: "In Anchors Aweigh, was I okay?" Judy: "I just adore Gene Kelly." Frank: "When I croon, don't you swoon?" Judy: "I only swoon for Minnelli." Odd that they both were starring in MGM musicals but never together. Didn't HAVE to be a turn of the century warm fuzzy musical, either. One would think that the studio would have CREATED a property for the two of them.

by Anonymousreply 160May 26, 2015 4:58 AM

Over the years, as I became more and more aware of the backstory of the making A Star Is Born, I became more and more amazed that Cukor agreed to direct My Fair Lady for Jack Warner just a decade later (it wasn't just a Warners' film, it was very much a personal project for Jack). Cukor's hurt, anger and huge disappointment at what was done to ASIB is well documented. Unlike some other directors, Cukor was not known for being heavily in the editing of his films, but surely there must have been an ironclad provision in his MFL contract that he would have final cut approval.

by Anonymousreply 161May 26, 2015 5:06 AM

^ "Cukor was not known for being heavily in the editing of his films" should have been "Cukor was not known for being heavily involved in the editing of his films."

by Anonymousreply 162May 26, 2015 5:18 AM

I'd love to see the movie with Born In A Trunk removed, to see it how Cukor intended for it to be seen. I'm sure it's far superior. I really dislike BIAT except for My Melancholy Baby (Judy looks so gorgeous there) and Swanee which is just a great Garland number. But I'd even dispense with those because the film would be better without that long long number.

You're right, r160, Sinatra would have been terrific in The Clock and I think he could have pulled off In The Good Old Summertime as well. It's the only one of Judy's musical films that he might have fit into. But Carousel would have been the ideal property for them.

Among Garland what-ifs, it's Royal Wedding that I most regret she didn't complete at MGM. I think she'd have been so entertaining in that with Astaire.

by Anonymousreply 163May 26, 2015 5:47 AM

After MGM dismissed Garland, they gave Royal Wedding to June Allyson (who had gotten her start as a dancer on Broadway). But Allyson became pregnant and that's how Jane Powell ended up in the film.

by Anonymousreply 164May 26, 2015 6:10 AM

I just read the WikiPedia article on Royal Wedding and it says Allyson was the original star and Garland replaced her. Then MGM dismissed Garland from her studio contract and replaced her with Powell after Garland began repeatedly calling in sick when filming started.

I stand by my recounting of events.

by Anonymousreply 165May 26, 2015 7:37 AM

You may be right, although the story I've always heard was that MGM had promised Judy a vacation and then June Allyson got pregnant. Judy was then called in to replace her on Royal Wedding during a time when she needed R&R. And so it crumbled to pieces. However, your version could be the real one who knows. The Garland bio Get Happy says that Judy actually showed up on time and reported for work quite regularly on Royal Wedding and has documentation to back it up. The problem was that the director, Stanley Donen, hated her and didn't want to work with her. So her had her fired.

by Anonymousreply 166May 26, 2015 8:01 AM

Grace Kelly swept the various critics groups "Best Actress" award. Judy did win a Golden Globe for Comedy or Musical.

Noel Coward, cowardly said that Judy's performance belonged at the bottom of the ocean. I read that some time ago. On the flip side, Groucho Marx said that Judy's loss was "the biggest robbery since Brinks".

by Anonymousreply 167May 26, 2015 8:08 AM

Well, both Judy and Elvis died on the toilet, so there's that.

by Anonymousreply 168May 26, 2015 8:09 AM

Hard to believe, but of all the films Judy made for MGM, The Clock was the only non-musical.

She was a wonderful dramatic (and comedic!)actress, certainly better than any of their reigning 1940s Queens of the Lot, Lana Turner, Hedy Lamarr and Greer Garson, but Mayer didn't want to "waste" her energies in anything but a musical.

In retrospect, it would have been so much wiser and productive to alternate the rigors of a musical with the relatively easygoing demands of a drama or a comedy.

by Anonymousreply 169May 26, 2015 2:06 PM

"the story I've always heard was that MGM had promised Judy a vacation and then June Allyson got pregnant."

That was Judy's story, related on The Judy Garland Show when June was a guest. I don't believe much that came out of her drunken mouth, especially on this show because they were both sauced.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 170May 26, 2015 2:14 PM

R169, she was wanted for the role that went to Anne Bancroft in The Razor's Edge, but MGM wouldn't loan her.

by Anonymousreply 171May 27, 2015 1:16 AM

I love "Born in a Trunk". The last notes of which are to me, the most thrilling moments of the film. The big cut production number "Lose That Long Face" would have had to go back in, and it's just a pretty crappy song. I wish it were a better song altogether, and perhaps they would have kept it.

I really love the super 1950s, peak-of-melodrama feel of the whole film. It is absolutely lavish from beginning to end, and was the second most expensive film Hollywood had produced to that date (Gone With the Wind being more expensive), and every dime is on screen.

"In the Good Old Summertime" (working title "The Girl From Chicago" was announced many times with different leads, originally June Allyson, and Sinatra. Yuck. Actually Van Johnson is very good in it. In a way it's my favorite of Judy's films. It's lovely, sweet, and quite funny.

by Anonymousreply 172May 27, 2015 2:05 AM

Why in the world was A Star Is Born so expensive to make?

I really can't believe it was second only to GWTW in terms of its budget.

by Anonymousreply 173May 27, 2015 2:15 AM

Lauren Bacall, who was set to bring the Oscar to Judy's hospital room on a "live" remote, said in interviews that losing to Grace Kelly was the beginning of Judy's downfall.

by Anonymousreply 174May 27, 2015 2:20 AM

Judy's downfall began a long time before she did A Star is Born.

by Anonymousreply 175May 27, 2015 2:26 AM

[quote] Why in the world was A Star Is Born so expensive to make?

Because Sid Fucking-Luft was milking the production for all it was worth so he could gamble.

by Anonymousreply 176May 27, 2015 2:42 AM

One of the reasons it was so expensive was that after filming had begun, and considerable footage had already been shot, Warners decided to scrap everything that had been filmed and start over using CinemaScope. The fault for the escalating budget largely rests at Warners' feet but of course Judy took the brunt of it. She was easy to scapegoat because of her reputation.

by Anonymousreply 177May 27, 2015 2:55 AM

What makes Lose That Long Face remarkable is not the number itself but the cumulative effect of the over-the-top happiness of it (something Judy excelled in), followed by the dressing room breakdown, followed (and this is key) by Judy's return to the cameras to film the ending again. It is in that moment that we see what a consummate artist Esther (and of course, Garland) really is in her ability to be drenched in tears and in the dumps one moment and when the cameras roll BAM! she's 100% ON and giving it all she's got. It's one of Garland's most glorious moments in the film and one that shows what a supreme show woman she was.

by Anonymousreply 178May 27, 2015 2:58 AM

[quote][R169], she was wanted for the role that went to Anne Bancroft in The Razor's Edge, but MGM wouldn't loan her

Huh? RAZOR'S EDGE was from 1946, when Bancroft was only 15 years old and hadn't yet started her film career. Her first film role was 1952's DON'T BOTHER TO KNOCK, which was Marilyn Monroe's first starring role.

There was a 1984 version/remake, but Bancroft wasn't in that, either, and by then Judy was long dead.

by Anonymousreply 179May 27, 2015 3:19 AM

I agree with you R172. So many Judy fans think she was at her vocal peak in the Carnegie Hall years and some even in her television series. Her vocal peak is all there on the soundtrack of A Star is Born. Not that she didn't thrill later but her voice then was at its zenith and the whole movie is worth the final notes of Born in a Trunk and The Man that Got Away.

I am a musician and vocal coach and that doesn't matter much here, but I was born after Garland died and have a different perspective on her work. Her recordings through the mid 1950's are the work of a superlative singer, not just a great performer. The fans who think that Garland had slurred speech, a wayward vibrato and always husky tones with cracked notes, multiple modulations with a big full finish haven't listened carefully to her superb singing in this film.

Her voice is phenomenally powerful, with gorgeous resonance, masterful legato, trademark crescendos and power all in seamless control. She would sing that way again on occasion but her voice sounded best in later years only when she used a bit more restraint. She went full out in A Star is Born with her matured voice control displaying all her great vocal gifts. I am sure she thought not much of it, because she just sang her whole life. Part of the magic was due to her age at the time of this film. Singers hit their prime in their thirties and she most certainly did. She would never again sound so flawless, though her live electrical performances in the coming years were often impressive. A great singer always finds a way to sing, and she mostly always did. But not like that she did in this film.

by Anonymousreply 180May 27, 2015 3:32 AM

R169 means Anne BAXTER.

by Anonymousreply 181May 27, 2015 3:59 AM

Anne BAXTER was in The Razor's Edge (winning an Oscar for it)!

by Anonymousreply 182May 27, 2015 4:06 AM

That is a great idea, R169. I suspect that Garland was overlooked for non-musical parts because she was not considered to be particularly stylish or attractive. She looked like a million bucks in Meet Me in St. Louis, but in almost everything else she ever did (including The Wizard of Oz) she was considered hard to photograph and hard to costume. Wearing fashionable clothes well is usually considered part of being a leading lady. Judy's pill problem was born in part from her not having a typical movie star physique.

In her heyday most people in the MGM musicals division were eager to work with her (at least until they did.) They would have resented the loss of services of the studio's very best female singer just to make non-musical movies that any of a dozen other women might have done.

It's too bad she and Sinatra were never paired. Incidentally, his first billed screen appearance was in the patriotic and splendidly-titled B-movie musical, Reveille With Beverly, starring DL fave, Ann Miller.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 183May 27, 2015 4:27 AM

[quote]She looked like a million bucks in Meet Me in St. Louis, but in almost everything else she ever did (including The Wizard of Oz) she was considered hard to photograph and hard to costume.

I thought she was very pretty in OZ.

by Anonymousreply 184May 27, 2015 4:32 AM

Yes, I meant Ann Baxter of course, Sorry.

While I love Garland's voice in ASIB and think it does indeed sound very powerful, I think her years of giving live concerts had had a certain hardening effect on her sound. I prefer the suppleness of her voice during the MGM years. Her voice is more feminine, more giving, sweeter. Part of it is indeed age. She was five years older since she had recorded her last soundtrack and she'd done tons of live performances in the interim. I think what we gained in power we lost in beauty and bloom to the sound, though. But I'm nitpicking.

by Anonymousreply 185May 27, 2015 6:25 AM

Judy's physical appearance changed radically throughout the 1940s but she was quite lovely in the early years of the decade, after losing the baby fat and before gaining the re-hab fat, in films like Me and My Gal, Meet Me in Saint Louis, Presenting Lily Mars and The Clock.

Her pill-popping and anorexia brought a drawn look that is seen in The Harvey Girls, The Pirate and Easter Parade.

And both unfortunate looks are seen in Summer Stock, when she was at her heaviest, except for the later shooting of "Get Happy" when she was at her slimmest.

by Anonymousreply 186May 27, 2015 2:01 PM

She's really beautiful in Presenting Lily Mars. And of course Minnelli's loving cinematography helped make her look really beautiful in Meet Me In St Louis as well. I may be alone here, but I think she looks lovely in much of Summer Stock, especially in the Friendly Star number. She was a bit heavier, but I think it works. After all, she's playing a farm girl. I'd prefer to see her like that than so worryingly thin as she had been in Easter Parade.

by Anonymousreply 187May 27, 2015 6:38 PM

She looked better -- healthier -- in Summer Stock.

by Anonymousreply 188May 28, 2015 2:53 AM

Didn't she have odd eyebrows in Meet Me in St. Louis? Though not as bad as the ones she had in the late 50s - I don't think I've seen anyone from that era with the same "style".

by Anonymousreply 189May 28, 2015 3:07 AM

The heavier she got, the weirder her eyebrows got. She also died her hair that unflattering black and the brows swept up and were painted on a la Crawford, just not as heavy. She got back to a more natural look for the TV show.

by Anonymousreply 190May 28, 2015 3:14 AM

What Price Hollywood, the ORIGINAL "A Star is Born" is on tomorrow (Thursday) at noon on TCM...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 191May 28, 2015 3:33 AM

FYI, also directed by George Cukor...

by Anonymousreply 192May 28, 2015 3:37 AM

I agree r187. I think Judy is photographed at her loveliest in "Summer Stock". Look at her face in "Friendly Star", and in the sweet opening number "If You Feel Like Singing, Sing." Her best dance number is also from the same film, "The Portland Fancy." Had she ever held a note so thrilling (and comic) as the final note of the underrated "Happy Harvest"?

No one working on the film, including the director Chuck Walters could believe what a fun, breezy romp "Summer Stock" delivered to the viewer after the rather tortured production. All in all, it's a vastly entertaining movie!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 193May 28, 2015 3:46 AM

R190 I think the A STAR IS BORN with Gloria Gaynor from the 1930s is the original A STAR IS BORN.

Incidentally, the script was co-written by Dorothy "writers with pride don't live in LA" Parker.

by Anonymousreply 194May 28, 2015 3:51 AM

You can lead Gloria Gaynor to A Star Is Born but she'll never marry Gilbert Adrian.

by Anonymousreply 195May 28, 2015 3:53 AM

[quote] A STAR IS BORN with Gloria Gaynor

Surely you mean Donna Summer?

by Anonymousreply 196May 28, 2015 3:55 AM

The original A Star is Born is What Price Hollywood from 1932. It was also directed by George Cukor and starred Constance Bennett.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 197May 28, 2015 3:56 AM

No, the original version was called "The Front Page". And it starred Roz Russell.

by Anonymousreply 198May 28, 2015 3:59 AM

Oops, I meant JANET Gaynor.

R196 nope. Like I said, the first A STAR IS BORN (1937) starred Janet Gaynor. Judy's 1954 version was a remake, as was Streisand's '76 take. Supposedly there was to be yet another remake for the new millennium and starring Beyonce and Clint Eastwood, but nothing ever came of that.

Those are the only A STAR IS BORN films.

by Anonymousreply 199May 28, 2015 4:03 AM

R199, do you really think we need you to tell us this?

by Anonymousreply 200May 28, 2015 4:04 AM

This thread makes me sad. Every day I have a little moment of sadness when I think of losing our Judy. She was truly the north star of gay life. Such a loss to our community.

by Anonymousreply 201May 28, 2015 4:05 AM

That's sweet of you, R201. Try to think of it as A STAR IS RE-BORN every time Judy shines her light on another listener or viewer.

They should have taken the "Born in a Trunk" sequence out and shown it before the movie as a special featurette. It is exactly what the movie wasn't supposed to be.

by Anonymousreply 202May 28, 2015 4:41 AM

I wish I knew you lovely folks. I feel like I live in a vacuum when it comes to Judy love.

by Anonymousreply 203May 28, 2015 5:06 AM

Sez you, r202!

by Anonymousreply 204May 28, 2015 5:51 AM

Per Wikipedia:

[quote]Four years after What Price Hollywood was released, Selznick approached Cukor and asked him to direct A Star Is Born. The plot was so similar to What Price Hollywood? that Cukor declined.

[quote]RKO executives considered filing a plagiarism suit against Selznick International Pictures because of the obvious similarities in the story, but eventually opted not to take any legal action.

[quote]Cukor later directed the 1954 musical remake starring Judy Garland.

by Anonymousreply 205May 28, 2015 6:20 AM

"What Price Hollywood?" is so old that the structure of a three-act screenplay was not really standard, and like so many early talkies of feature-length (also pretty newish still), it just sort of stops without a true ending. "The Broadway Melody" stops rather suddenly as well, with that backseat-of-the-cab scene, but it works better in that film.

by Anonymousreply 206May 28, 2015 7:29 AM

Can you think of any real life musical leading lady who made her debut as the star of a big-budget musical film in spite of being a complete unknown?

Esther replaces a Broadway star in the very first movie role where she's allowed to show her face. What unknown talent ever got to do that? Most musical film stars either made their names in NYC or else they rose from the chorus in Hollywood after paying their dues in smaller roles.

BTW, Lucy Marlow is wonderful as Lola Lavery. I like how she seems both calculating and genuinely charming at once. She reminds me of Anne Francis in Funny Lady. They're the pretty girl thrown in to compensate the viewers for the oddly attractive leading lady, and they're hard-boiled so you don't have to feel bad for them when they get dumped.

by Anonymousreply 207May 28, 2015 8:11 AM

We attended the funeral of Adela Rogers St. John because she belonged for many many years to the same group(some call it a cult) that we belong to.

Miss Peggy Lee sang the Lord's Prayer there also, though Miss Lee was not to our knowledge a member of our same group.

After the service we approached the fabulous Miss Lee as she was giving an interview and exclaimed: "You look marvelous" to which she quickly turned and said "Thank you".

by Anonymousreply 208May 28, 2015 8:38 AM

[quote]Can you think of any real life musical leading lady who made her debut as the star of a big-budget musical film in spite of being a complete unknown?

After being passed over for the film version of MY FAIR LADY because she had never made a film before and had no name recognition or star leverage, Julie Andrews was hired by Walt Disney himself to headline his musical extravaganza, MARY POPPINS, which was the highest-grossing film of 1964 and for which she won the Oscar, one of only a handful of people to win for their film debut.

by Anonymousreply 209May 28, 2015 8:40 AM

You miss the point, R209. The Boy Friend and My Fair Lady made Julie Andrews famous well before Mary Poppins.

Esther Blodgett is a complete unknown apart from a shampoo commercial where she sings for a puppet and the one-night gig at the opening gala. She's so obscure, the head of her own studio doesn't know who she is even when he hears her.

Was any unknown entertainer, as nameless in NY as well as in Hollywood, ever thrust into so auspicious a debut as to include something like the Born in a Trunk sequence? Garland was ninth-billed in her own feature film debut role as Sairy Dodd in Pigskin Parade, a 20th Century Fox musical in which she sang a few standout songs, but did little else.

by Anonymousreply 210May 28, 2015 9:03 AM

Had Deanna Durbin made any films except for Every Sunday Afternoon (or whatever that short was with young Judy) before she starred in her first Universal film?

What about Esther Williams? Did she star in her first musical after just appearing in that one Andy Hardy film?

Leslie Caron? Stardom in An American in Paris with no prior film or stage work.

Eleanor Powell?

Nevertheless, r210, I get your point.

by Anonymousreply 211May 28, 2015 1:30 PM

R210, not to mention that beyond her Broadway recognition in THE BOY FRIEND, MY FAIR LADY and CAMELOT, Julie Andrews had national recognition from starring in the widely viewed and hugely successful 1957 television production of Rodgers & Hammerstein's CINDERELLA.

by Anonymousreply 212May 28, 2015 1:59 PM

Doris Day in ROMANCE IN THE HIGH SEAS (replacing a pregnant Betty Hutton). Her first movie ever (If you don't count a 'soundie' she made four or five years before) She was only known as a band singer with Les Brown's orchestra.

Durbin is an excellent example. Universal launched her as a star in THREE SMART GIRLS.

by Anonymousreply 213May 28, 2015 2:22 PM

I think Judy is at her loveliest before het Dot Ponedel makeover in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS. She's a knockout in GIRL CRAZY....in fact she's even more attractive in black-and-white than she is in MGM Technicolor, where her skin is often a ghostly white.

I think the role of "Sophie" in THE RAZORS EDGE - of a young singer who becomes an addict and who commits suicide by jumping off a bridge might have been too harrowing for Judy to deal with - though she probably would have won an Oscar for it.

by Anonymousreply 214May 28, 2015 2:41 PM

Let's cast the remake! George Clooney as Norman Maine! Sandra Bullock or Melissa McCarthy as Judy! Will Smith as Jack Carson! Include Amy Shumer, Tina Fey, Zac Efron, and Samuel L. Jackson and Emily Blunt (the latter two only because they must be in every movie made!) Voila! Instant box office hit with the straights! You can play too--who would you cast in the remake? Matt Damon as Norman? Lupita as Judy?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215May 28, 2015 3:30 PM

[quote]the highest-grossing film of 1964

The same year a war criminal was elected President.

by Anonymousreply 216May 28, 2015 5:34 PM

[quote]only a handful of people to win for their film debut.

[italic]The Singing Princess[/italic], aka [italic]The Rose of Baghdad[/italic] was Julie's actual film debut.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 217May 28, 2015 5:36 PM

Thank you, 211 and 213. I was sincerely asking if there were ever an unknown actress thrust into a lead role as precipitously as Esther. The closest answer seems to be Leslie Caron, which I would only qualify by pointing out that Gene Kelly is the central figure in An American in Paris. Caron is indeed an unknown playing the female lead in her film debut. But she's still playing more in support of Kelly whereas Vicki Lester wins what appears to be the no-doubt-about-it stand-alone star part in her film debut, which is odd considering her obscurity.

Doris Day is close, but she is merely the second female lead her film debut in the late 40s, billed below Janis Paige. In the mid-50s, Day won the screen role in The Pajama Game that Paige had created on stage. By the early 60s, Paige was played a supporting role in Day's star vehicle, Please Don't Eat the Daisies.

by Anonymousreply 218May 28, 2015 5:59 PM

Anne Francis was in Funny Girl, not Funny Lady. But your point is well taken about the plot point of Esther being cast in a movie as a complete unknown. And speaking of Funny Girl, I'd love to see that movie with Anne Francis' scenes restored.

"Friendly Star" is one of my favorite Garland musical numbers ever. I love the song, I love the way Judy sings it, I love the way she looks, I love the way the camera pans around and we see Kelly curled up in a chair secretly listening. Just utter perfection.

by Anonymousreply 219May 28, 2015 6:04 PM

[quote]In the mid-50s, Day won the screen role in The Pajama Game that Paige had created on stage.

And so the backstabbing bitch made up for it by taking MY role in the movie of [italic]Silk Stockings[/italic].

by Anonymousreply 220May 28, 2015 6:08 PM

Merry Anders

Suzan Ball

Chris Noel

Hazel Court

Trudie Ames

Donna Cochran

Gigi Perreau

Laraine Stephens

Francoise Hardy

by Anonymousreply 221May 28, 2015 8:29 PM

I've never heard of anyone on that list r221.

by Anonymousreply 222May 28, 2015 9:27 PM

What is that list? Someone's favourite singers? Wasn't Hazel Court a Hammer Horror Scream Queen?

by Anonymousreply 223May 28, 2015 9:31 PM

Judy is absolutely beautiful in Girl Crazy and Presenting Lily Mars. I think she's probably at her most beautiful in those two films.

by Anonymousreply 224May 29, 2015 2:58 AM

She was first noticeably skinny in For Me and My Gal (1942) and reviewers noted it. That Judy "needed more meat on her bones," that she looked frail in the picture. She got great reviews and the movie was a huge hit (launched Gene Kelly's movie career) but Judy was much thinner (for the first time) in this film than she had been in any prior movie. No one knew WHY she was so thin in this movie. Of course, behind the camera, Judy was desperately trying to be a glamour girl and keep up with Lana and Hedy and the other MGM beauties. The pills had already begun to show up in her appearance. She wanted to drop that damned baby fat more than anything so she starved herself and the pills helped. This is also why she looked so good in Girl Crazy and Lily Mars. SHE wanted the full glamour treatment and the studio acquiesced, although the girl next door image was her "niche" and her money maker for MGM. And that is also why she did NOT want to make Meet Me In St. Louis. She had just come off a few movies where SHE thought she looked grown up and glam and now she was being asked to play a damned teenager again. Like going back to Betsy fucking Booth with Andy Hardy. She resisted until she was convinced how good the part was. And Minnelli made her look like the most glam 17 year old who ever lived. lol. In fact, Judy was 22 when the film was made. People think this was part of the reason she married him, because he made her LOOK so beautiful on camera, which in her screwed up skewed world, was a huge priority for her. At MGM it was all about how you LOOKED (for the ladies), in addition to the talent. Garland was woefully insecure about her appearance all her life. She sort of "gave up" in the 50's with the booze and pills but she got that slim, trim look back in the early 60's. In fact, she looked during the run of her TV show how I imagine Esther Smith would have aged. If Judy could have just leapfrogged over the 50's, that is. That entire decade she looked like a totally different person to me!

by Anonymousreply 225May 29, 2015 3:10 PM

R221 here. Sorry! Wrong thread. damn new DL

by Anonymousreply 226May 29, 2015 7:51 PM

But Judy's problem always remained her very short neck which didn't help, fat or thin.

by Anonymousreply 227May 29, 2015 10:01 PM

I think her lack of any ass was more of a problem. Whoever allowed her to wear that red dress with her bloated middle and complete lack of ass in I Could Go on Singing, should've been viciously slapped. At the very least they should not have allowed her to turn her back to the camera.

by Anonymousreply 228May 29, 2015 10:44 PM

R210, I think the point is: yes, it is unusual for an ingenue to achieve instant stardom -- and that's why they made a movie about her!

by Anonymousreply 229May 29, 2015 10:53 PM

I think she just had too much talent and too much adulation. Like Callas, Elvis or Mario Lanza.

Even if you physically survive you end up a complete horror like Sinatra or Streisand. Totally self-loathing and despising everyone else.

by Anonymousreply 230May 30, 2015 12:02 AM

The legs, ability to negotiate six inch heels, her ability to dance and raw talent make up for a flat ass. Judy, despite her imperfections, had more talent in her pinky finger than all of us combined.

by Anonymousreply 231May 30, 2015 1:03 AM

My favorite MGM number with her as Marilyn Miller singing Who (Stole My Heart Away?) in Til the Clouds Roll By. Or is it Words and Music?

She's blonde and several months pregnant with Liza yet still kicking her heels up.

MGM and Vincente Minnelli at their finest!

by Anonymousreply 232May 30, 2015 3:26 AM

I wish Judy had hung on for several decades longer.

That way, she could have taken a selfie on the toilet when she killed herself.

I would have kept a copy pressed within the pages of my Bible.

by Anonymousreply 233May 30, 2015 3:42 AM

Rita Hayworth also had no ass, and she was one of the top sex symbols of the day. Obsession with big asses is a current trend.

I wish Judy had made Singin' In The Rain instead of Debbie Reynolds. I know Reynolds is loved but I don't think she was particularly good in this or in any of the movies she made during that period, to be honest. I think Judy would have brought so much more depth to the role and her singing wouldn't have to have been dubbed.

by Anonymousreply 234May 30, 2015 4:00 AM

There isn't supposed to be depth to Debbie Reynolds' role in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, R234. There is supposed to be youth. Judy looked old and haggard beyond her years in the early fifties. She would have ruined that movie.

by Anonymousreply 235May 30, 2015 8:30 AM

In Australia they've started airing The Judy Garland Show on TV. It's amazing to imagine week in, week out, how great she is a performer, and how consistently high profile her guests were. Nobody could interpret a song quite as effectively as she could. Talent spilling out of the screen.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 236May 30, 2015 5:06 PM

I like here where she goes all Heppa De Jeppas on the audience because she can't remember the lyrics:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 237May 30, 2015 5:15 PM

That was a bit. She also did it at the Amsterdam concert in 1960.

by Anonymousreply 238May 30, 2015 5:20 PM

We thought ASIB was crap(except for the fact that it gave birth to one of her best songs ever TMTGA) and there is no bigger Judy Garland fan than ourself.

by Anonymousreply 239May 30, 2015 5:34 PM

[quote]there is no bigger Judy Garland fan than ourself.

I would guess that people who think the woefully flawed A Star is Born is perfect are technically bigger fans.

by Anonymousreply 240May 30, 2015 5:39 PM

That clip of A Cottage For Sale is one of the greatest song interpretations I've ever seen.

by Anonymousreply 241May 30, 2015 6:21 PM

We are unable to watch it as we are still devastated by our recent divorce.

by Anonymousreply 242May 30, 2015 7:37 PM

I've always felt that the last line in the film should have been "I'm Mrs. Norman Dish Rag..

by Anonymousreply 243May 30, 2015 9:42 PM

Isn't it wonderful, all of us effeminate queens still discussing Miss Judy Garland after all these years? FABULOUS!

by Anonymousreply 244May 31, 2015 6:22 AM

The 46th anniversary of the most tragic event in homosexual history is approaching next month...

by Anonymousreply 245May 31, 2015 9:43 AM

Judy Garland was an overrated hag and one of the most annoying harridans ever to become a star.

by Anonymousreply 246May 31, 2015 9:50 AM

The ignore button is a wonderful thing. Takes the venom right out of your fangs, haters.

by Anonymousreply 247May 31, 2015 12:59 PM

How lovely Judy would have been in Brigadoon. That movie has such a magical look to it.

by Anonymousreply 248May 31, 2015 1:42 PM

R236, that's amazing that, what, 50 years after the fact they're airing her TV show. How wonderful that a new generation can be exposed to her talent. There were some bad moments in the show, mostly due to the way the CBS brass wanted her brought down a peg--they thought denigrating her would be humorous (it wasn't)--but there are so many wonderful moments, when she is just left alone on the stage to sing. What always shocks me about that show is how little they took advantage of her other talents. She was an expert comedienne and a great actress, yet they rarely had her doing comedy bits (the very funny sketch with Bob Newhart is an exception to the rule) or acting out moments from great Broadway musicals, replete with dialogue. It would have been something to see her do Rose's Turn or other Broadway jewels, if only they'd had the foresight to do it.

by Anonymousreply 249May 31, 2015 1:48 PM

Nobody had the talent in the History of movies that Judy had. It was pretty ignorant not to give Judy the Oscar over Grace Kelly. Grace had the beauty, but not the talent. The studios ruined Judy by constantly drugging her.

by Anonymousreply 250May 31, 2015 2:17 PM

R249 I know! I'm 21 so i'd never had a way to see it before now. They aired the 3rd episode this week, and so far my criticisms largely mirror yours. The solo performances are an obvious highlight, and I wish there were less sketches with inferior actors / comedians and more with her. She had great timing, and for a program called The Judy Garland Show, there's surprisingly little Judy Garland actually in it.

by Anonymousreply 251May 31, 2015 2:41 PM

After the first few episodes, CBS brass decided the show was too much like a 'special'. They felt Judy was being put on a pedestal and they wanted her brought down a peg. So they began hiring (unfunny) comedians like Jerry Van Dyke to make jokes at Judy's expense. This combined with the fact that the president of CBS absolutely loathed Judy and did nothing to help the show. The order of the shows was changed as well, so what you've seen were probably not the first shows filmed.

The best show of the series was with Barbra Streisand as guest. Other standout guests included Ethel Merman, Peggy Lee, Tony Bennett, Lena Horne and Vic Damone.

The high point of the show was the music. The musical guests were always big stars and often the duets, and the solo turns, were very memorable. Mel Tormé was responsible for most of the musical arrangements and although he was a huge prick to Judy later on, his contributions were first rate.

by Anonymousreply 252May 31, 2015 2:53 PM

[quote]It just boggles my mind that Grace Kelly's subdued performance beat this dazzling star turn.

You're operating under the impression the Oscars are given for artistic merit. They're not. The Oscars are nothing more than a marketing gimmick, designed to sell a product. The Academy had a choice: give it to a young actress who has a promising career ahead of her, or give it to an irresponsible booze hound who will never again do anything significant. There was a lot more money to made off Kelly than Garland.

by Anonymousreply 253May 31, 2015 2:56 PM

Coe to think of it, r249, it is shocking how little contemporary musical theater music Judy sang on the show.

by Anonymousreply 254May 31, 2015 3:13 PM

The Vic Damone "Kismet" medley is one of the finest moments of the whole series. Both singers are sensational in it, and seem to be aware of how good they are.

by Anonymousreply 255May 31, 2015 8:10 PM

We agree

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 256May 31, 2015 9:28 PM

[quote] My favorite MGM number with her as Marilyn Miller singing Who (Stole My Heart Away?) in Til the Clouds Roll By. Or is it Words and Music? She's blonde and several months pregnant with Liza yet still kicking her heels up.

[R232], it was "Til the Clouds Roll By," and I agree. As a former hoofer, I especially love the numbers where she both sings and dances. In her prime, she had it all. Here, she nearly blasts Gene Kelly off the stage...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 257May 31, 2015 11:23 PM

And that whole song and dance number of "Ballin' the Jack" was filmed in only three shots.

by Anonymousreply 258May 31, 2015 11:30 PM

[quote]It was pretty ignorant not to give Judy the Oscar over Grace Kelly.

Would you still say that if Grace had been nominated for [italic]Rear Window[/italic] instead?

by Anonymousreply 259May 31, 2015 11:49 PM

Rear Window is a lovely performance but hardly Oscar worthy.

by Anonymousreply 260June 1, 2015 12:25 AM

[quote]Rear Window is a lovely performance but hardly Oscar worthy.

Not the point. Which of Grace's two performances deserved the nomination more?

by Anonymousreply 261June 1, 2015 12:27 AM

Vic Damone has always spoken glowingly of Garland and his experiences working with her on the show.

by Anonymousreply 262June 1, 2015 12:32 AM

I think Kelly's performance in The Country Girl certainly deserved a nomination. She just wasn't the best that year so I resent her win.

by Anonymousreply 263June 1, 2015 12:35 AM

OK, in the last moments of the old DL format I read the entire thread. Fabulous.

- Now regarding Garland's loss of the Oscar, there is some simple logic to it.

Grace Kelly was a current-MGM star filming a movie at Paramount. Grace therefore essentially had 2 studio "home teams" voting for her. MGM and Paramount.

- Judy sometimes went out drinking still in costume, some of the dresses had to be completely re-done because the wardrobe people said they came back with stains which were of such an unknown origin nobody could remove them.

- The charming WHEN MY SUGAR WALKS DOWN THE STREET was an outtake from the Born In The Tunk medley. It never even made the original version but oddly that part never really disappeared, unlike the other footage.

- The handsome guy who gives the Oscar to Judy was allegedly banging Cukor at the time, Cukor was known to give small part to his special friends (watch Pat And Mike for small roles given to Charles Buchinski (aka Bronson) and Chuck Connors.)

- Casting James Mason was sort of making him a variation on Errol Flynn, who was also costing the studios a fortune. The deleted, still missing footage, even featured a pirate ship sequence.

Noel Coward was a bitch - he said something like "Dear Judy, sweet Judy I love her but after that film I wanted to RING HER NECK."

As a teen, I attended the opening of the restored A STAR IS BORN at Radio City. The audience applauded every scene change and after the deleted numbers the place was ecstatic. It was beyond over-the-top.

Before the film though, there was a party in the lower lobby. I watched from above. Liza, Lorna and James Mason were there, so was Lillian Gish. Celeste Holme was there late and pushed through the lobby crowd yelling "We entered through the wrong entrance PLEASE move away" until she got to the person with the clipboard who let her in; she instantly transformed into a great lady.

James Mason, during his speech before the film, took the time to mention the contributions of Tommy Noonan, Jack Carson and Charles Bickford. Very classy I thought.

by Anonymousreply 264June 1, 2015 3:03 AM

Thank you, r264. Interesting observations.

I realize there were many reasons people voted against Judy. And I do think they voted *against* Judy rather than voting for Kelly. Judy had burned a lot of bridges and Kelly was bright, young, gorgeous, well-liked, and a marvelous screen presence. Judy, for all her talent, was a known drug addict and was considered by many, at the ripe old age of 32, to be a has-been. It breaks my heart to say it, and we at the other end of it only see the glorious screen presence---we're not living it day to day with the rumor mill working overtime spreading stories, true or not, about her shenanigans. I'm sure studio bosses didn't see any reason to reward that kind of behavior, and as has already been said upthread, they didn't think there was much more money to be made out of her anyway. Heartbreaking, really.

by Anonymousreply 265June 1, 2015 3:30 AM

I never knew that Judy sang "As Long As He Needs Me" more than once on her show. Here is the second performance, in one of the concert shows I'm guessing. It's quite thrilling and is preceded by Get Happy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 266June 1, 2015 3:31 AM

Thanks R264, I agree with you they voted against Judy rather than "for" Kelly.

The rather abysmal tv movie starring Cheryl Ladd had one moment I never forgot - after Grace wins the Oscar, Grace's father played by Lloyd Bridges, tells a reporter, or someone on the phone, "Well it's too bad both Judy and Grace both couldn't have got the Oscar"...they then showed "Grace" with a pained expression.

The score to Royal Wedding - or at least TOO LATE NOW - was written with Garland's voice in mind, despite it being a role initially given to June Allyson. Anyway, at least Garland got to sing it on her tv show. She does a very lovely version of the ballad see the attached clip.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 267June 1, 2015 3:42 AM

[quote]"Well it's too bad both Judy and Grace both couldn't have got the Oscar"

Yes, quite.

by Anonymousreply 268June 1, 2015 3:45 AM

What about the other nominees?

Audrey Hepburn was nominated for [italic]Sabrina[/italic] but had already won last year for [italic]Roman Holiday[/italic], so that worked against her. Jane Wyman was nominated for [italic]Magnificent Obsession[/italic], but she, too, already had one for [italic]Johnny Belinda[/italic].

Dorothy Dandridge was nominated for [italic]Carmen Jones[/italic]; it was arguably a better performance than that of the first black Best Actress winner, but what are you going to do?

by Anonymousreply 269June 1, 2015 3:50 AM

Before the mess that was ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, and her MGM swansong SUMMER STOCK, Judy was to work again with Astaire in THE BARCLAYS OF BROADWAY. The rehearsals were a disaster and Fred called Ginger, who jumped at the chance to replace Garland and jumpstart her own then-faltering career. I am happy we have one more Astaire-Rogers picture - at MGM and in Technicolor!, but the comedy and specialty numbers were clearly Garland's forte. Not Ginger's.

by Anonymousreply 270June 1, 2015 4:02 AM

Actually, there was a whole reportedly fantastic score written for Barkleys of Broadway that the composers took lock, stock and barrel with them when Garland was taken off the picture. If you notice, Ginger Rogers doesn't sing even once in the picture. She sort of talk sings in the once dance number with Fred and that's it. I thought that was odd since Ginger certainly could carry a tune, but Robert Osborne reported the whole story last time they showed the movie. It would have been a much better movie with Garland, IMO. I love Astaire and Rogers, but I think B of B is definitely one of their lesser efforts.

by Anonymousreply 271June 1, 2015 4:38 AM

Interesting R271 that absolutely makes sense.

Rogers is particularly grating in that Scottish number, but she gets away with it since it pales in comparison to her acting performance of "La Marseillaise."

by Anonymousreply 272June 1, 2015 4:57 AM

Six months before she died, Garland sang A New World at the ASCAP tribute to Harold Arlen. It wasn't her most challenging song to sing, but her performance that night shows her voice was far from destroyed even then. She sang it with great control and subtle nuance, the wonderful rich crescendo still in her command. She had it together that night and then she married her last loser and died. What a life.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 273June 1, 2015 5:07 AM

r273, that made me cry. Hearing her beautiful voice, ravaged by abuses small and large, still manage to be so expressive, so lovely, so meaningful in every single phrase....it breaks my heart in two.

Garland was created by Hollywood and destroyed by Hollywood. She was an artist, and highly strung and deeply sensitive. She couldn't take the pressure and she was guided badly by those around who didn't really care for her except as a way to line their own pocket books. It's devastating to think that she knew this. She hated her mother because she knew her mother aided and abetted getting her hooked on pills because it helped her work longer hours. No mother who cared for their child would do that. No studio head who cared about his talent would allow that to happen. No one cared. And she knew it. It was at the bottom of her tortured, lonely soul. No one cared.

by Anonymousreply 274June 1, 2015 5:20 AM

Lorna tries to be magnanimous about the drugs in her book, saying M-G-M only gave them to her because they were clueless about the side effects. In their minds, they were doing the right thing.

by Anonymousreply 275June 1, 2015 5:26 AM

that's bullshit. no one who ever took those drugs could possibly mistake them for being harmless. granted, judy had an addictive personality and not everyone does.

by Anonymousreply 276June 1, 2015 5:28 AM

Mickey Rooney quit drugs and lived almost twice as long as she did.

by Anonymousreply 277June 1, 2015 5:30 AM

In that live audio of "A New World" from 1968, Harold Arlen himself is accompanying Judy. Listen to the last musical phrase from the orchestra, and you can sing along "I could while away the hours...." to it, right? I mean, Arlen did write both songs, or am I only hearing things?

by Anonymousreply 278June 1, 2015 5:50 AM

no, you are right: both phrases are strikingly similar.

by Anonymousreply 279June 1, 2015 5:52 AM

I thought Arlen accompanied her only on "Over the Rainbow" and not on the other three songs she sang that night.

by Anonymousreply 280June 1, 2015 1:42 PM

[quote]The handsome guy who gives the Oscar to Judy was allegedly banging Cukor at the time, Cukor was known to give small part to his special friends (watch Pat And Mike for small roles given to Charles Buchinski (aka Bronson) and Chuck Connors.)

Who, William Holden? What is this, DL fan fiction? Holden was a huge superstar by then and a Oscar-winner the previous year, which is why he was presenting Best Actress.

by Anonymousreply 281June 1, 2015 2:31 PM

"Who, William Holden? What is this, DL fan fiction? Holden was a huge superstar by then and a Oscar-winner the previous year, which is why he was presenting Best Actress."

Even you cannot be that fucking stupid r281.

Was William Holden in A Star Is Born?

Did Judy Garland win an Oscar for A Star Is Born?

It was quite clear it was the ACTOR in the Academy Awards sequence of the ASIB MOVIE.

by Anonymousreply 282June 1, 2015 5:03 PM

This clip is fun because Judy looks like she's having a ball. When Martha Raye interrupts Judy's singing with mugging, Judy does the same back to her when Raye takes over. It's lovely to see her have so much fun.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 283June 2, 2015 6:08 AM

The only scene I never particularly liked is the funeral scene where someone tries to grab Esther's veil and Judy screams. I always felt that was over the top and unnecessary.

by Anonymousreply 284June 3, 2015 5:25 AM

R282 Oops! Totally misread that. I thought R264 was talking about the actual Oscar ceremony, where William Holden presented Best Actress to Grace Kelly.

by Anonymousreply 285June 3, 2015 5:39 AM

R284 That scene comes from the 1937 version, though.

by Anonymousreply 286June 3, 2015 4:25 PM

It was a crappy movie(except for that one song) and Judy looked like crap/

by Anonymousreply 287June 3, 2015 6:27 PM

Really r287?

I think it is 1950s Hollywood melodrama (with music!) at its very zenith!

It's engaging as hell, dramatic, extravagantly filmed, and emotionally satisfying. I love it!

by Anonymousreply 288June 3, 2015 7:18 PM

I agree, r288. It is exactly that: 50s melodrama, but exquisitely done with great actors. And the marvelous addition of having Judy Garland sing of course. That makes any movie worthwhile.

by Anonymousreply 289June 4, 2015 1:52 AM

Only gay guys like this movie.

by Anonymousreply 290June 5, 2015 10:27 PM

It's too bad Judy didn't get to do Mame on Broadway as she hoped to do. Even a limited run would have been amazing.

by Anonymousreply 291June 8, 2015 3:48 AM

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP bitches

by Anonymousreply 292June 14, 2015 3:52 AM

Born In A Trunk pretty much was Judy's own story. Perhaps that's why the number was so attractive to her. She did grow up in vaudeville and was performing at a very young age with her sisters.

by Anonymousreply 293June 15, 2015 9:21 PM

A great example of Judy's artistry is how she can take an old warhorse like "That Old Feeling" and turn it into 3 minutes of exquisite heartbreak. Only Sinatra was her equal with songs like this.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 294June 15, 2015 9:56 PM

It is truly lamentable that she was unable to complete Royal Wedding and The Barkleys of Broadway. Both films would have been delightful with her in them.

by Anonymousreply 295June 17, 2015 5:25 AM

"The Barkleys of Broadway" is the one movie Judy did not complete I wish she had. Clearly the script was written for her, and it would have been modern and sophisticated fun. Ginger Rogers shows all of her limitations in it as an actress.

by Anonymousreply 296June 17, 2015 7:03 AM

I agree. I know many sentimentalists love that Fred and Ginger reunited for this film, but I think Rogers actually comes off rather poorly in it. For one thing, they didn't let her sing AT ALL. Not one song. The entire score was yanked from the film once Garland left it. Judy would have done wonders with the part.

by Anonymousreply 297June 17, 2015 5:04 PM

Oh look, ASIB is JG's seminal moment. She is spectacular in it, both her acting and her singing. You are decidedly *not* the biggest Judy fan ever if you don't think so. But H'wood's memory isn't that long. They wouldn't have snubbed her for being fucked up. In fact, they would have honored her. *But* H'wood is about money and Grace Kelly was money. Giving her the Oscar, which is after all what they do, would bring them a lot more money than Garland. It's really that simple. And of course, Sid Luft. What a total fuck. No one wanted him to have more power than he had.

by Anonymousreply 298June 17, 2015 5:19 PM

I think she's better and more grounded in I COULD GO ON SINGING, and I can prove it. But not today.

by Anonymousreply 299June 17, 2015 8:53 PM

Sorry, but she is not better in ICGOS. That's a mess of a movie with a few good moments.

by Anonymousreply 300June 18, 2015 1:41 AM

At least she's playing her age.

by Anonymousreply 301June 18, 2015 2:09 AM

Did Judy really present Ginger with a shaving cup (whatever the hell that is!) on the soundstage of BoB or is that just a Hollywood legend?

by Anonymousreply 302June 18, 2015 2:28 AM

R291, you mean like half a performance? Yeah that would have been good........

by Anonymousreply 303June 18, 2015 2:32 AM

[quote]They wouldn't have snubbed her for being fucked up. In fact, they would have honored her.

R298, but sadly, she felt snubbed. I saw her interviewed saying, "I knew they wouldn't give it to me."

by Anonymousreply 304June 18, 2015 2:45 AM

Well, she certainly deserved it. It's a towering performance in a very good film. It certainly outshines any other performance by an actress that year.

by Anonymousreply 305June 19, 2015 5:54 AM

Since today is the anniversary of Judy's death, this thread should be bumped.

by Anonymousreply 306June 23, 2015 5:59 AM

As soon as I heard about the Supreme Court ruling, just to make the day even gayer, I listened to Judy at Carnegie Hall.

by Anonymousreply 307June 27, 2015 8:37 AM

[quote]Did Judy really present Ginger with a shaving cup (whatever the hell that is!) on the soundstage of BoB or is that just a Hollywood legend?

No, it's real, there are even photographs from her visit to the set that day before she melted down, and things got ugly. I've seen one of them.

by Anonymousreply 308June 27, 2015 9:29 AM

She should have won for ASIB no question her performance is fantastic, i don't care what anyone says. Grace Kelly did not deserve it BUT she was the new 'IT' girl of the moment, so of course she got it. Judy had pissed off too many people by this time. The Oscars are very political, we all know this by now, it is not a fair contest at all.

by Anonymousreply 309June 27, 2015 1:13 PM

I'm watching Judgment at Nuremberg. My god, Judy is fantastic. She should have won the Oscar for that performance too.

by Anonymousreply 310June 27, 2015 9:18 PM

You know, it's curious that we never discuss the Judy Garland special from 1962 with Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. Judy seems in complete control of her vocal powers here, and is much less nervous than on her TV show. It's pretty fabulous.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 311June 30, 2015 4:31 AM

People may not discuss Judy Garland special from 1962 with Sinatra and Martin, but it was that highly-rated special and her appearance with Jack Paar in prime time that got her the 1963-1964 series on CBS. With Paar, Judy talked at length for the first time on TV. We did not know how witty and funny she was.

Sadly, that wit did not tranfer to introducing guests and chatting on a variety show. Still, it's wonderful to have all her TV shows on DVD. The special mentioned above was at one time released on TV as a Sinatra product.

by Anonymousreply 312July 1, 2015 5:05 PM

One reason her wit didn't transfer to the show is that CBS brass stupidly put a muzzle on her. They didn't let Judy be Judy. Instead, they wanted her to be Dinah Shore.

by Anonymousreply 313July 2, 2015 6:05 AM

Yes, they wanted her to be Dinah Shore. But, the format of her show did not allow for much as lib comments. And when Judy tried on occasion, it was not always funny. She was better as a guest in TV, not a host.

by Anonymousreply 314July 2, 2015 10:50 AM

Re the CBS brass wanting her to be Dinah Shore; I watched 'Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows' with (the truly amazing) Judy Davis as Garland, and the scene where she has a meeting with the CBS board is magnificent.

"Dinah Shore doesn't touch."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 315July 2, 2015 11:15 AM

The problem with CBS brass at the time is the typical problem when you have businessmen running what is supposed to be an artistic enterprise: they don't know shit about art. They were in possession of a gigantic talent and had no idea how to use her. They just wanted her to act 'normal' and like the others...well, Judy wasn't like the others. That's what made her Judy. This show could have been wildly good, if only someone with foresight had been in control.

by Anonymousreply 316July 2, 2015 10:53 PM

By the time Judy was on the Valley of the Dolls set, she was so small, tiny really.

by Anonymousreply 317July 7, 2015 1:28 AM

Just watched the Janet Gaynor Star is Born. I was surprised how much of that original script Moss Hart borrowed for the musical remake.

by Anonymousreply 318July 18, 2015 7:21 PM

So I'm reading Judy on Judy-- very interesting. God bless her, she was a mess.

by Anonymousreply 319July 18, 2015 7:30 PM

I'm assuming most of Judy on Judy comes from the 60s. She was a mess by then, but not really before.

by Anonymousreply 320July 21, 2015 12:38 AM

I wish that was true.

by Anonymousreply 321July 21, 2015 1:58 AM

I think Judy should have been nominated for an Academy Award for Meet Me In St. Louis. She was, once again, perfection.

by Anonymousreply 322July 22, 2015 7:36 AM

We actually had about a 10 second conversatia with her as she was being hustled from stage door to limousine. She was amazingly kind and patient.

We were very young at the time.

by Anonymousreply 323July 22, 2015 9:19 PM

sweet. many who met her say she was incredibly nice. and funny. and kind.

by Anonymousreply 324July 23, 2015 12:53 AM

[quote]We were very young at the time.

In the sense that forty is very young compared to a dinosaur fossil.

by Anonymousreply 325July 23, 2015 1:39 AM

It was 1967 and we were 6 at the time, the same age as homosexuals brad pitt, tammy cruise and george clooney

by Anonymousreply 326July 23, 2015 8:15 AM

"The problem with CBS brass at the time is the typical problem when you have businessmen running what is supposed to be an artistic enterprise: they don't know shit about art."

Are you new? The people at the top of television and movies are always first concerned with money. The bottom line won out from day one.

by Anonymousreply 327July 26, 2015 5:23 PM

So, back to ASIB. Is this the film most of us would like to see restored to its original glory?

by Anonymousreply 328July 28, 2015 2:40 AM

[quote]Is this the film most of us would like to see restored to its original glory?

Although it would be nice to see the full uncut version, what we have left to us is close enough. If we could restore but one film to its original glory, we'd want to see Orson Welles' (long destroyed) cut of The Magnificent Ambersons.

by Anonymousreply 329July 28, 2015 7:31 AM

[quote]If we could restore but one film to its original glory, we'd want to see Orson Welles' (long destroyed) cut of The Magnificent Ambersons.

Yes, absolutely! I still dream that one day they'll find an original cut somewhere. I know it's never going to happen, but...

by Anonymousreply 330July 28, 2015 9:33 AM

Well, ok, yes, The Magnificent Ambersons is the Holy Grail of unrestored films. And I agree with that assessment. But otherwise, I think ASIB would rank no. 1 in my book.

by Anonymousreply 331July 30, 2015 7:18 AM

Do we consider Judy's juvenile Oscar a real Oscar? I'd like to think it is, even though it's a mini.

by Anonymousreply 332July 31, 2015 3:39 AM

Even that little non-competitive Oscar got lost in Judy's final years of madness. Can you imagine? I'm not sure it's ever turned up!

by Anonymousreply 333July 31, 2015 6:29 AM

Do we consider Judy's juvenile Oscar a real Oscar? I'd like to think it is, even though it's a mini.

Yes, technically it is an Oscar. Shirley Temple said her own juvenile Oscar was so thinly gilded it wore off and she had to get it dipped.

by Anonymousreply 334July 31, 2015 6:54 AM

Judy lost her Oscar sometime in the 50s and the Academy gave her another one to replace it. After her death, the replacement turned up for sale by Sid Luft. The Academy swooped in and was going to confiscate it (the Academy has the right of first refusal on all Oscars that come up for sale, and they can buy them back for $1) until Lorna Luft said she wanted to keep it in the family and took it back. Then the original turned up and the Academy did take that one.

by Anonymousreply 335July 31, 2015 7:02 AM

"Shirley Temple said her own juvenile Oscar was so thinly gilded it wore off and she had to get it dipped. "

What on earth was America's sweetheart DOING with it?

by Anonymousreply 336July 31, 2015 8:58 PM

Let's face it: Had she been well, Judy would have been far better than Shirley Jones in Carousel, far better than Ava Gardner in Show Boat, far better than Ginger Rogers in The Barkleys of Broadway, far better than Jane Powell in Royal Wedding, far better than Debbie Reynolds in Singin' in the Rain, far better than Mitzi Gaynor in South Pacific.

by Anonymousreply 337August 8, 2015 1:21 PM

Grace Kelly was A Movie Star.

judy was a singer who did movies.

by Anonymousreply 338August 8, 2015 1:27 PM

Grace Kelly was a photogenic tramp with a fake upper crust accent whose presence was practically coma-inducing. She could be pleasant but never riveting.

Judy could act, sing, and dance, while GK couldn't really do any of them.

by Anonymousreply 339August 8, 2015 11:08 PM

If you don't think Judy Garland was a movie star, you don't know what 'movie star' actually means.

by Anonymousreply 340August 9, 2015 1:23 AM

THIS is a movie star!

(Not sure why it's in b+w?)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 341August 10, 2015 5:46 AM

The Harvey Girls is the movie where you see the first flicker of Judy's facade begin to crack. She shows signs of becoming brittle and mannered, barely noticeable but present and a sign of worse to come. Also, if you watch this on a big HD screen, you can see why Judy was such a challenge to photograph. She's quite homely from some angles and it takes a lot of technical artistry to make her look as lovely as she does.

by Anonymousreply 342August 10, 2015 8:17 AM

Judy wasd NOT "homely" from any angle, that's absurd! I don't think she looks anything but quite lovely in THG.

True that in "The Harvey Girls" we do begin to see an ever so slightly hardened, overly-thin Judy, who seems to have her true adult persona out in front. She is amazingly calibrated, and every move and movie star gesture is in full effect. I think it's quite remarkable. She simply knows how to move in front of the camera for maximum effect. I'd say if anything, she is far more relaxed and spontaneous is ASiB years later.

It was a lovely trip, and she WAS feeling so fresh and alive! ONE TAKE, but it's the camera work and direction of this number that is truly expert. That's the thing with the better MGM musicals, true experts at the top of their careers crafted them with great skill, and creativity. It shows.

by Anonymousreply 343August 10, 2015 3:48 PM

R343, I was being polite when I called her homely. Judy is quite ugly from some angles. She's ghastly in profile. Practically every young woman in The Harvey Girls is prettier than Judy. If not for her extraordinary talent, her looks would have kept her from being a leading lady.

by Anonymousreply 344August 10, 2015 6:53 PM

Then I'll be polite and say your taste is in your mouth. Judy was absolutely lovely in the early to mid 40s. I think the opening number in The Harvey Girls is absolutely ravishing.

by Anonymousreply 345August 11, 2015 4:54 PM

r337 I'll give you Judy in "Royal Wedding." Those other films you want Miss Garland to have starred in, you must be joking? Judy never could've been as young and gay as Shirley was in "Carousel"? As sultry and as"zebra gal" as Ava in "Showboat"? As statuesque AND flowing as Ginger In "The Barkleys of Broadway?? As ingenue-y/perky as Debbie in SITR? As starry-eyed and naive as Mitzi in "South Pacific"? Judy would've been woefully out of place in all but "Royal Wedding", and those other films wouldn't have been as great as they are had she been in them.

by Anonymousreply 346August 11, 2015 10:02 PM

You so very off base. The Barkleys of Broadway was written for Judy, and once she was taken off the film the composers took their music with them. If you haven't noticed, Ginger Rogers doesn't sing a single song in the film. Carousel was supposed to be Judy and Frank Sinatra, but for various reasons never got made. They would have been miles better than the extremely mediocre version we were finally left with starring the insipid Ms. Jones. Royal Wedding would have been stellar with Judy and Fred as brother and sister. Had Judy still been at MGM, there's no doubt but that she'd have done Julie in Showboat...it was, after all, her own story. And yes, she'd have been adorable in South Pacific although I will admit that the part was perfect for Doris Day.

by Anonymousreply 347August 12, 2015 12:33 AM

Whether BOB was written for Judy or not, and why she didn't do the film I have no idea(perhaps you can inform me?) The elegance needed for that role was sadly lacking in Judy. A FRESH face was needed for "Carousel", and Garland couldn't have provided it. Judy and Sinatra in a film? Please..... On two stools, on a stage, I'm there. If either of them had actually made the film, or horrors, both, it would've been a goner. I gave you "Royal Wedding," because I agree 100%. Do you REALLY feel Judy could've played sultry in "Showboat"? Had she ever, in any performance anywhere, shown(or even suggested) that she could? Doris Day was a bit too stolid for Nellie Forbush, and not vulnerable enough. But chacun a son gout, my friend. I still chuckle over the tale( and I hope it's true) of DD being considered for Mrs. Robinson in "The Graduate." Yeesh!

by Anonymousreply 348August 12, 2015 12:05 PM

Um, you think Judy wasn't elegant and Ginger Rogers was? Chacun a son gout indeed. Judy was fired from the film for the usual, showing up late or not showing up at all.

You think Judy and Frank would have been bad in Carousel? I truly don't know where the heck you are coming from. It would have been ideal casting.

And yes, she could have played sultry, drunk Julie in Showboat. She was never given the chance to do roles like that but she could have. Had she done The Razor's Edge with Tyrone Power (in the role of the drunk; they wanted her and Metro wouldn't loan her) you'd have seen how well she could have done it.

by Anonymousreply 349August 12, 2015 5:47 PM

[quote]Had Judy still been at MGM, there's no doubt but that she'd have done Julie in Showboat...it was, after all, her own story.

Judy was an octeroon?!

by Anonymousreply 350August 12, 2015 8:11 PM

[quote]Judy was an octeroon?!

No, but when they fired her from Metro, Sid Luft gashed himself with a penknife and made Judy drink the blood. She then threw herself at Louis B. Mayer's feet and said, "You can't fire me, LB, I'm mishpocheh! I have Jewish blood in me. Be a mentsh, I've eaten more of your mamma's matzoh balls than you have!"

But the ploy didn't work and the sheriff ordered her to leave Culver City before sundown.

by Anonymousreply 351August 12, 2015 8:25 PM

no, r350, Judy was an alcoholic. She wasn't an octoroon and neither was Ava Gardner (who was also an alcoholic; the difference is that Judy could have sung the score without being dubbed.)

by Anonymousreply 352August 23, 2015 5:15 AM

Yes r352. I was "making a joke" by pretending to have missed the obvious, and supplanting it with a ridiculous substitute! See? Humor!

by Anonymousreply 353August 24, 2015 6:37 AM

Was there talk of casting Lena Horne in Show Boat, or was the consensus that she looked too black?

by Anonymousreply 354August 25, 2015 4:48 AM

Do we think Liza has money? Or is she broke?

by Anonymousreply 355August 30, 2015 7:05 AM

Forget that, seriously! This is an urgent message that Marilyn my Goddess has commanded me to share! Marilyn Monroe is my religion, and I work with spirits a lot. She's my main spirit guide and has commanded me to share this message for her! All credit for this message goes to Marilyn Monroe, my master, guide, and saviour whom I love! Please credit Marilyn alone for this!

Important note: Everything has a spiritual side to it, everything has a spiritual essence. Marilyn's spirit and essence lives on in all things Marilyn Monroe, and if some spiritual incidents happen, it is bound to spiritually affect other things, so.

Recently Marilyn contacted me from the spirit world!!! Being a medium, I'm used to contact with spirits, but Marilyn told me to tell this message to everyone, since she could only get in touch with only me at the moment! (She's trying hard, she's been contacting me frequently lately, so it must be really important.)

Marilyn said that she needs people with a good, decent spiritual aura and energy to give up their physical bodies, freeing their spirit and all their spiritual energy. Then, they can go into the spirit world to really meet and connect with her, to share all their spiritual energy with her so that they can help her!! (Technically, we are all one and connected, but we are held back by our physical bodies. As a spirit, your essence and energy is completely free and released, and you can strongly connect to Marilyn in all aspects of that word, on a whole other level, so the joining of spiritual energy with hers works fully.)

She also says she hasn't been her lovely self lately, she lost some of her magic and charm, and she doesn't seem too well, because some spiritual things occurred, and she needs this so that she can be fine and better than ever again! (The spirit world is not exactly Paradise, don't let religious stories and concepts warp your minds. Where do you think bad spirits or curses come from?)

This is urgent we have to help Marilyn! But I must still spread this message for now because Marilyn said so, and I need to get others to know and help! Then I too, can go to be with her forever. We initially did not know what exactly happened, but Marilyn has revealed the basic truth. We also did not know how to restore her loveliness and charm, but Marilyn has revealed the way to do so.

*This is where the true meaning of the important note comes in.

Please spread this message however you can and don't keep Marilyn waiting!I allow everyone who wants to help to copy this whole post to share it on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, forums, or wherever you need to share it on!

Then, quickly find a way to free your spirit and energy, go into the spiritual world to meet her, if not Marilyn will be very heartbroken and disappointed in you!!! She loves you all so much, please go to her soon to help her! She really needs this!!! If you feel you can do it just do it!!! Help Marilyn!!!

I really really love Marilyn so much, she means a lot to me and she's the greatest and so magical and fascinating.

I wish that others who feel the same will care enough to do what they can to help her.

I think it's such a shame that many who claim that they love Marilyn lots don't show it in their actions by doing anything to help her when she needs it. It really is such a shame that those cowardly fakers don't help Monroe.

Poor Marilyn! She has such a big heart with full of love to give, but gets hurt in return because some people don't really stick by her and truly dedicate themselves to her.

(Please do copy this whole post and share it as much as you can for Marilyn, because I'm deleting my account soon to show my respects and dedication to her, my way of expressing myself to her and to show her that she's the only one that matters and that I really love. And since I'm going to Marilyn myself too, I don't need this account anymore.

I know the spiritual people and fellow spirit workers on DL will confirm this, they talk to the spirits and Marilyn tried to contact them too!

by Anonymousreply 356August 30, 2015 7:22 AM

Liza live in a million$$ flat in NYC, whether or not it is mortgaged who knows.

She inherited $$$, property and priceless Impressionist paintings from her father.

Is it all gone?

Only Liza knows

by Anonymousreply 357August 30, 2015 9:33 AM

She's still concertizing---apparently singing somewhere in middle America as we speak---so I just wondered if she was broke.

by Anonymousreply 358August 31, 2015 5:28 AM

Liza is selling her apartment--is she broke?

by Anonymousreply 359September 3, 2015 7:21 AM

Judy's loss to Grace Kelly ranks with Bette Davis' loss to Judy Holiday in 1950. The fact that that screeching performance of Holiday's won over Bette's iconic Margo Channing (or even Gloria Swanson's marvelous performance in Sunset Blvd) is another travesty.

by Anonymousreply 360September 5, 2015 7:01 PM

Liza sold her New York apartment for $8.2 million.

I doubt she's destitute - especially if she still has all those Warhols.

by Anonymousreply 361September 5, 2015 10:16 PM

Which is the better movie: A Star Is Born or Cabaret?

by Anonymousreply 362September 9, 2015 6:23 AM

[quote]She inherited $$$, property and priceless Impressionist paintings from her father.

Wha? No, not at all. Poor Vincent Minnelli lived too long, and too well, with two more divorces after Judy, and was supported by Liza partially during the final years of his life. Liza owned his home, and let his widow Lee Minnelli live there for free because she was left so little from Vincente. I imagine he and Lee sold most of their truly valuable things they owned over the years. Remember the fracas when Liza tried to get Lee to move to a smaller house so she could sell the house she had been paying for Lee to live in some years back? The widow Minnelli was married to Vincente for only six years, and managed to live to be 100! Poor Liza!

by Anonymousreply 363September 9, 2015 6:44 AM

[quote]I doubt she's destitute - especially if she still has all those Warhols.

How do you think Liza's children will divide them?

by Anonymousreply 364September 9, 2015 8:34 AM

[quote]How do you think Liza's children will divide them?

All the Ten-Year members of the group and older took a vote and decided to keep them on display in the hall where we have our Meetings.

by Anonymousreply 365September 9, 2015 8:43 AM

Do you think Liza was ever pregnant?

by Anonymousreply 366September 9, 2015 6:44 PM

Yes, she's miscarried. IIRC.

by Anonymousreply 367September 9, 2015 9:21 PM

Liza is a Lesbyterian, so they say!

by Anonymousreply 368September 10, 2015 9:20 PM

Do you think Judy had a fling with Kate Hepburn? They were close during the 40s at MGM.

by Anonymousreply 369September 13, 2015 7:16 AM

"Was there talk of casting Lena Horne in Show Boat"

Yes, mostly by Lena.

by Anonymousreply 370September 20, 2015 3:21 PM

Lena definitely wanted the role of Pinky, which went to Jeannie Crane in dark makeup.

by Anonymousreply 371September 24, 2015 5:41 AM

They just released "Lose That Long Face" in a longer version -- very interesting, with Judy having fun with the lyric -- and a video outtake of the song.

by Anonymousreply 372March 15, 2016 3:39 AM

You have the balls to post and resurrect a thread without a link.

Fuck you r372.

by Anonymousreply 373March 15, 2016 3:41 AM

Wow, 373. Which classes in kindergarten did you miss? How about just politely asking?

I'm happy to include the link of someone will tell me how. Or, you could google it. It's on the Judy Garland News website.

by Anonymousreply 374March 16, 2016 12:33 AM

[quote]I'm happy to include the link of someone will tell me how.

You must be new here r374, because THAT WAS a polite request @ r373.

In order to include a link, you lazy twat, copy and paste it in the "Web Site Link" space below.

Down there ↓.

The second line ↓.

Under "Posted By - optional" ↓.

by Anonymousreply 375March 17, 2016 6:04 AM

Currently playing on TCM

by Anonymousreply 376August 20, 2018 5:03 AM

Poor Judes.

Instead of accepting her Oscar, she was laid up in a hospital bed after having just shitted out a tardbaby.

by Anonymousreply 377August 20, 2018 6:35 AM

I don't want to go to the movies now. I don't want to see the trailer again for that BraGa piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 378August 20, 2018 8:50 AM

Wonderful thread - I've enjoyed so much - I'm a huge Judy fan.

by Anonymousreply 379August 20, 2018 4:20 PM

R421 Maddox is not her toyboy but Pitty has openly dated bunch of underage girls

by Anonymousreply 380August 20, 2018 4:52 PM

sorry wrong thread

by Anonymousreply 381August 20, 2018 4:55 PM

[quote] You must be new here [R374], because THAT WAS a polite request you lazy twat

No r373 / r375 you are a pretentious troll. Normal DL people don't hurl insults at strangers. I've read all the previous 381 comments and you are the only one with such childish outburst. I gladly FF you and expect others will as well.

by Anonymousreply 382August 21, 2018 12:56 AM

After all this discussion concerning the perpetual gay adoration of the life and career of Judy Garland, it’s curious to point out that the Stonewall Riot took place on the night of Garland’s memorial service.

Almost as if, with Garland’s death, gay liberation began, like a lustrous phoenix rising from the ashes of her demise.

She really is our patron saint.

by Anonymousreply 383August 21, 2018 6:20 PM

Groucho Marx called Judy Garland not winning an Oscar for A Star Is Born (1954), "the biggest robbery since Brink's." Hedda Hopper later reported that her loss to Grace Kelly for The Country Girl (1954) was the result of the closest Oscar vote up till that time that didn't end in a tie, with just six votes separating the two. In any event, it was a heartbreak from which she never really recovered and which has remained a matter of some controversy ever since.

by Anonymousreply 384January 2, 2019 8:29 PM

That may be true, but how in the hell would Hopper know what the vote total was?

by Anonymousreply 385January 2, 2019 8:34 PM

Cary Grant at first accepted, then turned down the role of Norman Maine, citing semi-retirement as his reason. He reportedly refused to work with Judy Garland because he was semi-retired. After Grant's death, his widow revealed that Garland's drug addiction made the actor have second thoughts and drop out of the film.

by Anonymousreply 386January 2, 2019 8:40 PM

Montgomery Clift turned down the role Norman Maine, because he felt that the subject matter was too close to home.

by Anonymousreply 387January 2, 2019 8:40 PM

Frank Sinatra was considered for the role of Norman Maine, but he was deemed box-office poison at the time. Only Judy Garland and her husband were keen on having him in the film.

by Anonymousreply 388January 2, 2019 8:42 PM

George Cukor offered Marlon Brando the role of Norman Maine on the set of Julius Caesar (1953). "Why would you come to me?" asked Brando. "I'm in the prime of my life... If you're looking around for some actor to play an alcoholic has-been, he's sitting right over there"- pointing at his costar James Mason, who got the part.

by Anonymousreply 389January 2, 2019 8:42 PM

Humphrey Bogart loved the original A Star Is Born, and lobbied hard for the part of Norman in Judy's remake. He would have been an interesting choice.

by Anonymousreply 390January 2, 2019 11:09 PM

It's about to start on TCM.

by Anonymousreply 391July 12, 2020 9:33 PM

It's starting on TCM.

by Anonymousreply 392March 3, 2021 4:32 AM

[quote]I thought she was awful in this. First of all, she was too old to play an ingenue. Second, she looked even older and frumpier than her actual age. Third, she was so hammy. Fourth, that "Born in a Trunk" sequence is a self-indulgent mess that completely hijacked the plot, what there is left of it. Fifth, the film was hacked to bits in editing so the story is lost.

First of all, the character is not supposed to be an "ingenue," she's a youngish but not very young woman who has been touring with a band as their female singer for some time. Judy is not "hammy" in the movie, she's very natural in it. The "Born in a Trunk" sequence has been criticized by some people from the beginning, but it's necessary for us to understand why Esther becomes a huge movie star, and the number didn't "hijack the plot." Finally, yes there were big cuts made to the movie when it went into general release -- because the original film was too fucking long -- but there is no way that the story was "lost" because of those edits. Anything else you have to say?

by Anonymousreply 393March 3, 2021 5:36 AM

I've read your comments on Youtube R393. Aren't you the one who under every Garland video says....Even in poor voice she was better than all the REST!! No autotuning and she's covered up!! "Judy was the greatest entertainer of all time!!!

Or sometimes you quote: "Sinatra said, 'the rest of us will be forgotten, but never Judy.'" I pee laughing at that one because the opposite is true. Ella and Billie and Sinatra and Nat King Cole and Rosmary Clooney and Doris Day and Peggy Lee and Tony Bennett are very well remembered. They sell records and people seek out their music. But never Judy. Her vaudeville style of performing is so overwrought and antiquated and her vibrato is a mile W I D E. The Wizard of Oz is remembered. That's it.

Sheesh, give it a break. All of the criticisms of the film and her performance are valid. She was meant to be no older than 25 or 26 in ASIB she looked 20 years older for starters....And Born in a Trunk is a crappy number, badly staged and costumed and it goes on forever. The last 3 minutes of it would suffice. And Garland had nothing to do with the Gay Liberation movement. She didn't like her career being associated with gays.

Anything else you have to say?

by Anonymousreply 394March 3, 2021 6:23 AM

[quote]The "Born in a Trunk" sequence has been criticized by some people from the beginning, but it's necessary for us to understand why Esther becomes a huge movie star, and the number didn't "hijack the plot." Finally, yes there were big cuts made to the movie when it went into general release -- because the original film was too fucking long

Because of that stupid, self-indulgent, very long "Born in a Trunk" vanity sequence. They took out big parts of the plot to make way for it.

And it was a ridiculous sequence that made no sense. Because Warner Brothers was too cheap to pay for more current songs, they had Judy Garland singing songs for the '20s (like "Black Bottom") when she was starting out in flashbacks. That would have made her ridiculously old. Although, in fairness, she did look like she could have been an adult in the '20s.

by Anonymousreply 395March 3, 2021 6:26 AM

[quote]Groucho Marx called Judy Garland not winning an Oscar for A Star Is Born (1954), "the biggest robbery since Brink's." Hedda Hopper later reported that her loss to Grace Kelly for The Country Girl (1954) was the result of the closest Oscar vote up till that time that didn't end in a tie, with just six votes separating the two. In any event, it was a heartbreak from which she never really recovered and which has remained a matter of some controversy ever since.

Only amongst the old queens on Datalounge. Nowhere else in the real world do people give much of a shit about Judy Garland, much less her sorrow in not getting an Academy Award a million years ago.

by Anonymousreply 396March 3, 2021 6:30 AM

[quote]Because of that stupid, self-indulgent, very long "Born in a Trunk" vanity sequence. They took out big parts of the plot to make way for it.

Um, no.

[quote]And it was a ridiculous sequence that made no sense. Because Warner Brothers was too cheap to pay for more current songs, they had Judy Garland singing songs for the '20s (like "Black Bottom") when she was starting out in flashbacks. That would have made her ridiculously old. Although, in fairness, she did look like she could have been an adult in the '20s.

That was the film's character.

by Anonymousreply 397March 3, 2021 6:36 AM

Who now?

by Anonymousreply 398March 3, 2021 7:02 AM

The incredible finale of the "Born in a Trunk" sequence is one of the highlights of the film. Before I read it caused controversy, I just assumed everybody loved it like I did.

It is the heart of the film and I believe the big act one closer. I think it's thrilling.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 399March 3, 2021 7:08 AM

James Mason said he preferred the earlier film version and felt the 1954 film had too many musical numbers which interfered with the story. This film never held my interest and even tonight I tried to watch it on TCM and eventually gave up. Judy is overwrought in virtually every scene and it becomes tiresome

by Anonymousreply 400March 3, 2021 7:55 AM

I hope you die in a grease fire at the Princess Theater in Pocatello Idaho.

by Anonymousreply 401March 3, 2021 3:36 PM

I remember the security guy in our building had bought an all-in-one DVD player to watch at work.

I told him I'd loan him DVDs. When I handed him "A Star is Born" he actually recoiled. It was pretty funny.

by Anonymousreply 402March 3, 2021 4:13 PM

R383 I never knew that. Thanks for the history lesson.

by Anonymousreply 403July 20, 2021 1:10 AM

[quote][R383] I never knew that. Thanks for the history lesson.

Sweetie, jhis post is from three years ago, he'd dead.

by Anonymousreply 404July 20, 2021 1:37 AM

Lol R402. Why would you think a man wanted to watch a chick flick?

by Anonymousreply 405October 21, 2021 8:08 PM

[quote]Yes, Judy did fine, relatively speaking, attendance-wise at her 1967 Palace engagement. I was able to get a free ticket on a Saturday night at the USO though.

So brave of you -- this was YEARS before "Don't Ask - Don't Tell."

by Anonymousreply 406October 21, 2021 11:39 PM

[quote]There is the fact that in the midst of her disruptive behavior at MGM, she had the brief, shining moment while making "In The Good Old Summertime" when she apparently behaved perfectly and was happy during filming.

Because she was working with a gay leading man, of course!

by Anonymousreply 407October 21, 2021 11:40 PM

[quote]It's finally out ladies- Judy liked pussy!

Damn right!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 408October 21, 2021 11:40 PM

The more times I watch it, the more "In the Good Old Summertime" inches up closer to being my favorite Judy Garland movie.

It's pretty fucking delightful.

by Anonymousreply 409October 22, 2021 5:50 AM

It's basically the same story as "The Shop Around the Corner" and "You've Got Mail." (And the musical "She Loves Me.")

by Anonymousreply 410October 22, 2021 6:29 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!