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.

“A Star Is Born” (1954) on TCM at 8PM tonight

It’s starting right now!!! I can’t wait to watch!!!! I love this movie. Idk how anyone thinks the Babs or GaGa version are better.

Judy should have won that Oscar

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 68March 13, 2023 6:25 PM

[quote] Idk how anyone thinks the ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈ versions are better.

They're idiots, OP. Nothing beats the Cukor version.

by Anonymousreply 1June 25, 2022 12:05 AM

[quote] That

[quote] Who.

by Anonymousreply 2June 25, 2022 12:06 AM

OP all 3 are pretty much unwatchable and in the two more recent versions there really is no chemistry between the leads so you really don't care which probably makes the 1954 version the best of the three.

by Anonymousreply 3June 25, 2022 12:11 AM

What about my version?! I was the original after all.

by Anonymousreply 4June 25, 2022 12:12 AM

^ Janet, I saw it when it was last shown on tv fifty years ago. I remember nothing about it apart from your husband.

by Anonymousreply 5June 25, 2022 12:16 AM

Watching it now. I always get chills when she sings...The Man Who Got Away. She was robbed as far as an Oscar.

by Anonymousreply 6June 25, 2022 12:45 AM

This is the best version of the movie.

by Anonymousreply 7June 25, 2022 12:46 AM

I don't mind the current crop of hosts but I really miss Robert Osbourne.

by Anonymousreply 8June 25, 2022 1:28 AM

They should have just removed the entire "Born in a Trunk" sequence if they wanted a shorter movie, instead of cutting everything they did. That is the most boring part of the movie.

by Anonymousreply 9June 25, 2022 1:29 AM

Judy is wonderful in this film (despite her struggles off-screen) but James Mason really doesn't get enough credit. He's also fantastic.

by Anonymousreply 10June 25, 2022 1:33 AM

Judy's acting in this is way too hammy. Her singing is very grating after awhile, as her voice has little variation or nuance. It's like she's channeling Ether Merman when she sings. She just doesn't have Streisand's other-worldly vocal ability.

by Anonymousreply 11June 25, 2022 1:36 AM

This movie represents all of the reasons that Judy can sometimes grate on me. Had this been made at MGM, several years earlier, it would have been a masterpiece. There are moments of greatness, but Judy's hair looks as though she is channeling "Dyke". I know it was a popular style, but it does not flatter her, nor do the clothes.

She and Mason and Carson all have great scenes, but it goes on too long and the "Born in the Trunk" while showcasing her musicality, should have been shortened for more impact.

Sometimes she tries way too hard and at other moments she is mesmerizing but in the early scenes, I never believe her as an innocent because she seems as though she's seen more than anyone should see and that's not just because we all know what she had been through personally. I want it to be better much as I wanted Liza's "New York, New York" to soar.

by Anonymousreply 12June 25, 2022 2:36 AM

That movie was nasty

by Anonymousreply 13June 25, 2022 2:42 AM

[quote] That movie was nasty

Yes, R13, it taught me the best way to handle personal crises is to wear some square-cut shorts and walk into the surf and drown at Malibu Beach.

by Anonymousreply 14June 25, 2022 2:55 AM

ASiB 1954 is truly the purest Hollywood melodrama ever produced, it just happens to star Judy Garland, and be a wide screen musical!

As the second most expensive film after Gone With the Wind, it is classic Hollywood at its most over the top.

by Anonymousreply 15June 25, 2022 3:06 AM

I agree about James Mason R10.

by Anonymousreply 16June 25, 2022 1:06 PM

The cut footage (15 or so minutes, I think)...trying to fill them in with still shots, is the part I don't like about the movie.

by Anonymousreply 17June 25, 2022 1:08 PM

OP- The title of the movie should be-

A GAY ICON IS BORN

by Anonymousreply 18June 25, 2022 1:10 PM

She was already a Gay Icon, dear.

by Anonymousreply 19June 25, 2022 1:12 PM

Agree R9. The first part of it where she's trying to audition are fine, but all the rest, especially where she's dressed as a scarecrow, are awful.

by Anonymousreply 20June 25, 2022 1:18 PM

Angela Lansbury would have been a good casting choice if they didn't get Judy.

by Anonymousreply 21June 25, 2022 1:27 PM

"trying to fill them in with still shots, is the part I don't like about the movie."

It's still incredible to me that no one, in all these years, has been able to locate or restore the lost footage. How can that be? The full film played in theaters for a while before they decided to cut it and make it shorter!

I hope one day someone locates a full copy!

by Anonymousreply 22June 25, 2022 1:34 PM

Garland was way too old for the role. Her playing an ingenue when she looks even older than her actual age?

And hair and wardrobe did her no favors in trying to hide that fact.

by Anonymousreply 23June 25, 2022 1:36 PM

"an ingenue"

It's not an ingenue role, if I remember correctly.

by Anonymousreply 24June 25, 2022 1:43 PM

OP is a dolt for not preferring Janet Gaynor's version - or even knowing about it!

by Anonymousreply 25June 25, 2022 1:43 PM

R24 The very title suggests someone new to the business.

by Anonymousreply 26June 25, 2022 1:46 PM

R26 that doesn’t mean she’s an ingenue.

by Anonymousreply 27June 25, 2022 1:47 PM

There aren't many stories about women in their 60s breaking into show business as leading ladies.

by Anonymousreply 28June 25, 2022 1:59 PM

ingenue-an innocent or unsophisticated young woman

Garland's character is supposed to have been through the mill a bit when we first see her; She is not supposed to be new to the business, and she is no longer an ingenue.

by Anonymousreply 29June 25, 2022 2:08 PM

She is over the top in every scene, looks like she's about to scream, and makes me very uncomfortable. Just like Variety show.

by Anonymousreply 30June 25, 2022 2:12 PM

That relentless "Born in a Trunk" sequence that completely derails the story has to be one of the most self-indulgent things ever committed to film.

It's supposed to tell her story. But because they wanted to save money on licensing, they use a song/dance from the 1920s. The implication was that she was in her 50s during the movie if she was dancing the Black Bottom in the '20s.

by Anonymousreply 31June 25, 2022 4:08 PM

Uh, r31...Born in a Trunk doesn't doesn't tell Esther's story.

by Anonymousreply 32June 25, 2022 4:11 PM

Yes. Her “A Star Is Born” was a middle aged woman finally hitting it big after spending most of her life failing. That’s why it’s such a marvelous story, vs. a 20something making it big.

by Anonymousreply 33June 25, 2022 4:13 PM

This story is mawkish no matter who stars in it nor how it's updated.

I've seen better versions done in Bollywood, where the melodrama is a complement and not a detriment.

by Anonymousreply 34June 25, 2022 4:24 PM

Dame Angela would have won the Oscar

by Anonymousreply 35June 25, 2022 4:27 PM

Starting now on TCM.

by Anonymousreply 36March 11, 2023 8:48 PM

Grace Kelly would have been better as Esther.

by Anonymousreply 37March 11, 2023 9:17 PM

Lady Gaga would have been better as Esther!

by Anonymousreply 38March 11, 2023 9:19 PM

I am Mrs. Norman Maine.

by Anonymousreply 39March 11, 2023 9:30 PM

[quote] Judy's ... voice has little variation or nuance. It's like she's channeling Ether Merman ... She just doesn't have Streisand's other-worldly vocal ability.

George Cukor has Judy playing a character who was 'born in a trunk' on the raw, live theatre, vaudeville circuit.

Babs' 'other-worldliness' is manufactured in super-modern, hi-tech, recording studio with sophisticated and expensive dubbing and re-dubbing.

by Anonymousreply 40March 11, 2023 9:42 PM

Judy eschewed longer hair as being to girlish but it looked better on her . She had some beautiful years in the 1940s. She felt the dyke do was more sophisticated and pretty clung to it after 1950.

by Anonymousreply 41March 11, 2023 10:45 PM

Short hair was viewed as more sophisticated and mature at the time.

by Anonymousreply 42March 11, 2023 10:46 PM

Short hair in the 50s was a reaction to the glam long hair of the 40s.

by Anonymousreply 43March 11, 2023 11:05 PM

Back then it was common for women to cut their hair short once you hit a certain age. Look at the Golden Girls. Angela Lansbury etc. once you reached late 30s or 40s you went shorter. Long hair was viewed as girlish. Short hair more distinguished and mature.

by Anonymousreply 44March 11, 2023 11:12 PM

[quote] once you reached late 30s or 40s you went shorter.

That is standard practice for women.

As soon as they have wrinkles on their face they MUST cut their hair short OR it must be bound up with a neat clasp.

You cannot have wisps of hair on a wrinkled face!

by Anonymousreply 45March 11, 2023 11:18 PM

Some of the comments on this thread are some of the most maddening I think I've ever read on DL.

by Anonymousreply 46March 11, 2023 11:34 PM

[quote] Judy's acting in this is way too hammy. Her singing is very grating after awhile, as her voice has little variation or nuance. It's like she's channeling Ether Merman when she sings. She just doesn't have Streisand's other-worldly vocal ability.

Where will your jealousy lead you, Babs? Do shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 47March 11, 2023 11:38 PM

[quote] Some of the comments on this thread are some of the most maddening I think I've ever read on DL.

Which ones, and why?

by Anonymousreply 48March 11, 2023 11:39 PM

Oh, R46, can you make the effort to specify which ones in particular have made you mad?

by Anonymousreply 49March 11, 2023 11:39 PM

I’m a Judy aficionado. Love just about everything she did. This movie is a triumph, for sure. But holy FUCK, that Born In A Trunk number. Completely unnecessary and as long as SHOAH. That scene should have begun and ended with “Swanee.”

And it’s really such a rip-off “Broadway Rhythm” from “Singin’ In The Rain”.

Also, the song where she tries to cheer Norman up (“Somewhere There’s A Someone”) leaves me frustrated. The song is unnecessary and goes on too long. Just sing the Paris part if you have to.

There are parts of this movie (like the two I mentioned above) where it just feels really bloated. And I think it would have been very powerful to have a little less singing and more dramatic work. Particularly in quiet scenes with Norman.

Certainly, people going to a Judy movie were expecting her to sing. I get that. But these two numbers. Oooph.

That said, I REALLY like the “Lose That Long Face” sequence. Particularly the scene with Bickfofd where she’s drowning and begging him to give Norman a role. She’s in tatters and then called to belt with joy. It’s really something. That said, the song goes on too long and could/should have been shortened. But, SHIT, she’s good in it.

It’s a glorious mess of a film. I love it, flaws and all. But I usually get up to do laundry, make a cake, paint the bathroom, and play a few rounds of cards while “Born In A Trunk” comes on.

by Anonymousreply 50March 12, 2023 12:07 AM

I rank the 1954 version as second best. The best is the Janet Gaynor original which is not bloated with musical numbers like its remakes.

by Anonymousreply 51March 12, 2023 12:19 AM

R22 ,if I remember correctly, Jack Warner had all available film stock, including the deleted scenes of ASIB, melted down to retrieve the silver out of it so he could sell it, unless that story is BS. Given WB's recent stint of deliberately shelving completed projects just to claim the loss for cash and canceling popular series which could have had at least a couple seasons life left in them, I'm inclined to believe it. Like Disney, still using the same business practices as their founders.

by Anonymousreply 52March 12, 2023 12:34 AM

The 1954 version is waaaay too long. It's like they wanted to just film a bunch of Judy Garland musical numbers, but then figured they'd have to construct a movie around it.

by Anonymousreply 53March 12, 2023 12:37 AM

Judy's hair was by Sydney Guilaroff.

by Anonymousreply 54March 12, 2023 1:10 AM

R48 R49 Maddening doesn't mean it makes you mad (angry). It means it makes you crazy.

Things like referring to middle aged people having short hair (Judy was 32). Also her hair wasn't that short , or butch, it was pulled back in a twist at times and a ponytail in others. And saying her performance was "hammy". What are you watching? And people not understanding how much better the restoration is than the cut version was.

Born In A Trunk was filmed and inserted by Sid and Judy after Cukor had finished the film and was in India working on Bhowani Junction. They got Roger Edens to put it together and write special material (credited to Leonard Gershe, because Edens worked for MGM). They said they thought they needed something to show the audience why that film premiere made her a star. They didn't.

The funny thing was, the film that ran 3 hours, and that was cut by Warner to about 2 and 1/2 hours, contained that number, that was 15 minutes long. It's the first thing they should have cut! If they cut anything. It's probably the only real cut they needed to do. Although critics and audiences loved the 3 hour version, anyway.

Why the movie needed to be cut at all is the question. It had already come out and was doing huge business and got amazing reviews. "To get in one more showing a day" was the official reason. But not that long after this, Giant was released by Warners at well over 3 hours. Also by cutting it, business fell off, it wasn't as good, and they lost the chance to get nominated for Best Picture. Bosley Crowther in the NYT wrote an article (after his rave review) about how the cuts decimated it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 55March 12, 2023 1:10 AM

This married couple are having problems.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 56March 12, 2023 1:15 AM

The film opened in New York and LA, and was doing what Variety termed “boffola box-office”. Judy was back. Everyone loved her. This was her moment. Until disaster struck. Two hundred prints had already gone out nationwide, but the theatre owners clamoured for a shorter version they could screen four times a day rather than three. Warners caved in, and the marketing department – not Cukor – made the cuts, sending instructions to the distribution hubs about the scenes they had to scissor out from the actual prints.

“A Star is Shorn” reckoned the New York Times critic Bosley Crowther, and poor word of mouth subsequently killed the commercial prospects for the truncated 154-minute edit. It was later nominated for six Academy Awards and won precisely none, Garland losing out to Grace Kelly in The Country Girl – a shocking decision facilitated in part by Warners’ lack of campaign support.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 57March 12, 2023 1:22 AM

Bosley Crowther's original review:

You have to remember that before the restoration in the 80s we had never seen Here's What I'm Here For (the number on the recording stage) or most of Lose That Long Face. We'd never seen a lot of the first third of the movie, either. It's still not complete but it's better than nothing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 58March 12, 2023 1:28 AM

Judy was so freaking skinny, she looked scary.

by Anonymousreply 59March 12, 2023 2:36 AM

R58 The usually-acerbic has nothing negative to say about this Cukor classic.

by Anonymousreply 60March 12, 2023 2:45 AM

I love the "Born in a Trunk" sequence.

It absolutely DOES show the audience why Esther is a star, and the closing of Judy sitting on the stage belting the last line is thrilling.

by Anonymousreply 61March 12, 2023 4:13 AM

The film would have been better served with the Born in a Trunk with Swanee and Leave out that endless vignette

by Anonymousreply 62March 13, 2023 12:58 AM

What is the Cukor quote about how no ass can take sitting in a seat for 3 hours?

by Anonymousreply 63March 13, 2023 1:00 AM

I love Judy but James Mason is brilliant and, for me, gives the film heart. Judy is a tad too overwrought but amazing in the musical numbers.

by Anonymousreply 64March 13, 2023 2:38 AM

Mason was really excellent and had 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea released the same year which was a smash hit.

Probably the best moment of his career.

by Anonymousreply 65March 13, 2023 2:45 AM

I love the "Born In A Trunk" sequence, because it shows why Esther becomes a star. In the original version, I haven't the slightest clue as to why there's all the fuss about mousy Janet Gaynor.

James Mason is wonderful as Norman, and gets some great scenes , especially the wordless scene where he wakes up to hear Esther and Niles talking about him. He grabs you without saying a thing. I do wonder what original choice Cary Grant would have done with the role.

Didn't Tommy Noonan (Danny) later star in a sex comedy with Jayne Mansfield?

by Anonymousreply 66March 13, 2023 3:44 AM

In the early days Tommy Noonan was the comedy partner of (later game show host) Peter Marshall. I was surprised to learn that. Noonan was the brother of John Ireland, who married Joanne Dru (who was the sister of Peter Marshall).

I don't think the Born In A Trunk sequence is necessary to show why she's a star. For one thing, Esther has already performed The Man That Got Away. That not only proves to Norman that she has that "little something extra" but also proves it to the audience watching A Star Is Born that Esther has what it takes.

As for Gaynor, well, she WAS a star, so why would the audience have trouble believing her character (who possesses all the same attributes) could become a star? Same with Judy, actually.

by Anonymousreply 67March 13, 2023 5:09 PM

Janet Gaynor is wonderful in the film, she has all the attributes of an ingenue, but has a very distinct edge to her. SHe's tough behind all that. And she's funny in it as well.

by Anonymousreply 68March 13, 2023 6:25 PM
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!