A Star Is Born 1937/1954

[moviemagz]

I wonder if one of the weaknesses of the 1st two A Star Is Born films is the downfall of Norman Main. It wasn't as if Norma was broke when his career finished, he could have sat back and enjoyed his wife's success. in the scene when he was called Mr. Lester, was it really such a big deal. (though the movie going public seemed to forget about him pretty quickly)

The whole concept though is that "Norman Maine" the great star has been eclipsed by his wife and become essentially "Mr. Vicki Lester" and there have always been men who have been threatened by their wives' success - especially in those more conservative eras.

[moviemagz]

I far prefer the 1937 original - the remake is essentially "The Judy Garland Show", you have to really be into her to love it whereas the original is a more collabarative effort with better roles for the supporting cast, a more opened up story, etc. I also think Gaynor and March are better actors and have a more potent and romantic chemistry than Garland and Mason, and even though both Gaynor and Garland were both around 31-32 when they filmed the movies, Gaynor seems far fresher and more igenue-ish making her a more credible starlet turned superstar while Garland shows a little more wear. Also love the original for showing us "Hollywood 1937" in all it's glory.

[Lzcutter]

CCF,

The 1954 version began, if I remember the story correctly, as a vehicle for Judy. Her then-husband, Sid Luft, is one of the producers. It was developed by Luft as a comeback vehicle for Judy and, by most accounts, they poured their hearts into it.

I also thought of Mason's Norman Maine (the true heartbreaking role in the film) as someone like Errol Flynn who had come to Hollywood but was on the very edge of out-living his stardom.

The original version ran 181 minutes which meant that theater owners had to forfeit a screening or two a day during the day. The original version opened to good reviews but theater owners besieged Jack Warner to cut the film so that they could run more screenings on a daily basis.

Warner caved and the film was recut. When that happened, it was James Mason who suffered most of all. The majority of the scenes that go to the heart of Norman Maine (and show him in both in a favorable light and his descent into depression) were cut so that audiences were left more with a shell of a performance.

I think Mason was likely was nominated for Best Actor by Academy members who had seen the long version but lost because the majority of the Academy membership saw the truncated version. The restored version not only puts the spotlight back on Mason's character but makes Judy's announcement at the end "This is Mrs. Norman Maine." much more poignant.

It remains on of Judy's most triumphant film roles, for many, second only to "The Wizard of Oz"

Cukor could not bring himself to watch the truncated version.

In the early 1980s, the Academy and Ron Haver (head of the film department at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art) approached George Cukor about restoring the film. He agreed to help them reconstruct it if they could find the missing elements.

Haver spent months at Warner Brothers combing the vaults for the missing footage. The sound elements were found in mislabeled cans but most of the picture elements had been destroyed years ago. He also discovered alternate takes of a musical number that had been cut and one that had been severely edited.

However, Haver discovered a treasure trove of production and continuity stills that had survived. He pioneered the then-novel idea of using stills (synced to the surviving soundtracks) to cover missing picture.

By most accounts, it was a labor of love for George Cukor and he was involved in helping to fill in the missing pieces.

The night before he was to see the restored version, George Cukor passed away.

The film premiered a short time after that and was dedicated to George Cukor. I was in the audience the night it premiered in Los Angeles and it was a memorable screening.

Had it not been for Ron Haver, a terrific guy and a dedicated film buff, I don't know that we would have the restored version of the film.

For more info on the film, the restoration and Haver's book about the treasure hunt to restore the film:

http://www.thejudyroom.com/asib/restoration.html

To buy the book:
http://tinyurl.com/4bcuxc

[charliechaplinfan]

I watched the 1937 version again tonight. I was curious to go back to it after watching quite a few Fredric March movies, I reread my comments from 2 years ago. I haven't chanfed my opinion very much, I still think the 1954 version is superior.

Watching the 1937 version again, I was struck by a few things, some of the scenes particularly at the beginning were very dark, I don't know if this is because they were experimenting with colour and the darkness was just a side effect in some scenes. I like the shots of Hollywood at the beginning, I'm glad they've added that bit in.

I think Janet Gaynor a little miscast in the role, a little too old, I think this is because I've seen her in the wonderful silents she made with Charles Farrell, when she was so sweet and young. Perhaps for the 1937 audience she was still a breathe of fresh air.

I like the scene when she goes to the casting agency, the signs that say how many people are on their books and the switchboard operators. It's as if Hollywood is giving a warning to all the girls who are thinking or travelling to Hollywood. The scene in the kitchen between Norman and Esther is so sweet, stacking plates. I'd mentioned on the Garbo thread how I felt that Maine might be based partly on John Gilbert, I see this more when I watch Fredric March in the role.

Both men give such strong performances as Norman Maine, with Fredric March's Maine I see more of the John Gilbert matinee idol, with James Mason, I'm unsure, I don't see him as a traditional matinee idol, more a theatre actor with a melifluous voice. Both performances are distinctive and both men could have been Oscar contenders. There's more romance in the Gaynor/March version.

All in all they are both good movies, it depends whether you're in the mood for Gaynor/March or Garland/Mason.

[charliechaplinfan]

CCF,

The 1954 version began, if I remember the story correctly, as a vehicle for Judy. Her then-husband, Sid Luft, is one of the producers. It was developed by Luft as a comeback vehicle for Judy and, by most accounts, they poured their hearts into it.

I also thought of Mason's Norman Maine (the true heartbreaking role in the film) as someone like Errol Flynn who had come to Hollywood but was on the very edge of out-living his stardom.

The original version ran 181 minutes which meant that theater owners had to forfeit a screening or two a day during the day. The original version opened to good reviews but theater owners besieged Jack Warner to cut the film so that they could run more screenings on a daily basis.

Warner caved and the film was recut. When that happened, it was James Mason who suffered most of all. The majority of the scenes that go to the heart of Norman Maine (and show him in both in a favorable light and his descent into depression) were cut so that audiences were left more with a shell of a performance.

I think Mason was likely was nominated for Best Actor by Academy members who had seen the long version but lost because the majority of the Academy membership saw the truncated version. The restored version not only puts the spotlight back on Mason's character but makes Judy's announcement at the end "This is Mrs. Norman Maine." much more poignant.

It remains on of Judy's most triumphant film roles, for many, second only to "The Wizard of Oz"

Cukor could not bring himself to watch the truncated version.

In the early 1980s, the Academy and Ron Haver (head of the film department at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art) approached George Cukor about restoring the film. He agreed to help them reconstruct it if they could find the missing elements.

Haver spent months at Warner Brothers combing the vaults for the missing footage. The sound elements were found in mislabeled cans but most of the picture elements had been destroyed years ago. He also discovered alternate takes of a musical number that had been cut and one that had been severely edited.

However, Haver discovered a treasure trove of production and continuity stills that had survived. He pioneered the then-novel idea of using stills (synced to the surviving soundtracks) to cover missing picture.

By most accounts, it was a labor of love for George Cukor and he was involved in helping to fill in the missing pieces.

The night before he was to see the restored version, George Cukor passed away.

The film premiered a short time after that and was dedicated to George Cukor. I was in the audience the night it premiered in Los Angeles and it was a memorable screening.

Had it not been for Ron Haver, a terrific guy and a dedicated film buff, I don't know that we would have the restored version of the film.

For more info on the film, the restoration and Haver's book about the treasure hunt to restore the film:

http://www.thejudyroom.com/asib/restoration.html

To buy the book:
http://tinyurl.com/4bcuxc

I've recently read a biography of George Cukor which goes into some of these details. It was developed as a film for Judy Garland and is, as moviemagz has said, a Judy Garland show, she is wonderful in it and it always was intended as her film. George Cukor was desperate to get Cary Grant, so desperate that he pursued the actor persuading him to do a read through with Cukor, Cukor getting more excited because cary was great, the greatest thing that Cary had ever done but at the end of the run through, cary admitted that the part was perfect for him and that is why he would never play Norman Maine. Cukor thought he was too afraid of playing someone who might be too close to home for Cary to contemplate playing him. Another theory might be that he realised it was Judy's movie, another thing I'd read is that he just didn't want to work with Judy who could be a nightmare. James Mason took over the role after it had been offered around Hollywood, he wasn't Cukor's choice but he handled it well. In Mason's biography by his sister in law, Mason didn't care for the film, feeling that the story was Norman's, his descent into despair but the story was about Vicki, from what you've said about how his role got editted, it's no ownder he felt that way. I think Norman Maine was a John Gilbert/Errol Flynn type who didn't rate the work of actors as a proper job but when I watch Mason I can't get away from the actor rather than movie star persona he brings to the role, I think Fredric March played it more as a matinee idol who had got rich in the first flush of Hollywood.

Very enjoyable movie whichever version you chose.

[CineMaven]

HANG ON TO YOUR HATS, KIDDIES! A friend of mine just told me that "A STAR IS BORN" is being re-made once again. This latest version will star Leo DiCaprio, Beyonce and will be directed by Clint Eastwood.

I'm intrigued.

[JackFavell]

Hey, it's worked every time it's come to the screen, why not another?

"Do you mind if I take just one more look?"

[CineMaven]

I'm willing to give it a chance, if this news is really truly firmly true. Beyonce won't be over-the-top b'cuz Clint won't let her. I'm just curious what role Leo will play. This is the sort of thing that would have been handed to Whitney Houston on a silver platter, had she not destroyed her career by being a drug addict.

Well, let's wait and see what Clint will do. I trust him.

(DAY TWO with NO t.v. If I come out of this alive, I'm going to ask my father to switch cable providers. This is torturous!)

[JackFavell]

You poor thing!

I might go see it, just to see what it's like, but I am still firmly invested in the thirties and fifties versions.

Here is something to watch, another video to get you through this TV crisis (check out how smooth and classy Dino is):

[youtube][/youtube]

[charliechaplinfan]

I haven't given Barbra's version a chance yet. Will Beyonce play an actress or singer I wonder? Not that I'm going be watching it, I'm too entrenched with the 37 and 54 versions too.

[charliechaplinfan]

I do know what you mean about Leonardo Di Caprio, I wonder if it has hampered his film career, he's not a bad actor. He could be interesting casting. I don't watch many modern movies because for years I felt they are mostly lacking in the script department, at least ASIB is a good solid story with meaty parts for both leads and Clint Eastwood is one of the most resepcted of todays directors. Good luck to them, I won't watch it but I do hope it does good business.

[JackFavell]

DiCaprio does not really interest me at all, I think because of that 40 year old teen thing you wrote so perfectly about, kingrat. He has been in some good movies, but I can't say he really is a draw for me.

I think Mark Walberg and Matt Damon could be brothers for what it's worth....

What happened to grown up men in movies?

[CineMaven]

Well, we'll always have Rudy.

Oh...he's been gone for sixty-five years.

Nope, no more grown men for us.

[charliechaplinfan]

It's such a shame. Where are the men with the appeal of Gable and countless other testosterone filled stars? I'm sure they didn't stop being made but where are they?