A Star Is Born 1937/1954

User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

A Star Is Born 1937/1954

Post by charliechaplinfan »

For years I've been a big fan of A Star Is Born 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason. I've long gone on about how Judy deserved the Oscar for her performance as Vicki Lester. I'm usually a fan of the original movies and never the remake. However I thought this must be one of the exceptions to the rule, that the remake was better than the original.

What could beat Judy Garland at her best, looking like she was really enjoying a movie role that was made for her with James Mason wonderful as the alcoholic Norman Maine.

Curiosity got the better of me, so I watched the 1937 version with Janet Gaynor and Frederick March. Now I'm torn.

Although Judy gives a bravura performance, Janet brings such sweetness, the talkie version of her silent screen self, she shows such metal too. Judy is sweet but with a higher volume. It is harder to see why the public would take Janet to their hearts as she has the quieter personality but she is a change from the normal type this is the stated reason, Judy springs out of the screen making her acceptance as a star more obvious.

Frederick March and James Mason are two wonderful actors. It's hard for me to believe at first sight that Frederick March is washed up, even though he acts it, he's young, attractive and charismatic but plays a good drunk. James Mason is just that bit older to make it more believeable. Both are good in the role. I think it must have been difficult for James Mason to make his mark in the role, Judy had her singing to distinguish her, James Mason had to be content with his lines but he managed, his Norman is different enough from the original.

The films are bascially the same apart from how Norman and Vicki meet up. In both films I love the look of Hollywood behind the scenes. the original does this a little better, I got more of a feel for the screen test and the Hollywood procedure. Both films are a little painful to watch in parts. I was hoping that the 1937 film didn't end up the same way, even though it would make for a worse film, I love happy endings.

One scene that really struck me in the 1937 version was the honeymoon in the caravan. How dangerous is it to be frying food in a caravan that is being towed along a country road? That's said everything about the honeymoon was incredibly sweet, it made them very human, it's just the Hollywood process around them that is false.

Both films have drunken men driving cars, just shows how times have changed.

Does anyone know who's house that was that Janet and Frederick go to live in? It's stunning, that's the kind of house I would like when my lottery numbers come up :wink:

Lastly, I believe this film was remade again with Barbra Streisand, I'm not a fan so my curiosity won't kill me with this one but how do they transpose the romantic kid come to Hollywood story to the 1970's?
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4200
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

Charlie:

Your curiosity is safe, just leave it where it is right now. the 1970 Song is Born teams Streisand with Cris Cristopherson, a charming match!!! Yes, it is modernized to the 70's but done in the music world rather than Hollywood. Enjoy your contest between Janet and Judy and let Barbara stick with her drunken, druggy Cris - You haven't missed a thing :lol: :wink:

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2493
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Dewey1960 »

Hey CCF - Just thought I'd toss my two cents in. The 1954 Garland version, in my view, is miles and miles beyond the 1937 film. Visually superior and, almost as important, emotionally more satisfying. The Streisand version is a wash-out on virtually every level.
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

One thing I forgot to mention about the 1937 version is how lovely the colour photography is.

One of the biggest differences for me in the portrayals of Norman Maine is that to me, they both come from different places. I suspect James Mason is portraying a small town American who found fame as the film star Norman Maine but my head tells me, because of what I hear, Norman is English and has perhaps started in the theatre but moved into the world of movies, the easier option to him and perhaps it's part of his self hatred.

Frederick March's Norman grew up in America, probably with a background similar to Esther's and has felt himself incredibly lucky to have found his matinee idol stardom and riches compared to the lot in life that his class mates have.

Judy's Vicki has been around the nightclub circuit and is a little more jaded and world weary than Janet Gaynor's Vicki who is a sweet little farm girl who believes that her determination and hardwork will make her way in Hollywood.

I agree that Judy's Swanee is the definitive version of this song, she sings it so well. I love her singing The Man Who Got Away. I have a CD with these songs on along with the songs from Meet Me In St Louis, her voice had changed in those ten years.

She still deserved the Oscar :wink:
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
Ann Harding
Posts: 1246
Joined: January 11th, 2008, 11:03 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Post by Ann Harding »

It's a bit difficult for me to discuss the 37 version as I saw it only once many years ago. I remember enjoying it though.
But the 1954 version is really something special. The film is certainly a bit too long and overblown in a way. Cukor saw his film disfigured when they wanted to reduce its length to get an extra showing/day... The long 'ballet' sequence was shot by another director. The sequence at the beginning establishing the relationship between Judy & James have been cut out. It's a shame. As for the songs, the one that I find absolutely overwhelming is 'The Man That Got Away'. When I discovered the film 20 years ago, I used to watch and listen to that song constantly. It has such mood and dispair... If you love that film, you should read Ronald Haver's book about the shooting and restoration of the film. It's very very interesting. 8)
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Judy is a fabulous performer, for me this is her best role.

It is long, I don't find it overlong because I enjoy it so much. It must be a treat to see it on the big screen.

BTW Lionel Stander played Matt Libby the studio fixer wasn't he Max from Hart to Hart?
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
stuart.uk
Posts: 1805
Joined: January 21st, 2008, 12:25 pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Post by stuart.uk »

I think i'm nearly alone here, but I actually like Streisand's A Star Is Born. Though I clearly think Garland's is a far better film, I think the end of the Striesand's film is the stronger of the two when she sings With One More Look At You/Are You Watching Me Now to close the film. I think had Elvis Presley accepted the role of the male lead, then we might have had a classic on our hands, as he would have been believeable as a one-time all time great entertainer

Judy however, is brillaint when she sings The Man That Got Away, convincing the sober James Mason she's something special. It's IMO one of the great musical numbers ever put on film
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Barbra and Elvis that would be some combination.

I'd read that Cary Grant was offered the role of Norman Maine in the 1954 version. There are different reasons cited as why he didn't accept, one he didn't want to work with Judy who wasn't the most reliable actress for time keeping and professionalism or that he didn't want to portray a has been. I think it's more likely to be the latter as he'd worked quite happily with Marilyn Monroe a year earlier.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4200
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

Marilyn wasn't a big star yet so I doubt if that was the problem, and Ginger Rogers was Cary's co-star anyway. Judy had already, for years, been known to be consistently late and temperamental. Since Cary, in all the years he was a huge star never got over his fear of losing it all overnight, was most likely afraid to tackle someone like MM. Up to 1952 MM was still bit-playing the 'girlfriend' of some rich guy, and it wasn't until 1953 she finally got to play opposite Jane Russell in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, who probably recommended her for the lead opposite Bob Mitchum in River of No Return, knowing he could care less if she screwed around, it gave him more time to go fishing.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
stuart.uk
Posts: 1805
Joined: January 21st, 2008, 12:25 pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Post by stuart.uk »

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)
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

Hmm, his slide from grace did happen really quickly once he'd started to slide. He didn't want or care for it when he had it but when it had gone he missed it.

To me his despair was that he couldn't beat his alcohol addiction, not for the loss of his career. He'd tried, he thought it was better for Vicki if he wasn't there.

That's my take on it, for what it's worth :wink:
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

I haven't been watching it but one of our local PBS stations is showing the 1954 version tonight. Came in about 50 minutes and it must be some kind of restored version as there is group of stills with some dialog running underneath and in some cases with the stills. Unsure if this is the only time it happens. Very much like what was done with the 1937 "Lost Horizon."

Anybody else know anything about it?
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
charliechaplinfan
Posts: 9040
Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am

Post by charliechaplinfan »

I have this very version. The 1954 version is long and was edited before it was released. I presume the edited footage was destroyed but the recording of the voices remain, they used stills from the original scenes. It does put a bit more meat on the bones of Norman and Vicki's relationship. There has been a book published about the restoration of the film.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Post Reply