Eighteen months ago, the collective got its knickers in a twist about a remake that was announced. Word was that Clint Eastwood wanted to direct Beyonce in a new version of A STAR IS BORN. “Sacrilege!” they cried, “Scandal!” they hollered. “How could he think of doing this to a classic?” they begged.

I have a thought or two on the matter, but let me discuss the action before getting to the reaction.

1954’s A STAR IS BORN begins by taking a grotesque moment and turning it into a moment of grace. When a former headliner named Norman Maine (James Mason) arrives at a star-studded function, he drunkenly makes his way to the stage even though he is in no shape to perform. Without missing a beat, the chanteuse in the act on stage makes like he’s part of the act and spares him most embarrassment. The singer who saved Maine’s bacon is named Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), and as he realizes what she has just done for him, he reaches out to her in gratitude.

The two performers find themselves intrigued by one-another, and soon Maine – determined to make her a star – has taken Blodgett under his wing. Sure enough, a star is what she becomes, complete with a new name: Vicki Lester. However, as Lester’s star begins to rise, Maine’s continues to crash to earth. Their love eventually brings them together in marriage, but the coupling of a rising talent and a falling one is a tragedy waiting to happen.

Interestingly, what made me most smitten with A STAR IS BORN was an afterthought. When the film was first released, a lot of scenes – including entire songs – were cut from the film. This was a studio decision, and a bad one to boot. Much of the footage that was cut was lost, so when the scenes were reconstructed for a 1983 restoration, the missing moments were shown as a photo essay.

You’d think that such a change of tack would seem jarring, but for me it played wonderfully. It comes at a moment in Vicki’s career where she’s midair jumping from one stone to the next. She’s not at the top of her level like she was when Maine met her, nor is she making her bones in the big time. She’s doing what she can to stay afloat, working odd jobs and keeping a low profile. In essence, these are scrapbook moments from the days in between (or a 16mm film for one charming moment), and they are unlike anything I’ve seen in a musical from Hollywood’s golden era.

Another element of the musical that I like is its weight. Many of the classic musicals are bright and shiny, underscored all the more by the plucky and romantic songs within their score. While A STAR IS BORN is no stranger to a show-stopping number, much of the film spends time in murky, uncertain waters…whether they are Esther timidly trying to break in, or Maine struggling valiantly to clean up. It could have been very easy for the film to follow the scene/scene/song rhythm of a film like MY FAIR LADY. However, in stretching things out, and grounding the musical numbers as productions within the production, the story is able to keep us grounded.

Elements like that are what make me see A STAR IS BORN as something rather special. many of the musical numbers aren’t interested in being catchy so much as they want to be grand. In fact the whole  film plays very grand in its melodrama, its design, and even in its photography. Look at how long and narrow the still images in this post are – that’s the wide CinemaScope framing in action, working to provide as broad a canvas as possible for both the subtle and the spectacle to play out.

While I’d never count myself a Garland aficionado, I have to hand it to the woman in this film. She owns it. Actually, she owns it. Fans of the film will often sing the praises of scenes from “Born In a Trunk” like “Swanee”, but the moment that resonates most for me is her performance of “The Man That Got Away“.

She starts it out so unassumingly…as if it’s a song she used to know, or is still just learning. With the band casually following, playing to an audience of none (well, one, but she doesn’t know that) she starts to sing those long, warm notes so. fucking. effortlessly. Soon, what first appeared to be a rehearsal becomes a virtuoso performance – and one that the singer barely breaks a sweat to pull off.

What I especially love about this is that it’s the now-familiar moment in the now-familiar-story when a hidden talent is discovered. What usually drives me nuts about that moment in films is the way it never seems very truthful. We watch as someone in position to push a talent to the next level flips over a performance and think to ourselves “Really?”. Here though, having this be the moment that Maine is sold on Esther’s talent seems…earned.

So with all of that in mind, what to make of Eastwood’s plan to remake it all? For starters, as much as I loved it, I don’t think it’s fair to see this film as the holy relic many would consider it. For starters, this version is itself a remake of the 1937 film of the same name starring Janet Gaynor and Fredric March. What’s more, the 1954 version was later remade in 1976 with Barbara Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. So considering that Hollywood chose to retell the tale twice already, what’s the harm in  a third time?

All I hope is this: That moment that our heroine’s die seems cast…that kick-ass song…that has to be an electric moment. Whichever star, male or female, that Hollywood decides to drop into the story this time, they better be damned sure that they have the talent to do Ms. Garland proud.

I intend to post my entries on the final Tuesday of every month. If you are participating, drop me an email (ryanatthematineedotca) when your post is up and I’ll make sure to link to your entry.

Here’s the round-up for May (so far)…

Allison watched NIL BY MOUTH

James McNally watched L’ATALANTE

Dave Voigt watched THE CARDINAL

New contributor Kirk Haviland watched THE DEER HUNTER

Sean Kelly watched BAD BOYS

Courtney Small watched DOUBLE INDEMNITY

Jake Cole watched IRMA VEP

Max Covill watched BRIEF ENCOUNTER

Bob “I’m Still a Rare & Precious Snowflake” Turnbull watched NANOOK OF THE NORTH and PATHER PANCHALI

Steve Honeywell watched FROM HERE TO ETERNITY

Dan Heaton watched WILD STRAWBERRIES

19 Replies to “Blindsided by A STAR IS BORN (1954)”

  1. You know, I caught this movie a few months back on Turner Classic Movies called “What Price Hollywood?” from 1932 and realized that “A Star Is Born” – which came out 4 years later – basically ripped its idea off from this movie. And it was directed by George Cukor, of all people, who directed the 1954 version of “A Star Is Born.” The point being that the original “A Star Is Born” wasn’t even necessarily original.

    So if Eastwood wants to remake it, I say go ahead. Though as you astutely point out that modern day star has to match Judy and that ain’t easy.

  2. I haven’t seen this one yet, but I’ve watched the 1932 version with Janet Gaynor, and that film is quite the treat. I’m certainly going to check this one out at some point. I’ll be interested to see how the two films differ.

    2. He has Notorious in his top 10 because he’s already seen it!

      And I have no idea how I swung that nomination. Plenty of people have seen and written about way more classics than me.

  3. I think the anger against the proposed four-make also has roots to how critically mixed Babs’ version is. Both Eastwood and Beyonce, have this reputation for reaching for Oscar-bait. And that a contemporary retelling would vulgarize the subject matter even though yes, this shows how era-ist I am and that there’s so much alcoholism and sexism within the Cukor version anyway. Those are just my anxieties about the idea although I’m not vehemently opposed to it.

    And speaking of Babs, the backlash against Beyonce won’t be as big as how much gay men are going to shit bricks if Lauren Ambrose’s proposed and klezmerized version of Funny Girl hits Broadway. That despite the real Fanny Brice was more klezmer than Babs.

    3. I’m not all that well-versed with Streisand, so I hope you can pardon me skipping past your points about her.

      As I mentioned at the bar last night, it all comes down to raw talent – of which I don’t think Beyonce has enough of vocally. BUT, we also need to take things with a grain of salt since every other week it feels like Hollywood is announcing a remake, and only a sliver of them ever get made.

      Do you recall four years ago when the story dropped that BONNIE & CLYDE was getting remade starring Hilary Duff? What’s happened with that project?

    4. Oh Beyonce has talent, her voice just isn’t operatic or cinematic or whatever word it is that describes what she has or doesn’t.

      Also, I love how people kept thinking that Bonnie Parker and Faye Dunaway are the same person, even though Dunaway is more talented than Hilary Duff. Duff did some photography for the project. But the she got pregnant and the producers wanted another cast.

  4. Wise Nick beat me to it, because I was just about to mention how the ever reverberating ball of A STAR IS BORN is borne out of one of the oldest tricks in the artistic books, young ingenue rises and old cynic descends and in that very way it’s almost always about how than what. I think someone had commented that it’s the type of film with a universal theme that should have a “version” for each generation, and in a way I get that. I do think that Eastwood isn’t someone I’d trust with this precise story, but I’m open.

    And Judy is delightful here, but I think the unsung hero of the film is Cukor, one of those great directors who never gets remembered as being great (only for his proclivity for “women’s pictures”, which I sort of throw my hands up at). He makes the film work even when it’s dangerously close to note working.

    1. Cukor’s direction is killer in this film, and you’re right – I didn’t bring that up nearly enough. Everything is so well-staged and so well photographed, and through it all there’s a real grounded feeling.

  5. This is a film I didn’t expect to like, but did. A great deal of that is that I’m a sucker for James Mason. A bigger part of that is that musicals tend to be music first, story second. This film is the reverse–it’s a real story that just happens to have a few musical numbers in it. The numbers are important, but the film stands on its own without them, which is an impressive feat.

    That, and having Judy Garland’s angelic voice never hurt any film.

    1. Funny thing is that beyond THE WIZARD OF OZ, I never really counted myself as a Judy Garland fan. One of those old-school divas I just didn’t completely understand the fuss over (Streisand, same thing). But watching a film like this where I see her in her prime, I get it more…it’s like watching ESPN Classic and seeing Ali fighting Frazier.

      And like you say, the way the music compliments the story rather than driving it is stellar – I wish more musicals would follow that formula.

  6. I agree with sjhoneywell. I loved the 1936 version and didn’t think I could like this one, but I did. I have avoided the Barbra Streisand version. Should I give it a chance, too?

    1. Hey Joe – Welcome to The Matinee!

      I couldn’t tell you how good or how bad the Streisand version is, but if I were a betting man, I’d wager that it’s the least interesting of the three. Stick with the first two.

      Speaking of which, I’ve had the 1936 version on my PVR since February. I guess I should finally give it a look now, eh?

    1. Welcome to The Matinee, Squasher!

      I’ve seen a lot of post titles about these relay races, but never read any – what exactly are they?

  8. Pingback: The Frame » Blog Archive » The Roundup: June 15, 2012

Comments are closed.