A Star Is Born '54
Tonight I had the rare treat of watching the restored 1954 version of A Star Is Born on my local PBS station. The film, which starred Judy Garland and James Mason, is the first re-make of the original 1937 film (there have been 3 to date). I have never seen this version of the film before so I was especially excited. I own the 1976 version that starred Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristopherson on DVD and was curious to see how the two versions compare against each other since both have the reputation for being better than the other.
The plot of the film is solid and pretty much the same as all of the versions of this film; James Mason plays Norman Maine, an alcoholic movie star on the decline. Judy plays Esther Blodgett, a struggling cabaret performer who is trying to make it big in Hollywood. Their lives intersect and Norman, seeing star quality in Esther, helps to put her in contact with the right people in Hollywood and she is transformed into super star Vicki Lester. As Esther's fame eclipses Norman's his career and drinking continue to spiral out of control. The result is a very emotional ending to the film that in one way is very bittersweet yet at the same time very tragic. The story also does an excellent job of showing the unreality of Hollywood and the disconnect between what the public sees on film and through good PR and what really goes on backstage in the lives of the entertainers.
The acting is not as strong as one would hope but not completely awful. James Mason's scenes are a bit stilted and he truly shines strongest when he's either being a charming Englishman or a raging drunk and allowed to be out of control. You can really feel his passion during these scenes. As for Judy she isn't known for being a brilliant actress, despite what some people may say, her greatest strength really is as a singer. She makes some valiant attempts at comedy, which like typical Garland comedic fair, fall flat. Even still I give Judy a lot of props, this was probably one of her most solid performances on film. Her best scenes are the dramatic, dark, emotional ones, much like James', where she is able to be real and unleash her full emotions and run wild with them. Whereas the rest of the time she's very giddy, girly-girlish and passive. While not wholly convincing in her role as her co-star, Judy is able to keep the viewer's interest even in scenes that are a little lacking.
Over all the film itself is good, not the most brilliant piece of cinematography I have ever seen, but relatively solid especially for the time period. The dialogue is relatively timeless and straightforward and while everything is period specific the work doesn't feel dated as you feel like you are watching a story that takes place in early 1950's Hollywood. Had they tried to make it take place at any other time period it wouldn't have worked.
One thing that doesn't work in the film though, and actually weighs the story down, are the excessive musical numbers, which create a disproportionate atmosphere and storytelling style. While some numbers blend into the film as scenes, like when Judy is making the famous Trinidad Coconut Oil Shampoo commercial or singing "The Man That Got Away", most of them jump out and demand the viewers attention, ultimately breaking the mood and emotional elements of the scenes. The cutaways and transitions to many of these same musical numbers are not smooth and when they finish the viewer is left feeling disoriented.
It is quite obvious the musical numbers are designed to be vehicles to showcase Judy Garland as a singer. Most of the songs that she performs are ones that she was already famous for with the exception of a couple written specifically for the film. Whenever she makes an appearance at various events in the film you can clearly hear orchestrated segments of "Over The Rainbow" mixed into the background tracks. This adds to the sense of viewer disorientation and instead of seeing Judy as Esther you see Judy as herself, which completely wrecks the believability of her performance.
But the musical numbers are not the only way in which the film was marred. The 1954 version of A Star Is Born has the reputation as being a flawed masterpiece. This is because the original version was a little over 3 hours long. Warner Bros. (The studio that released the film) decided before its release that it would do better at the Box Office if it were cut down to a more standard running time, despite the good reviews and reception it received from test audiences, and butchered it down to a little over 2 hours. The greatest portion of edits were made about 30 minutes into the film which chronicles Esther's struggle to get to Hollywood before Norman Maine steps in to fulfill his promise to get her a screen test. The scenes add an immense depth to the film and despite not having seen the original theatrical version it is obvious that without them the film's sequencing would feel choppy.
Unfortunately after 53 years not all of the original lost footage was able to be located. However the original vocal track to the film was recovered and using what deleted scene and still frames from the others they could find, the restoration team did an excellent job restoring the film to as close to its original version as we'll probably ever see. I thoroughly enjoyed it and hope that one day they do find the rest of the missing footage and can restore the film fully. It's doubtful but stranger things have happened.
In conclusion I recommend this film to anyone that likes a good classic, sappy drama. It is an enjoyable film and definitely a worthy addition to any serious film library.
