Romancefest 22: A Star is Born

After seeing how great A STAR IS BORN is, I'm a little ashamed to say I've been putting it off due to the near 3 hour running time. But, when you're trying to cram 28 movies into 28 days, the 3 hour ones keep getting dropped to the bottom of the list until you simply have no other choice.

A STAR IS BORN is famous for starring Judy Garland in a stunning performance slightly based on her own Hollywood experiences. Released in 1954, A STAR IS BORN showcases Garland 15 years after the release of her biggest success as a young actress, THE WIZARD OF OZ, and roughly 15 years before her premature death. By 1954 Garland already looks a little worse for wear, especially if you're familiar with her youthful, fresh-faced performance from THE WIZARD OF OZ -- her voice sounds a little smoky, her face looks a little puffy, and it all works to the advantage of the character, who is a little after her prime when her stardom comes late and suddenly for her.

James Mason co-stars as a washed up, alcoholic movie star who keeps his studio handlers busy attempting to stay ahead of him with damage control attempts. As the movie opens, Mason is storming on stage at a celebrity charity event, despite the studio heads' attempts to keep him off the stage due to his drunken condition. Garland, performing as a chorus girl, rescues Mason from embarrassment with a brilliant bit of improv that comes off as a comedic performance, and Mason gratefully follows her to a small club where she's performing with a group of musicians.

He decides she has that certain "it" -- the undefinable quality that fills the gap between a performer and a star, and immediately goes about marketing her to the studio, where she follows a rocky road to the top. She goes through a traumatizing makeover, during which the studio attempts to turn her into a fake glamor queen before Mason rescues her and helps her showcase her "girl next door" qualities.

A romantic relationship blossoms between the two, but they have difficulties reconciling their different career trajectories -- as Garland continues to rocket to the top, Mason continues to fall from grace, becoming increasingly self destructive despite his attempts to stay clean for Garland.

Garland's performance overshadows Mason's, but they're both great. Mason has the difficult task of making an alcoholic, destructive, self obsessed loser charming and likable, and he pulls it off by treating the whole thing as if it's almost an after thought, as if he's just going along with the flow of chaos instead of single-handedly creating it.

It's cool to see Garland in a non-Dorothy role -- THE WIZARD OF OZ is one of my favorite movies and I've probably seen it more times than any other movie. So, in my mind, Dorothy and Garland are pretty much indistinguishable, especially since I don't think I've watched another full-length Garland performance until today. She's great in this role, convincingly confident in her own abilities while also projecting a humble attitude, almost goofy in her mannerisms at times. But, she also rises to great dramatic heights, especially towards the end of the film.

The best moments are Garland's singing performances -- she has a lot more chances to show off her huge voice in A STAR IS BORN than she did in WIZARD. She opens her mouth, and it almost knocks the sets over. She makes these giant renditions of show tunes and night club songs seem easy while going above and beyond with the heights she's willing to take them. At times it almost becomes exhausting -- how many show stoppers can one movie have? But, it never ceases to be amazing, and you can see why James Mason's character would pick her as a star.

There are production horror stories about this movie -- apparently it premiered with the 3 hour running time to great reviews, then was cut by the studio by about a half hour after which bad word of mouth caused the movie to flop. Apparently Warner shelved the movie and lost the excised half hour for years, before the film was finally dug up and given the respect it deserves as one of the greatest musicals of the era. The version I watched was patched together in parts with stills where footage was missing, but it was far less than I was expecting after reading some descriptions of the restoration.

This really is an interesting musical, and a rvealing look at how the genre matured and diversified itself during its glory days. Today we think of musicals as being harmless diversions without much substance, but back when musicals were all over the place, it was possible to have all kinds, even a hard-hitting drama that critiqued the Hollywood system.