En Stjerne Fødes
I have said
it before and I know I will say it again: 1954 was an awesome year in movies. Today’s
movie “A Star is Born” is only confirmation of that statement. This is a very
impressive musical on practically every level and it ranks very high on my list
of best musicals. To be fair that list is not exactly crowded, but after “Seven
Brides for Seven Brothers” this marks a return to musicals that respect its
audience.
“A Star is
Born” is something of a revolution in musicals because it breaks with so many
musical tropes to the extent that you can argue that it is not even a real
musical, but a drama with music. George Cukor, the director, may have something
to do with that. He had been around in Hollywood since forever and had done
practically everything except perhaps musicals. “A Star is Born” is a
progressive story that leaves opportunities for music where it is natural and
integral to the story. There are no spontaneously breaking out in song scenes
and backing music is a record playing or an orchestra actually there. I am not
a puritan when it comes to these things, but watching the music integrated so
well makes me wonder how I could stand all those musicals who insists on
breaking the contract with the audience and leave the reality of the film while
their songs last.
It is
telling that the male lead never sings. When did you last see that in a musical?
I should probably be grateful that James Mason only talks (something he is
truly good at) and leave the singing to Judy Garland, but it shows that the
drama element here is just as important as the music and that really makes the
difference between a movie and filmed music (disregarding dancing which I do
not care much about).
The drama
is a classic Hollywood story about the ascent of a star, but it is also the
story of the deroute of a star and a scathing portray of the cynicism of the
Hollywood media machine. This gives a balance of sweetness and bitterness with
a dash of relevance and like cooking balance is everything.
Judy
Garland is Esther Blodgett, a singer with a band who happens to save the famous
movie star Norman Maine (James Mason) from making an absolute fool of himself
at a benefit. Sobered up he sets out to find the girl and find out she has a
magic voice. He convinces her to quit the band and go to the movies, but starts
out by burning her when he gets drunk and is drawn out to a set to film for
weeks.
Eventually
he finds her again and becomes her mentor in Hollywood and, of course in this
sort of movies, her husband. Esther soon becomes Vicki Lester and a star on the
rise while Norman heads the other way into the abyss of substance abuse.
I do not
particularly enjoy watching people hit the gutter, especially when they cause
it to themselves and so I am not a fan of substance abuse films. “A Star is
Born” manages to incorporate this tragedy in a way where there is no doubt of
its seriousness, but it is not allowed to steal the picture. Again “balance” is
the word. This could have been unbearable or it could have been laughed off,
but Cukor avoids both ditches. I found it hilariously funny when Norman crashes
the show at the benefit, but there is nothing funny about his later crash at
the Academy Awards. That is an ice cold picture of a pathetic alcoholic crying
for help. Norman resolves the situation in a way that is not exactly
optimistic, but at least holds some dignity and that is a good note to finish
on.
There is a
long tradition for self-reflection in movies. Movies about movies or at least
with a setting around moviemaking. The special thing about “A Star is Born” is
how close we get and how cynical that portrait is. We have the scene where
Esther is repeatedly told how happy they are to have her with them although
nobody is actually listening to her or even recognizes her. There is the Matt
Libby (Jack Carson) character who as a public relations guy thinks only of
actors as assets and treats them as such. Or the way Norman Maine is allowed to
flounder until suddenly as by common decision he is cut out. It is not a very
friendly picture. But then on the other side it is also about glamour and
dreams and real achievements, so again, the movie keeps a good balance.
As Judy
Garland is essentially the only singer in this musical a lot stand and falls
with her performance and no amount of drama or framing can change that. She is
good and she got excellent material to work with. Early on we get “The Man That
Got Away” and that hits the mark on so many levels for me. This is exactly the
kind of music I like. Unfortunately the rest of the set cannot match that jazzy
cool, but less can also do it. Garland does well, even in the dance routines
and often I am reminded of how much she looks like her daughter. On the acting
side I am less impressed by Garland. I know her character is very emotional and
lacking self-esteem, but Garland over-does it, especially in those scenes where
she is crying. It looks forced. Fortunately Mason is such a standout performer
that he outweighs Garland’s deficiencies. Oh man, I can listen to Mason for hours,
that voice is honey for the ears.
I got the
impression that “A Star is Born” was considered the movie of the year in 54
with expectations of a big harvest at the Academy Award, but although it was
awarded in numerous categories it won none. That is not because this was an
overrated movie, but a testament to the strength of the field this year.
If “A Star
is Born” heralds a new era for musicals I am all in. This feels right, all
three hours.
It's been too long since I've seen this. I can see why it is a musical for non-musical lovers. When you have the time you might want to check out the 1937 version with Janet Gaynor and Frederick March. It is a straight drama and also very caustic about Hollywood. March is outstanding in it. I thought the Barbara Streisand version was pretty terrible.
ReplyDeleteI have heard of those other versions and frankly the 76 version looks terrible. The 37 version I may check out, mostly because I like Gaynor.
DeleteYep. I really like this version of the story. Garland, of course, had a sublime voice, which helps all of the musical numbers go down easily. I also love James Mason in general, so he helps, too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marie that the 1937 version is good, but it's not this one. This one is better.
Yeah, I read your review of the 37 version and it looked good. I wanted to see this one first though and that would be a difficult one to top.
DeleteI haven't seen the other two versions. I liked this one.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth - I don't see this as a musical. It's a drama about an actress/singer that happens to include scenes of her acting and singing. Just my opinion.
I'd probably place 1954 in the Top 5 for movie years. And you've still got some of the great 1954 movies to go.
Wikipedia agrees with you. On Cukor's list of credits A Star is Born is listed as Drama, not Musical.
DeletePersonally I am not sure where to land it and I suppose it is a musical because everywhere else it seems to be listed as such. I also think that calling it a musical means that a musical can have other qualities than just the songs and dance and that is an uplifting thought.
Did you ever do a theme on 1954?
I've only done 1994 and 1939 for my "A Great Year for Movies" categories. 1954 would be in the running the next time I get the urge to do one, along with 1974 and 1999. That's not my "official" Top 5; just ones that came to mind as I was typing this.
Delete