full filmography
-
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 11:19 PM)
sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant in Star is Born (1954), Garland has been a star for 15 years
In Star is Born (1937), Janet Gaynor has been a star for 10 years.
In both cases it has been closer to end of their star career, Gaynor retired the following year, and for Garland - her next film would be only 7 years later, Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) -
Doghouse-6 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:53 AM)
My issue with both "Star is Born" that they feature a woman who'se been a star for quiet a while, at the end of her film stardom, but we are still supposed to accept them as young girls.
While it's true that both Gaynor and Garland were past 30 at the time of their
Star
s, the 1954 Moss Hart additions to the original Parker/Campbell/Carson screenplay make a point of the length of Esther's singing career in three scenes:
Outside the club:
"Wasting my time? I'm not wasting my time. You don't know how many years it's taken me to get this far. I'm doing fine, Mr. Maine, just great."
In Norman's car:
"Winning a contest on the radiosinging in jointsI can remember my first job singing with a band, and then one-night stands clear across country by busputting on nail polish in the ladies' rooms in gas stationswaiting on tables Wow, that was a low point. I'll never forget it, and I'll never, never do that again. No matter what."
In Esther's apartment with her scrapbook:
"You know about as much about me now as I do myself. But you see how long it's taken me to get this far."
Inasmuch as audiences had more or less watched Garland grow up on the screen, it may well be that cognizance of her age figured into decisions to include such dialogue. Further, Garland's Esther is not the naive, idealistic, fan-magazine-consuming bumpkin that Gaynor portrayed; those passages of dialogue, along with the professionalism, sophistication and even cynicism she displays all indicate a been-around-the-block maturity intentionally written into the character's 1954 incarnation.
Poe! You areavenged! -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 11:06 AM)
i see what you are saying, still for me she was unbelievable.
"how many years it took me to get this far" was something Doris Day could have said at age of 24, while still being much younger than Garland (and looking young enough to play her daughter).
Plenty of youn girls worked at 16 and 17, my wife still remembers how one time whe she was 16 she worked whole night at restaraunt washing dishes, doesn't say anything about age.
For me, Garland is very over the top performer (some ppl like, some don't), and the film is just overlong. Haven't seen Streisand version, which I doubt I would like -
Doghouse-6 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 03:27 PM)
No, of course restaurant work alone says nothing about a person's age; it's merely a part of Hart's skillfully-woven narrative in those three scenes that conveys the ups and downs of Esther's career over time, and is summed up by Danny in a fourth:
"It's taken all these years for you to get with a big-name outfit like Williams. You gonna toss it all in the ashcan?"
If you don't like Garland, you don't. There are a number of performers others love that put me off, and that's just the way things go sometimes.
My point is simply that all these quoted elements indicate that the screenplay goes out of its way to make clear that Garland's Esther is not someone we're "supposed to accept" as a "young girl," even making Garland's own maturity, as both performer and woman, a key aspect of the character she's playing.
Her style as a performer and the film's length are other matters valid enough for subjective judgement, but that maturity is an "issue" that this
Star
, as conceived and executed, puts to rest from the get-go.
Gaynor was portrayed as a dewy-eyed innocent with no more connection to show biz than the movies she sees and magazines she reads, and who goes to Hollywood with nothing more than dreams and determination. But Garland's playing a seasoned pro who has remained a nobody in spite of her talent and years of hard work, until she, as Norman says, recognizes the big chance when it comes along and grabs it.
That's another aspect of the updated screenplay that improves on the original: the first was more of a fairy tale, while the second drives home the realism of even remarkably talented performers toiling for years with little or no recognition.
Poe! You areavenged! -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 09:51 PM)
very interesting, thanks. I didn't realize Cukor directed most of it.
I've seen the film several times in my childhood, before Imdb or Wikipedia, so I didn't know Cukor directed most of it.
While the real star is List's glorious music, Dirk Bogarde is great usual, Capucine almost steals the show, and nice to see Genevieve Page and Martita Hunt in bigger than usual parts. -
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 10:53 PM)
Next time you see it watch for the title card where the producers thank Cukor. Of course, everybody in the industry, plus critics, knew who directed it but most of the public doesn't know such things. There have been quite a number of instances of a director dying midway through a film and being replaced, and in most cases the replacement director was sympathetic and deferential and declined any credit in order to honor the deceased director by giving him full credit, even if he directed only a small portion of the picture, just as Cukor did with
Song Without End
. But it was rare in such instances for the producers to cite the substitute director for his help, as they did with Cukor in this film. -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 07:11 AM)
There have been quite a number of instances of a director dying midway through a film and being replaced, and in most cases the replacement director was sympathetic and deferential and declined any credit in order to honor the deceased director by giving him full credit, even if he directed only a small portion of the picture, just as Cukor did with Song Without End.
Would be interesting to know other such instances -
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 06:16 PM)
There was a thread around several months ago in which I provided a list of such directors who died in the midst of filming, but it's long since disappeared as shall all these posts in two weeks and of course now that you ask I can only recall five other examples:
A Dandy in A****
(1967) Anthony Mann died in the middle of filming in 1966; the star, Laurence Harvey, stepped in but refused credit.
That Lady in Ermine
(1948) Ernst Lubitsch died after just eight days' filming in 1947 and was replaced by Otto Preminger, who also insisted Lubitsch get sole credit.
The Lost Missile
(1958) B-movie director-producer William A. Berke directed for just one day when he died; his son Lester William Berke replaced him but gave his father sole credit.
The Viking
(1931) Canada's first sound film was being shot in the Arctic when the ship aboard which much of the cast and crew, including director Varick Frissell, were filming abruptly exploded, killing all 26 aboard. The survivors on shore made it home over the ice or were picked up by other vessels. The film was completed b George Melford, who did get credit (I think sole credit), although Frissell remained listed as producer. Very ungracious of Melford.
Such Men Are Dangerous
(1930) Director Kenneth Hawks (brother of Howard) was filming this WWI airborne drama in a airplane over the Pacific off Long Beach on January 2, 1930, when the two planes one with Hawks and the crew, the other the one being filmed collided, apparently due to sun glare. Both planes plunged into the ocean, killing all ten persons aboard both. I don't know who completed the film but apparently Hawks got sole credit. Howard Hawks always claimed his brother would have been a more successful director than he was. Maybe, but I have my doubts.
If I think of any others before IMDb closes shop I'll let you know, Oleg! -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 11:29 PM)
What amazes me is how or why Cukor didn't receive a nomination for at least some of the following Dinner at Eight, David Copperfield, The Women
Amazing indeed. To be fair director nominations (and wins)for most of the 30s were a bit strange - 1932/33 Cukor was nominated for Little Women, but he could have been nominated for 2 films, Academy back then did it several times for actors, and in 1938 for Michael Curtiz (no Robin Hood wasn't one of them !)
Looking at the list - many notable omissions in the 30s - 1935 has Hathaway for Bengal Lancer, but not Curtiz for Captain Blood, 37 had Dieterle for awful 'Emile Zola' but not Wyler for Dead End, etc.
for 1939 - I agree with nominations of Fleming, Ford, Wyler, Capra - and my only issue is Sam Wood -
rudeboy_murray — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 06:35 PM)
Discounting his uncredited films:
Favourites
The Philadelphia Story
Camille
Holiday
David Copperfield
Liked a lot
A Star is Born
Dinner at Eight
Adam's Rib
Gaslight
Not bad
Les Girls
Born Yesterday
Two-Faced Woman
Little Women
Not so hot
Pat and Mike
My Fair Lady
Of those I haven't seen - too many, of course - The Actress is one that I am particularly keen to watch. -
pad264 — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 10:06 AM)
I can't say I think too highly of him. I've seen six of his films and none of them have really made an impact on me. Though interestingly enough, my ratings for his films have created a great poker hand
- My Fair Lady 8
- Born Yesterday 7
- Dinner at Eight 6
- Gaslight 5
- The Philadelphia Story 4
- Adam's Rib 3
"My only enemy is time." - Charles Chaplin
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/