A Star Is Born (2018) Review

 

        I didn’t think I would enjoy the recent version of A Star Is Born. Having seen all three of them on a weekly basis has been a challenge. Well, I can at least admit where you’ve started to notice that my reviews have been popping up in the weekend instead of every Wednesday. It’s not a good excuse to use my job as a reason but staring at a screen and using my almighty brain can do a number on me. Well with all that, let’s wrap up my look of A Star Is Born. 

1. Character Depth

        Doing some research for the film brought me that the film had been stuck in development for a good while. When you look at the order of releases, it usually be around 20 years a release. With this one being the longest by approximately 40. Looking into the reason was that the actors kept changing. You had a revolving door of actors like Will Smith, Jamie Foxx, Mariah Carey, and Beyonce to name a few. Hell, Clint Eastwood was slated to direct the movie. Imagine that. 

        It wasn’t until Bradley Cooper was tapped to direct, making him the someteenth actor to do the double duty of acting and directing. He didn’t even want to act in the movie, only until singer Jack White turned down the movie and Cooper ultimately starred. 

        As always, the movie follows the same beat as the other entries. I won’t list the whole plot points since you can read the last review. I feel that watching this movie is a massive improvement over the 1976 version. I say that because the whole movie just felt natural to me instead of the go-go-go vibe I felt with the Streisand version. 

        This time it’s Lady Gaga becoming the Star, she plays Ally. That whole problem I had with the last movie is easily fixed with this one. We get so much depth to her and time dedicated to her with who she is as a person. It’s more believable since we see her literally start small and then begin her meteoric rise. 

        Additionally, I’m so glad that we finally get some level of depth with Cooper’s Jackson. With any entry bearing the title’s name, the main lead must have some addiction. And would you believe that there’s a reason to it. Not to jump with cheer and do a cartwheel, but it works to this film’s advantage since it feels so tragic having to see it play out. Like, yeah to be honest, his gravely voice did wear thin on me. I will say that the beginning with him is pretty morbid foreshadowing.

        I feel like this whole movie did what any remake or reimaging does well. Expand on the initial story concept to new ideas and avenues. Having had the luxury of seeing the series back-to-back, I can tell some past references that pop out in this film’s adaptation. For instance, when Ally has the conversation to change her looks. It harkens back to the prior female leads had their looks change cosmetically to become famous. 

        Finally, the songs are decent with this one. For some reason I couldn’t get myself to like the Streisand version. I don’t know, it felt like it was obligatory given her reputation as a musician. Here, it sounded good when she sang a duet with Jackson that it served a purpose to the whole film. Being that it represented that them singing marked the moment when one’s fame is rising, and the other is already started to fade. 

2. The Series as a Whole

        This series has been interesting to watch within a weekly basis. It’s something to admire when you really think of just the times that takes place. While not just a caricatured look of the times, each have their own distinct voice and makes the whole concept timeless when you think of about it. Like it’s a story that is relatable to anyone who wants to be famous. As well as seeing or knowing someone who has their fame diminished. 

        That’s probably the reason why this particular movie gets remade within two or four generations. It’s a story that has everything that people love: The rise of an idealistic person, a fall of an alcoholic star who gets eclipsed. I think it’s only natural that people gravitate to it like when people see the numerous versions of Hamlet. Such as The Lion King, Gladiator and The Northman to name a few. It’s a story that gets people invested by just seeing how it plays out. Sort of like comfort food, it’s a type of movie that you don’t have to be in a mood to watch on any occasion. 

        It only makes sense to rank where I stand with the entire franchise. So to put it simply, the 30s version stands out since it’s a product of the time. The 50s is a grand musical that expands the original story. The 70s version, skip it. This one is a must watch. So with that, it’s the 2018, 1954 as second, The 1937 next since it has that distinct pre-World War 2 look. And avoid the Streisand one like the plague. 

3. Overall 

        What can I say? I loved the 2018 version and it’ll be a tall order for the next adaptation to top this one and change the award angle. 

A Star Is Born (1976) Review

        It’s incredible to see a movie be different in various time periods. As I keep mentioning within my takes, it’s reflective of the time. No one could’ve imagine changing up the formula. Gone is the glitz and glamor of Hollywood. This time the focus is on music, a holdover from the ’54 version when it was adapted to a musical. Unfortunately, this is the weakest entry among the entire franchise. 

1. Different Approach

        When you do a thing repeatedly within a 20-year span, you want to change it up before it gets stale. I can at least commend the movie that instead of focusing on the main star getting an Oscar. We see her getting a Grammy. Once more plot wise: a has been drunk makes an ass out of himself, he discovers an unknown and makes her into a star. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what’s basically the main problem with the film is that somehow it doesn’t work. 

        To make it simple, when watching the movie something felt off when trying to get invested with the characters. Seeing John becoming self-destructive is obviously what’s expected with this series. Although, we still don’t have a scene or just a passing moment as to why he drinks or snorts crack. Like this is the third entry, it would’ve been something where it could be explorative with seeing John in a new light. 

        The way he goes about seeing Esther feels obligatory as well. As I mentioned just two paragraphs ago, he stumbles into a bar and sees Esther perform with her group. Now portrayed as Barbara Streisand, to me it just doesn’t work. For one thing a movie has to be believable in order to work. The prior two entries at least gave their female leads charm and have time dedicated to them. We see who they are, what they want and dream.

        Here though, from what we see she seems pretty content with her career. She’s part of a singing troupe and gets annoyed by John interrupting. From there I feel that the movie is in autopilot. Like, there’s not a moment where she talks to her members and tell her that she has a chance to be something. Instead, they join her even though Esther gets solo billing. Mind you she can sing, but the reason why it doesn’t work is because she’s Barbara Streisand. 

        She’s already well known even before the movie. So, the believability doesn’t work since people that are going to the movie can’t buy the fact that context wise she rises up. Even though she already made it to the top with her music in real life. You can make the same comparison with Judy Garland, but what makes her performance work is that her movie feels like a tribute to her entire career. With Streisand, part of me feels like it’s a vanity project since her character gets famous based on her music, when she’s been doing that. 

        One last tidbit I want to talk about is the producer of the film. You may not know him, but be glad that he didn’t have his way with making a Superman movie. Jon Peters was romantically involved with Streisand, by becoming her hairdresser then somehow being big in Hollywood. The only reason I bring this up is that for some odd reason he wanted to put a giant spider in a Superman movie and another comic book movie called the Sandman. He got his wish when he produced the Will Smith stinker, Wild Wild West. Anyways, back to talking about this stinker.

2. Chemistry

        The other thing that made this movie not work for me is the overall chemistry between John and Esther. If there’s one word that perfectly describes the relationship is ‘Mania’. Like we do have their moments where we see them together and hear them sing. Although, John’s vice rears its alcoholic head is when it gets annoying. He always rides a motorcycle dangerously when Esther sees him. Like there’s being drunk, and then there’s being suicidal.

        Like I just don’t buy them as a couple at all since he makes her become famous just by her voice. And the fact that there’s really no point to him really getting involved with his band doesn’t make sense in the least bit. Yeah, we see him introduce her at a benefit concert, but it gets to a point where I really don’t like his character. 

        Even the moments when they argue is just boring since they relapse between getting mad and then getting over it like it was nothing. They even ruin the moment when Esther gets a Grammy. This the scene where we see John at his lowest moment by accidentally hitting the winner. Here, it’s so awkward where I just wish seeing someone hit someone or something to at least break the awkward tension. 

3. Overall

        The bicentennial version of A Star Is Born is not a good movie. There’s a lot of stuff I could’ve talked about but this is a good enough reason to skip this one if you’re going to marathon the series. 

A Star Is Born (1954) Review

 

        This is the one where it was the basis for the 1976 and 2018 versions. Something I started to notice with watching this adaptation from 1954 is that it’s reflective of its time. I’ll talk about why the film had to be a musical. As well as why this version I saw was from special cut from 1983. 

1. Same Story, Different Adaptation

        After 20 years from the original release, it only made sense to remake the film for a new generation. Just to keep it simple, it follows the same story progression from the original. Only this time that it’s a musical epic. An epic is something of a relic nowadays in the world of cinema. What describes an epic is that it’s usually three hours long and the scale of it looks grand just by how it looks. 

        For this initiative I have only covered one epic which was Lawrence of Arabia. I think it was only fitting for the time that this movie had to be big in scale and runtime. It was shot in Cinemascope. Think of proto-IMAX, where the picture was supposed to be massive. As a sidenote, when you watch a current 20th Century Fox film, the music it uses was for specifically any film shot on Cinemascope. 

        Anyways, the reason why some movies in Hollywood had to be big was that movie theaters were losing audiences. Not because the movies they were producing were coming out were bad, but that they were losing to a new device called television. To adjust to the new competition, Hollywood had to make their films into an even bigger event where everybody had to go. Especially with a musical where it was a thing you had to see. 

        With that, what makes this film obviously different is that it is a musical. Although, not how you would think such as West Side Story where there was a music beat every couple of minutes here and there. It was clear that Judy Garland would only be performing her musical bits. She’s the new Esther and she meets Norman who discovers her at a club. 

        As I mentioned before, the film follows the same beat: Esther gets discovered, Norman helps her get some roles in Hollywood, she’s a sensation. At the same time, Norman suffers from Alcoholism as he sees his fame begin to go away. In between the story beats, is when Garland sings. She’s practically made a career out of it, and she does a good job with portraying Esther as an up and comer. 

        I think the film works in context with what was happening with Garland. She had left MGM where she made a name for herself. This film was her way of making a comeback. A lot of people expect her to just sing, but her acting chops is impressive. Given that her main problem for her character is that her husband gets jealous and prideful. 

        The one scene where she gives it her all is when she breaks down crying after singing her bit after shooting a film. She gets frustrated as to why Norman has to drink and wishes that she can save him. It's one of those performances where you wish Judy had won an Academy Award. Since she had the experience of being an a new star and having the fame flame out. Bottom line, she acts the hell out of the scene. Which is ironic since her character did win an Oscar, but not her actual performance for this film.         

        To give the film its due is this, we don’t know or given an explanation as to why Norman drinks. This was something that I didn’t talk about when discussing the first adaptation. We only know that he drinks and becomes a nuisance for the studio. The frustrating thing is we don’t see how and why he drinks and makes an ass out of himself.  

2. The 1983 Cut

        As I was watching the film last night, there was a moment where the film utilized photo stills. The audio though was still playing. I was confused as to why a major studio would use that and instead of the actual shot footage. It wasn’t until I learned that it was a decision that was made during the release of the film. 

        After the premiere, the head of Warner Bros. Jack Warner wanted the film to be trimmed approximately 27 minutes less than its original run time. From how he explained that the film was too long. He did that without the director’s involvement. What you had for a good period was an awkward transition without explanation. Attached for this portion was one of the stills that was used 

        It wasn’t until in 1983 when the anniversary of the film was coming up that film preservationist and archivists went to the vaults of Warner to restore the original footage. Only four minutes of actual footage was used and the remaining 30 minutes of audio was recovered. If you see it play out, you have the stills that I just mentioned play with the surviving audio. 

        This is the first time I ever heard of a studio disgustingly butcher a film for runtime. And I find it ironic that during the film’s release in 1954, Gone With The Wind was rereleased with its runtime not tampered with. While doing more research, the film didn’t make enough in box-office to make back its budget. Perhaps it was due to the trimming that the film received.  

3. Overall

        So far, this is the best adaptation of A Star is Born. I haven’t yet seen the ’76 and ’18 versions to have a genuine opinion. This film is the product of its time, and the others are certainly are in their respect. 

A Star Is Born (1937) Review

 

        So, you’re probably wondering about the movie today. Was the one that I watched a remake? In fact, the one from 2018 is a remake. Of a remake, of a- you know where I’m going with this. Throughout the remaining weeks of August, I’ll be looking at the four versions of A Star is Born. You’ll be surprised with what gets carried over, and what’s the very obvious difference. With all that out of the way, let’s begin. 

1. Golden Age Hollywood

        Given what you may know of the recent adaptation, this one doesn’t have music as the central focus. Instead, this one concentrates on Hollywood. A rising star going to Hollywood hoping to make it big. We see in the beginning Esther from North Dakota. She dreams of becoming an actress, her family laughs at the idea. Her grandmother gives her the money to start. 

        What makes Esther likeable is that she’s grounded. I’m glad that the movie didn’t make it easy for her to get a job. The scene that perfectly summed up her situation is when she tries to get an audition. The receptionist shows her a room of women answering the phone of prospective actors. To pour salt in the wound, she tells Esther that there’s a 1 in 100,000 chance she’ll get a shot. 

        For a movie from that time, it doesn’t hold back with being real. Yeah, it shows the glamorization of the movie stars, we have moments where Esther looks at the actors footprint in the cement. And showing the affluent side of Los Angeles. It can at least be appreciated that it doesn’t sugar coat who has a chance to get in. Aside from seeing Esther becoming a rising star, we see the opposite with the lover. 

        Danny is the fading star. When we see him, he’s a wreck since he suffers from alcoholism. Inevitably, he sees Esther and helps her become an actress. The highlight of the whole movie is just seeing them together. He’s genuine to her, but the stigma about him is that he drinks. It gets to a point where he realizes that his wife has started to be more popular than him. 

        I’m trying to restrain myself by saying that this film was progressive for its time. It’s something to see in an old movie from the 1930s where it talks about issues where it wasn’t discussed. As far as I’m aware, people worshipped stars as near perfect. Whereas you have this film that strips it away and shows an actor struggling with something. Nowadays, we see that with some actors dealing with something mental etc. 

2. Double Edge Sword

        This leads to the main takeaway with the movie. And it’s kind of ironic when I think about it more. I feel that this movie is anti-Hollywood. Let me explain, we hear from Esther’s family that it’ll be bad. And we see just how fame can easily switch on a person. It’s sudden and from what’s apparent is that it can be easily a massive demotivator. 

        Another thing about Hollywood is that it changes a person. We learn that Danny’s name isn’t even his actual name. And the same thing happened to Esther when she meets with her agent. He comes up with a new stage name, Vicki, so that she can have the same background but not her original name. More so that near the end of the film, fans still clamor for Esther for an autograph, even though she’s in a rut. 

        Although the film has a lot of heavy topics, it’s not an overly depressing film. You could say that it’s a tragic story, an underdog, or a passing of the torch. The whole point of it is that it shows just what happens to any actor in Hollywood. Be it that it has one that’s rising, and the other seeing that his glory days are done with. 

3. Overall

        The 1937 film is a good watch. It can be commended that it was progressive with showing the side of Hollywood no one talks about. Ultimately, it laid the groundwork for the succeeding films to come after this one.