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.