A Star is Born (1954)

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
4LOM
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:10 pm
Location: Rheda-Wiedenbrueck / Germany
Contact:

#1 Post by 4LOM » Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:15 am

No widescreen movie has ever been filmed in 3-strip-Technicolor. "A Star is born" was filmed on Eastman stock and printed by Technicolor.

User avatar
whaleallright
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am

#2 Post by whaleallright » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:33 pm

Is the original (non-"restored") version of this film available anywhere on DVD? The American DVD seems to contain just the revised three-hour version with half-finished (or 1/10 finished) scenes, stills, extra production numbers, etc. It's interesting, if a bit difficult to watch at times. I'd like to see the release version very much.

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#3 Post by Michael » Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:52 am

Watching A Star Is Born last night was amazingly frustrating for me. It has moments of brilliance (especially the Swanee number) but in between them, it feels sloppily directed and edited. Those montages of stills didn't work for me. I guess it was because the film was too long (nearly 3 hours) so they decided to speed up by using the stills. At least that was the impression I got.

And another thing I'm not sure about is the ending - "This is Mrs. Norman Maine". I realize that the core of the film is the love story of Esther and Norman more than Esther's rise to stardom. But I wasn't convinced by the ending.

But on the plus side, A Star Is Born has phenomenal Cinemascope cinematography - simply breathtaking - especially the exterior shots of the Malibu oceanside house. Judy Garland and James Mason gave their best - really the only reason to watch this film.

I'm curious what others think of the Cukor film. Didn't Cukor once say that he considered A Star Is Born his masterpiece? Well if that's the case, I'd have picked Holiday.
Last edited by Michael on Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#4 Post by Matt » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:11 am

Michael wrote:Those montages of stills didn't work for me. I guess it was because the film was too long (nearly 3 hours) so they decided to speed up by using the stills.
I think what you're referring to is the attempt at "restoration" of the complete film. The film footage no longer survives, but the audio tracks do, so Warners created this incomplete "complete" version of the film using stills. The unfortunate thing is that, as the above posters mention, there's no way to see the film on DVD in its original wide release form.

I don't love the film enough to watch it often, but I do think it's probably Judy's best acting performance, and I do love the music. I'll pop the DVD in every now and then to watch the big "born in a trunk" medley or "The Man that Got Away" or even the "meet cute" with "You Gotta Have Me Go with You." The rest of the film doesn't sustain those kinds of highs.

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#5 Post by Michael » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:35 am

Matt, thanks for relocating my initial post to the right place. I'm sorry for not looking up in the first place...for some reason, I didn't think of the film as a Warners title.

Judy should had won the Oscar. James Mason is brilliant as always but I adore him the most in Lolita. No one plays "pathetic" men better than Mason.

It probably sounds ridiculous but that scene when Norman walks into the ocean as Esther sings from her kitchen feels very Mizoguchi...the sense of loss and longing. That is a sad but still so ethereal moment.

A question for those of you who have seen the release version, how would you compare this to the restoration version? I mean, does the release version have a better flow? Does it feel "complete" even without the restoration/stills,etc? I saw the release version when I was a little boy but I can't remember it too well.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#6 Post by Person » Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:55 am

Few musicals are as powerful dramatically as the 1954 A Star is Born, I feel. James Mason is incredible in this film (was he ever less than brilliant?) and I agree that no one played "pathetic" as effectively as he. Strange that he was never Knighted. I'm dying to see Jack Clayton's, The Pumpkin Eater (1964, written by Pinter, shot in bw by Oswald Morris), but I doubt that Sony even know they own it. At least we'll see Bigger Than Life soon, via the BFI. I saw it in 35mm two years ago and was blown away by Mason's performance, but it's a weird film! And another example of Fox arbitrarily using CinemaScope, making for awkward blocking of what should be intimate, intense scenes.

Anyway, I'd like to see Warner give us the 154-minute cut. I think that this is a story that could have been told in two hours - the 1937 film proves this, obviously. I will never, ever watch the 1976 rock remake! I saw the trailer once and I didn't know whether to laugh or vomit. It's movies like this that Mystery Science Theater should take apart.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#7 Post by Lino » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:20 pm

Person wrote:I'm dying to see Jack Clayton's, The Pumpkin Eater (1964, written by Pinter, shot in bw by Oswald Morris
Just saw it yesterday for the second time and yes, Mason really is very good and quite memorable for such a short screen time. But the film is really Bancroft's and it's quite bewildering that she didn't win the Oscar, what with her nomination and all.

Beautiful film, too. Clayton made a filmic trilogy of sorts dedicated to children (The Innocents, The Pumpkin Eater and Our Mother's House) and they all stand the test of time quite proudly. British filmmaking at its very best.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#8 Post by Person » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:44 pm

Lino wrote:Just saw it yesterday for the second time
Lucky boy! Did it have a Sony/Columbia logo at the begining? Was it letterboxed?

Our Mothers House is also overdue a DVD release. I think it's with Warner now.

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#9 Post by Michael » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:53 pm

I think The Pumpkin Eater will be playing on TCM next week Thursday. Lino, thanks for bringing this up because I almost forgot to schedule the recording since I will be vacationing in NYC all next week.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#10 Post by Lino » Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:03 pm

Person wrote:
Lino wrote:Just saw it yesterday for the second time
Lucky boy! Did it have a Sony/Columbia logo at the begining? Was it letterboxed?
Actually, no. It had nothing at the beginning. And yes, it was shown in its correct AR and from a restored print. And the B/W cinematography is excellent. It's that sort of creamy grey variety, which I'm a particular fan of. Bancroft looks great in this movie.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#11 Post by Person » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:04 pm

Restored print and letterboxed? Crikey. I wonder if a DVD is planned? Ossie Morris was an awesome cinematographer in both b&w and color and any format. But he didn't get on with Kubrick on Lolita, yet it still looks amazing. Carol Reed's, The Key (1958, bw CinemaScope) also deserves a release, Sony. DD Entertainment have licensed many of Sony's Hammer horror films as well as The Wrong Box for UK release later in the year, so hopefully, we'll see many classic UK films gathering dust in Sony's vaults in 2008.

User avatar
devlinnn
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
Location: three miles from space

#12 Post by devlinnn » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:47 am

"Do you always sing like that?"

The first four beats begin. The palms begin to sweat, the body starts to shake a little. The brass quietly kicks in, the jaw slowly descends, as Judy - just standing there, no props, no fancy dress, no nuthin' - glides in to The Man That Got Away. Cukor's sublime eye just keeps us there with no need to cut. He knows, we know, that this is what it's all about. The song. The singer. Judy continues, the hand taking the quiff higher, eyes melting into the distance of what's been lost, the little that remains, hoping for some future connection. With the arms now outstretched, she hits it. Lost in emotion, one can only shed those tears.

The come-down. Judy sits down by the piano, the reds and blues warming her soul. The smile. The proud, 'fuck, I nailed that one' wink. We're left a little breathless. The awe lasts a lifetime.

"Do you always sing like that?"

User avatar
devlinnn
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:23 am
Location: three miles from space

#13 Post by devlinnn » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:11 am

Yes, a truly great drama.

I must be one of the few who actually loves the photo inserts. Similar in a way to The Magnificent Ambersons, it reminds one how fragile all this art and life really is. I couldn't imagine the film now any other way, with those magnificent voices (they had voices then) beckoning from the dark, sepia tinged images, triggering off memories that can play in the mind in different ways each time there's a viewing (which is alot around here).

It's also the one to show Judy dis-believers. The Man That Got Away especially never fails to convert.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#14 Post by Person » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:23 pm

I'm not big on Musicals. I don't know what the criteria is. The music has to be non-diegetic? Fair enough. #-o

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#15 Post by Michael » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:04 am

I'm now reading Ronald Haver's A Star Is Born: The Making of the 1954 Movie and Its 1983 Restoration. Fascinating book, wonderfully researched.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#16 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:40 pm

Check it out, they're restoring it in 6k resolution - it should take 4 to 6 months, but expect a BD and DVD release sometime after that.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#17 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:20 pm

Haven't read your other posts, but I'm guessing you believe the colors on the LaserDisc version are correct and the ones on the current Blu-Ray, etc. arent? Robert A. Harris would completely disagree.

Sorry man, but given the track record of an archivist like Harris, he seems more credible.

(BTW, that's Winston C. Hoch.)

yeah, yeah made a typo in my own correction
Last edited by hearthesilence on Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

#18 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:31 pm

Already did and it all covers the same ground as the first link I posted. And judging by the threads here and elsewhere, this is right up there with the 'correct aspect ratio' debates I come across for Touch of Evil, A Hard Day's Night, various Kubrick films, etc., etc. Over-the-top arguing, no one really listens, not to anyone, because CLEARLY the other guy is wrong, etc., etc. Whatever man, I just want a good BD of A Star Is Born like anyone else who digs the movie, and it's better to have one on the horizon that could be good that absolutely nothing coming down the pipeline.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#19 Post by tryavna » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:11 pm

davidhare wrote:And I dont' give a flying fuck what Robert Harris thinks about this, particularly after that other great restoration travesty called Vertigo.
I'm totally with David on this. Harris has made some unbelievably terrible decisions, and yet he is still given a free ride by 90% of the hard-core DVD-buying community. I respect some of what he has done, but not everything the man says should be taken as Gospel.

User avatar
Ivy Mike
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:22 am

#20 Post by Ivy Mike » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:33 pm

How many minutes of the 176 min runtime feature stills? I assume not all of the 22 minutes added to the 154 cut are stills.

I would ask which version people prefer, but I imagine that's a difficult question given the comparison of a hacked down release cut and a reconstruction with its use of stills. I like that reconstructions are offered, but my experience with Greed made me realize how strange it is to watch a movie like that.

What would the expectation be for print quality on screenings like the one coming up (i.e. pre-6k restoration)? Anyone seen the film recently at a theatre or know in general how the prints look? Wondering if it's worth checking out at the theatre or just watching on DVD (guess the 154 minute won't be an option unless they put it out once the new restoration's done).

User avatar
marknyc5
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:38 pm

Re: A Star Is Born (Cukor, 1954)

#21 Post by marknyc5 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:31 pm

Some strange discussion in this thread.

First, "A Star Is Born" is certainly a musical, as much as "Cabaret" is a musical. Some musicals have characters burst into song while walking down the street, others have characters sing only when it would be realistic (e.g. onstage or when asked to). But you don't have Harold Arlen and Ira Gershwin write a complete score and lyrics for a film and not call it a musical!

Second, the idea of seamless branching would not only be very awkward (since the still sections are intercut with a ton of retrieved second-unit footage), it would be incredibly disrespectful to the creators. People here are saying they want to see the "released version" - but the restoration is the released version. The cuts were made after the roadshow version played for a number of weeks, and were done without the input of Cukor, Allen, or any of the film's creative team. In fact, Cukor refused to ever watch the cut version - a screening of the reconstruction was scheduled for him, but he died a day before it was to happen.

So to release a re-hacked version or make a DVD that somehow "restored" those cuts would fly in the face of everything film curators fight for. It's unfortunate that we only have audio and stills for the lost scenes, but it's better than nothing.

Any word on a release date for the 6K?

Mark

bluebird1111
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:06 pm

Re: A Star Is Born (Cukor, 1954)

#22 Post by bluebird1111 » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:45 am

I must agree with those who consider A STAR IS BORN a drama with music an not a musical, and the same can be said for CABARET. In a musical the songs and dances are basically fantasy sequences and are not actually happening. Some musicals mix both, but these two films do not.

As far as presenting the hack job as a home viewing option, I completely agree with you. Without the missing scenes Esther meets Norman and is immediately screen tested. In the cut scenes Norman goes on location and Esther is forced to take a job at a drive in while finding voice over work in commercials for television, as she quit her job with the band. This period of struggle and disappointment is essential to the character development. Without these scenes it's just another silly "instant stardom" tale and far less effective.

User avatar
Cash Flagg
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm

A Star is Born (1954)

#23 Post by Cash Flagg » Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:53 pm

From TCM:
Honoring the gripping masterpiece that marked Judy Garland’s triumphant return to the screen, A Star is Born (1954) will reveal its stunning restoration by Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) when it debuts on Blu-ray Disc June 22, 2010 from Warner Home Video (SRP $34.99) in a dazzling 2-disc book format with 40 pages of gorgeous photography, film history and more.

Winner of two Golden Globes* (Best Actress, Judy Garland and Best Actor, James Mason) and nominated for six Academy Awards®, this powerfully moving and glamorous story reawakens when it arrives on Blu-ray Disc for the very first time. Offering the best possible way to see the film at home, the Blu-ray release will also feature impressive bonus content including alternate takes, deleted scenes, excerpts from Garland’s audio recording sessions, a collectible book of rare photos, press materials and an illuminating essay by film historian John Fricke.
The link above lists all of the extras, and the 1937 version isn't among them, only it's trailer.

ianungstad
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:20 pm

Re: Warner Random Speculation

#24 Post by ianungstad » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:33 pm

It's one of five Selznick pics owned by United Artists. From the Selznick wiki page:

* 1943: Jock Whitney sold to Film Classics, Inc. the rights to A Star Is Born and Nothing Sacred (both of which were actually owned by Pioneer Pictures), and the Selznick International productions Little Lord Fauntleroy, Made for Each Other, and The Young in Heart.[9]

* 1947: Cinecolor Corporation acquired Film Classics, Inc. [10]

* 1949: Cinecolor Corp. resold the company to Film Classics' officers.[11]

* 1950: Film Classics was merged with Eagle-Lion Films to form Eagle Lion Classics.[12]

* 1951: When Eagle Lion Classics collapsed, United Artists acquired its assets.[13]


Maybe it's one of the MGM titles that Criterion picked up? It's one of those titles that is technically PD, which is usually the kiss of death for official releases. MGM certainly won't be doing it themselves anytime soon.

User avatar
Cash Flagg
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Warner Random Speculation

#25 Post by Cash Flagg » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:44 pm

The New York Post article posted earlier in this thread included this:
Felsteinstein confirmed our earlier report that the extras include a remastered version of William Wellman's classic 1937 version.
TCM notes that this will be a 2-disc Blu-ray, so it's still possible.

Post Reply