A Star is Born (1954)

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Message
Author
User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#26 Post by Jeff » Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:56 pm

Here is the full release at Blu-ray.com. It sure looks like the 1937 version has been dropped.

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

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#27 Post by Matt » Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:15 pm

A Star is Born (1954) will reveal its stunning restoration by Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) when it debuts on Blu-ray Disc
I am going to hold them to this. I have yet to be stunned by any Warner Bros. Blu-ray.

User avatar
Napier
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:48 am
Location: The Shire

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#28 Post by Napier » Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:17 am

Matt wrote:
A Star is Born (1954) will reveal its stunning restoration by Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) when it debuts on Blu-ray Disc
I am going to hold them to this. I have yet to be stunned by any Warner Bros. Blu-ray.
I was "stunned", that North By Northwest was so blah in Blu-ray. To Warner's defense though I was more that happy with the Gone With the Wind BD. Let's hope they get A Star is Born right. I can't wait.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#29 Post by cdnchris » Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:10 pm

I thought Gone With the Wind was decent as well. My expectations with Warner are low, though, like most others. But I was amazed at how unimpressive Speed Racer looked when I rented it. If they can't even make that one stand out in high-def, I don't know...

User avatar
What A Disgrace
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#30 Post by What A Disgrace » Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:33 am

Amazon lists the running time as 287 minutes, which is precisely the running time of the restored version of the film plus the 1937 William Wellman film.

Hoping against hope.

User avatar
Zumpano
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:43 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#31 Post by Zumpano » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:40 pm

If this transfer is the same one being shown on HDMovies, I wouldn't get too excited...

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

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#32 Post by Matt » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:03 pm

Zumpano wrote:If this transfer is the same one being shown on HDMovies, I wouldn't get too excited...
No, I think that's an old transfer. I do think, however, that the new HD transfer is available on Netflix Instant. I watched a good portion of it last night (okay, "The Man That Got Away" and the "Born in a Trunk" medley), and it looked exceptionally good (with the occasional rough spot or off color).

zq333zq
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#33 Post by zq333zq » Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:34 pm

Some of you guys must have read this unreal entry that the blog owner linked from the Home Theater Forum. For the rest of you, here it is.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#34 Post by HarryLong » Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:49 pm

zq333zq wrote:Some of you guys must have read this unreal entry that the blog owner linked from the Home Theater Forum. For the rest of you, here it is.
I couldn't get through it. I t reminded me too much of emails I get that always begin, "I like to write for your magazine. I've enclosed som articles I've wrote..."

zq333zq
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#35 Post by zq333zq » Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:38 pm

HarryLong wrote:
zq333zq wrote:Some of you guys must have read this unreal entry that the blog owner linked from the Home Theater Forum. For the rest of you, here it is.
I couldn't get through it. It reminded me too much of emails I get that always begin, "I like to write for your magazine. I've enclosed some articles I've written..."
I certainly can't blame you, but, FYI, this guy apparently eliminated any notion for adult members of this forum to view the premiere version of A Star Is Born before we pass away. Copied and pasted from the publicly available Home Theater Forum:
SpoilerShow
* Chuck Pennington

* Joined: May 2001
* Post Count: 555

The problem is these methods sometimes make things much worse. It's actually akin to bullying. I have it on good authority that Warner was in talks with the collector, and, once thejudyroom.com article went up and various comments were posted on HTF, that those talks abruptly ended.

Let's not forget this material was dumped, discarded and disrespected by Warner at one time, so I can understand why a collector, who was able to rescue it from complete loss, would then be hesitant to entrust it to the same company that, at one time, was hell bent on its destruction. We also don't know the details on what prior events occurred between the two parties in the past to complicate such a negotiation.

It's easy for any of us to say, "Hey, turn it over!" But isn't that the same thing that was told to the theaters about returning the trims after they cut the film to conform to Warner's instructions?

I'm reminded of that old saying that goes something like, "You catch more flies with honey than...," well, you get my drift.

I find it odd how some people feel this urgent need to be THE ONE to right the wrongs, to be the instigator, to raise their voice to espouse their feelings and cause to rise above anyone else's. In a way it comes off as selfish to me, one person doing what they can to put their own name and stamp on the legend. Now, I'm a fan of Don Quixote and the ideal of fighting the good fight when everyone else believes the cause to be hopeless. I also think it's important to stand up and blow the whistle when we see injustice and deception, regardless of what anyone else might think. However, publishing the name of a private citizen and rallying the troops based on nothing but third-hand information that is sketchy at best brings to mind the scene near the end of Disney's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, when the villagers band together to storm the beast's castle, rushing to the conclusion that he will make off with their children in the night and terrorize them all, not even taking into consideration that the beast actually has a good and moral soul.

I'll all for tilting at windmills, but there has to actually be a windmill first. Believing that there MIGHT be one just isn't enough. And aren't people supposed to be presumed innocent until proved otherwise?

What happened to the idea of trying to engage someone into coming forward, to join the club, to be welcomed and congratulated for sharing what would have been lost if not for their foresight? Seems to me that would be a far better way to get results than resort to what teeters on harassment. Does anyone remember how we got some of our best intelligence information from the people we captured during WW2? It wasn't from water boarding - it was from playing cards and befriending them.

Edited by Chuck Pennington - 5/21/10 at 12:06pm"

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#36 Post by movielocke » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:20 pm

that reminds me of the story that Criterion was going to release eraserhead, and coincidentally, online speculation they were going to release Eraserhead made Lynch think Criterion had been talking and he angrily bowed out of the negotiations.

Only this is much worse, the Judy Room and Stan Heck began openly advocating the harassment of the person with the prints, which caused the secret negotiations WB already had going with the collector to collapse. If WB could have established a good relationship with this guy, who knows what other materials he might be able to put them in touch with, major collectors are a small network of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has more treasures, or knows where many are.

That said, none of it would have happened if HTF member Joe Caps had kept his mouth shut on the identity of the collector when talking to the "press" (as if the Judy Room is press), but some people just LOVE to show off how much they know.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#37 Post by HarryLong » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:52 am

david hare wrote:Heck strikes me as a particularly shrill JudyGarlandQueen with a weak grasp of literacy ("I should of"...etc). I would take everything he said here including his life story with a glass of salt.
Oh, that's the least of his crimes against the English language (I did go back & struggle through to the end).
I also find it mind-boggling that he goes out of his way to bring attention to the guys who purportedly have complete prints of STAR (including pointing out the one guy to everyone he can at the post-film party) but asks the JudysRoom site not to use his name because he didn't want to risk having his TCM invite rescinded.
Heck strikes me as more than just clueless... he strikes me as a mental case.

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

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#38 Post by Cash Flagg » Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:52 pm

There wasn't much doubt, but the Wellman version definitely isn't included. From DVD Talk:
The First Disc (Blu-ray) has a runtime of 2:56:17.

The Second Disc (DVD) is simply the Special Features. I'm going through it now and don't see a version of the 1937 version at all.

HarryLong
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
Location: Lebanon, PA

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#39 Post by HarryLong » Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:27 am

david hare wrote:At least Gerard could do the Malibu suicide scene in Speedos.
Or less, a la one of his predecesors...

User avatar
What A Disgrace
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#40 Post by What A Disgrace » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:35 pm

The First Disc (Blu-ray) has a runtime of 2:56:17.

The Second Disc (DVD) is simply the Special Features. I'm going through it now and don't see a version of the 1937 version at all.
[/quote]
Went from "must buy" to "rent".

User avatar
jsteffe
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#41 Post by jsteffe » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:09 am

One of my friends received an advance copy of the Blu-ray and is raving about it. He said he popped it in to see how it looked and ended up watching the whole thing from beginning to end in one sitting. Considering what he knows about the film's restoration history and about film restoration in general, this has me genuinely excited.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#42 Post by Finch » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:28 am

Finished watching this 15 minutes ago and it is quite a treat on BD. Some flickering is evident in one or two scenes and some wide shots look a bit soft but it's all inherent in the material (the same scenes were affected on the SD SE). All the same, it looks gorgeous, and while the still insertions are still far from ideal, I get more used to them each time I revisit the film. Truth be told, if you omitted them entirely, a straight transition from the scene in Danny's apartment to the sequence of Esther getting her "facelift" would have been even more awkward. Either way, this wonderful film's hold on me remains undiminished and again I was moved to tears by Esther's final declaration - Cukor's joint best film with 1938's Holiday.

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

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#43 Post by Cash Flagg » Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:02 pm


User avatar
CSM126
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
Location: The Room
Contact:

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#44 Post by CSM126 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:37 am

To be fair, blu-ray.com's review has screengrabs from the old DVD for whatever reason, not new blu-ray grabs. If you mouse over any of the pics, you get a caption box saying as much.

atcolomb
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Round Lake, Illinois USA

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#45 Post by atcolomb » Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:29 pm

Saw Blu-ray version...excellent! both image and sound. I wish they a running commentary and a extra on the restoration of the film.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re:

#46 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:58 pm

david hare wrote:
Few musicals are as powerful dramatically as the 1954 A Star is Born
Strictly speaking I don't really think Star is Born is a Musical. The 20 minute Born in a Trunk sequence which was added to the original after the cuts were made, and directed by Richard Barstow perhaps pushes the film briefly into that mode - certainly giving Judy's persona that of a musical star. But all the remaining musical numbers are entirely diegetic, and they don't spring out of nowhere to drive the action. And Judy's film persona is left largely untouched by the screenplay.

The Man that Got Away has the power of a big dramatic "discovery" scene, which it literally is. And even Put on that Happy Face is an ironic "pickup" after Judy's big breakdown scene. But I don't think of Star as a Musical in the true sense of the term.
I totally agree with this (and devlinn's beautifully evoactive re-telling of the Man That Got Away number which follows the post I've quoted and which nails that perfect moment of the film).

I certainly see A Star Is Born as not as a musical but as a 'drama set in the musical scene'. I especially like the way that there are many different ways of fitting the musical numbers into the action, such as the nightclub performance or the re-enactment of Esther's number that she was filming to Norman in their living room, using every possible fixture and furnishing as a prop.

But even more interesting is the way that these numbers get interrupted, such as the opening number where Norman stumbles onto the stage drunk and then gets incorporated into the act by Esther. davidhare above mentions the way that Lose That Long Face breaks off part way through in order to change camera positions, sending Esther to her dressing room to have her breakdown, before we return to the big finale number that is given an even more ironically touching power.

Similarly the astonishing Born In A Trunk scene is wonderfully constructed as a flashback within a film within a film (also bookended with the two performances of Swanee as the reminiscence catches up with the present). It allows for ever more increasing levels of stylisations as we see the character Esther is playing in the film recount her life story. The way that this sequence showing the preview film takes over the entire film itself, which then moves straight into the intermission without restoring us back to the 'reality' of the world of Esther and Norman, also feels like it encapsulates the popularity of the musicals as being another world that you can lose yourself in.

The musical has taken over for an extended period, but there is always the conflict or interruption between the fantasy and the real world, often portrayed through showing the mechanics of filmmaking, and one which Norman is cut off from when he is removed from his contract and cannot find any other work. Not just in fantasy terms but in the way his real name keeps cropping up in the latter half of the film, the first time with its reveal during his marriage ceremony - Esther's name gets obscured as she becomes Vicki, while 'Norman Maine' fades in the memory...at least until it gets brought back to attention in the final spectacular, but itself transient, gesture.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#47 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:54 am

It arrived this weekend, which is why it came to mind today! Hopefully I will have a chance to give all the extras a play at some point this week.

I agree. The Born In A Trunk sequence is crucially important, and rightly feels like a totally different film, and mode of filmmaking (It is just that in this film, the real world issues mostly predominate over the musical interludes, playing out a similar battle going on in cinema itself over gritty 'realism' versus flights of fantasy artifice), and one of the few instances of extra additions actually helping a film. We get to see Esther's/Vicki's star making performance - the role she will always be remembered for - for ourselves rather than just having to take her success as given. It's something very difficult (and brave) to try and pull off - far easier to make something that plays as ironically cheesy but which the 'dumb' audience enjoys rather than the all out extravaganza for the pleasure of all, not least the performers, that we get presented with here.

Finally the preview film manages to leave real world grounding behind as we see the character in the film at the highpoint of her career reminiscing, with the arc of the character sort of similar to that of Esther's, but in more 'Hollywood' terms. You become a huge success but are always living in the past to some extent and a product of your climb to the heights, but whereas Born In A Trunk is celebratory of this 'remembering your roots' idea, Esther's grand success will be painfully bitter sweet.

And then you get the Judy Garland meta-level layered on top of that. It feels like you move further away from the actress as you move further into the levels of artifice, yet the artifice allows for a more stripped down consideration of 'actress as struggling star' into its archetypal elements. The Born In A Trunk sequence at the mid-point takes us the furthest through these various levels and then the film retraces its steps back out of it through to the almost transcendent ending when, while it completes Esther's journey in a moving and satisfying manner, it could just as meaningfully be Judy herself there getting a standing ovation on the stage.

The Born In A Trunk sequence lifts us up and out of the film (the perfect point for the intermission), but also dives deeper into the importance of fantasy as a tool of self-analysis or self revelation (or self motivation) which becomes the big theme of the film in the second half. Something which might easily tip over into delusion, but which is important nevertheless. The need for some place where you can become someone, act in something bigger, and work out your concerns away from the direct pressures of a reality that might be too terrible to bear if you confronted it straight on is perhaps getting to the central theme of all art.

And it's a wonderfully entertaining film too! :D

User avatar
hamsterburger
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#48 Post by hamsterburger » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:08 pm

Has anyone in the UK picked up the recently released UK blu-ray?

I would like to know if this has the second DVD of extras that is present on the US blu-ray release.

Thanks for any info on this. :)

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

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#49 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:49 pm

Heads up, MoMA is screening Warner Bros.' "restored" version on Thursday, July 23 at 7:00 p.m. This is a DCP, presumably the recent one they made in 4k.

(FWIW, they were planning on showing a vintage 35mm print, but decided not to due to the print's poor condition.)

It would've been even better if they managed to show a 35mm print of the COMPLETE version that is in the hands of a private collector (and there may even be several of these), but alas...

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

Re: A Star is Born (1954)

#50 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:41 am

I had heard 35mm but I can't remember where. Regardless, here's where I first heard about it.

Post Reply