A Star Is Born is a legendary film. Not only because it’s Judy Garland’s greatest film role, but also because the story of the making of the film, its subsequent butchering by Warner Bros. (yes, it was butchered!), and the 1983 restoration, is a rare and fascinating look into “behind the scenes” Hollywood, studio politics during the decline of the “Studio System”, and the quest for artistic perfection.

The story of the making of A Star Is Born (and its restoration) is beautifully told by the late Ronald Haver in his 1988 book “A Star Is Born – The Making of the 1954 Film and Its 1983 Restoration”.Haver spearheaded the restoration of Star, the first-ever major restoration of a film by the American Film Institute, and his book provides rich details about his efforts, and the efforts of many others, in restoring most of the lost footage. The book also details the making of the film in 1953/1954.

    Click here to purchase the book.
    Click here to go to the "Restoration Page" here in this spotlight section.

I certainly could never tell the complete story of the making of the film as well as Mr. Haver does in both his article in American Film Magazine (detailed in the Restoration Page) or his book. Nor should I! For more details, definitely get his book. It’s a wonderful book not only about the story of the making of the film and the restoration, but of how Hollywood and the studio system worked in the early 1950's. A must for any film fan!

The following is sort of a “Cliff’s Notes” version of the history of A Star Is Born (and even this is not short!). I try to highlight the basic story, with some details, plus legends (in a story such as this, legends are rampant), and a few of my own opinions.   Enjoy!.

ORIGINS

The storyline of A Star Is Born began life in the early 1930’s, when producer David O. Selznick decided to make a serious film about Hollywood of the day. He tapped former reporter Adela Rogers St. Johns who came up with a story based on the marriage of silent star Colleen Moore and alcoholic producer John McCormick. The basic storyline was fleshed out with other stories about other known alcoholic filmmakers, including the well known director Marshall “Mickey” Nielan. More Hollywood lore was added when director Lowell Sherman who portrayed the director in the film (which would become the “Norman Maine” character), based many of the traits of his characterization on his brother-in-law (and well known drinker) John Barrymore. Selznick himself added some of his own memories of Hollywood scandals.

George Cukor was assigned to direct. After attempting to provide a comeback for silent film star Clara Bow (Selznick was forced to forgo this due to Bow’s own alcoholism and resulting weight gain), Constance Bennett was given the female lead as “Mary Evans”, a waitress who’s “discovered” by director Maximilian Carey (Lowell Sherman).

The film was one of Cukor’s first real hits, helping to establish him as a soon-to-be great director, and it would have a great influence on his work on the 1954 remake.

In 1937 Selznick, still fascinated with the story, returned to it for his Technicolor hit A Star Is Born starring Janet Gaynor and Frederick March. Directed by William Wellman, this is the film that would form the basis for the subsequent remakes (Dorothy Parker was among the writers who helped make significant changes in the screenplay). The story was changed a little bit, but the basic theme remained the same. The 1937 version was a huge hit, garnering Oscar nominations for Best Film, Best Actor, & Best Actress among others.

1954 REMAKE

The seeds of the 1954 remake actually go back to 1942. On December 28, 1942 Judy Garland and Walter Pigeon starred in a radio version of the 1937 film. Like the 1937 film, the radio version was non-musical, and Judy loved the story so much that she tried (several times) to convince MGM to do a musical remake. MGM flatly refused, feeling that the public would never accept sweet girl-next-door Garland as the wife of an alcoholic.

Segue to 1952. Judy had just triumphed at the London Palladium and The Palace Theater in New York after leaving MGM in 1950 as a “Hollywood has-been” (at the tender age of 28!!). She was such a huge hit that she almost single handedly “invented” the one-woman concert show of the latter 20th century. With her new mature image, Garland and husband Sid Luft began to shop around the idea for Judy’s comeback to films. Judy suggested Star and Jack Warner of Warner Bros decided to finance the film. Judy and Sid formed their own production company “Transcona Enterprises” and entered into a contract with Warner Bros to co-produce films, with Star being the first.

Cary Grant was the first choice for the pivotal role of “Norman Maine” – the actor who discovers Vicki Lester (Judy) and helps to make her a star, while his own career is on the downslide due to his alcoholism. Grant graciously declined, feeling he wouldn't be right for the part, so James Mason got the role. Prior to Mason getting the role, many other leading actors of the day were considered, including Laurence Olivier, Richard Burton, Tyrone Power & Marlon Brando.

Production began in the summer of 1953. Almost immediately the problems did too. At the time, much of the blame for the delays was put on Judy (due to her reputation), but it has since been revealed that Judy was more of a scapegoat than the real “problem.” One of the main problems with the film was studio chief Jack Warner. Basically Sid and Judy rubbed Warner the wrong way on several occasions and several issues, and Warner eventually lost interest in the projecct, ignoring the fact that he was sinking a ton of money into it and gambling his and the studio's reputation. One thing the studio chiefs had was ego!

Perhaps the biggest reason for the initial delays and bloated budget was that about a month into shooting, Warner decided to scrap everything and re-shoot in CinemaScope. CinemaScope was the was the big new (and expensive) widescreen process that was seen by many studio heads as the answer to the red ink caused by post-war television keeping the public at home. Warner also wanted to use their new “Warner Color” process, but luckily Cukor and company prevailed and far superior Technicolor was used.

NOTE: Cukor hated CinemaScope, remarking that he felt like he was shooting through a coffin. His solution was to frame much of the far sides of the film in shadows, creating a singular mood. In other scenes he would fill the sides with visuals that would draw the action in to the actors. This makes sense because A Star Is Born is a character driven story, not a big “wide-screen epic” as was popular for CinemaScope pictures at that time.

Judy did cause some delays due to her famous insecurities. A lot was riding on this film. Three years earlier, Hollywood had written her off as a casualty of fame and fortune and growing up on a studio backlot. After her great concert comebacks of 1951 & 1952, Judy knew that Star was her one chance to prove to Hollywood that she could still rally to the occasion and carry a film. As a result, she sometimes had to be coaxed onto the set to perform. But Judy wasn’t a temperamental diva as so many people have assumed. A great number of Judy’s contemporaries have pointed out that she was such a professional she always knew if she was going to be good or not. If she wasn’t, she didn’t want to perform. Judy would actually save time by being able to come on to the set and perform brilliantly in the least amount of takes necessary.

The various delays, along with Sid Luft’s inexperience as a producer, exasperated Warner. Warner was irritated not only that the film was taking a long time to make and going over budget, but that “producer” Luft was spending most of his time at the race track and not taking control of the project.

In spite of all of this, something was happening. Cukor, Judy and the rest of the production were slowly making a masterpiece. This was Cukor’s first musical, and his first film in color. He ran with it, taking full advantage of the CinemaScope screen, state-of-the-art stereo, and Judy’s talent. Cukor created a film that has a singular view of Hollywood. A realism permeates the film that is missing in most films about Hollywood, before or since.

When the film was finished, even Warner was happy with the results. All agreed it was going to be a huge hit. All agreed that it was a masterpiece of filmmaking. And most of all, all agreed that it was Judy’s greatest performance.

Only one thing remained: There was no “proof” of Vicki Lester (Judy) becoming a star. As it was, the film showed Vicki and Norman (James Mason) going to see Vicki’s film debut, then it cut to the theater lobby after the film, with the crowds lauding Vicki’s performance. The decision was made to film a “payoff” number showing why Vicki became such a big star.

They came up with the “Born In A Trunk” sequence – which was Warner Bros. answer to the popular “ballets” in the current MGM musicals. This added more time to the already long film, making it a total of 196 minutes long by the time of the previews.

top of page

      

THE PREMIERE AND AFTER

The previews received unanimous praise. Everyone agreed that Judy, Cukor and Mason had given their best and created a masterpiece of filmmaking unlike anything anyone had seen. Even today, the film has its own singular look and style.

When the film premiered on September 29, 1954 it was the biggest premiere in Hollywood history. It was the first to be televised in its entirety. All of the stars of the day were there. George Jessel (who in 1935 had renamed “The Gumm Sisters” “The Garland Sisters” – and thus Frances Gumm became Frances Garland who became Judy Garland), assisted Jack Carson (“Libby” in the film) in introducing the galaxy of stars on their way into the theater. All were heaping praise and accolades on Judy. Everyone seemed excited and happy to have Judy back.

When the film went into general release, it had the fortune of glowing reviews and a Life Magazine cover story (Judy’s second cover, her first was in 1944 for Meet Me In St. Louis) to help promote it. But that was about all. Early on, theater owners began complaining about the length of the film. This meant fewer showings per day, which meant less money for Warners. Studio boss Harry Warner had his fill of Garland and Luft, and since Cukor and everyone else had left for other projects Harry had his brother Jack order the theaters to return the film to the studio. The studio then chopped out chunks of the film to cut it down to 154 minutes. The cut footage was allegedly destroyed. I personally believe this was his vindictiveness to “get back” at Judy and Sid. Never has there been such a blatant disregard for the work of artists by an executive of a major studio than when Warner chopped out chunks of the narrative and musical numbers for time’s sake.

Cukor and Judy were so upset and hurt by the cuts, they vowed never to see their butchered masterpiece again. Cukor later remarked that he could have gone in and trimmed several scenes to make the running time shorter but not jeopardize the narrative. But the studio wasn't about to bring him back on the payroll.

The cut version was choppy and at times nonsensical. Word of mouth spread that the version in general release was not as great as initially reported. Money began to drop off.Added to the cost of the picture was the decision to re-shoot in CinemaScope, the added “Born In A Trunk” sequence, the costs in having all the prints shipped back and cut to the shorter version then shipped back out, and the promotions – which all added up to the film not making a profit.

Judy and Sid’s Transcona Enterprises would not make another film. Jack Warner was so “over it” that when awards season rolled around, Warner Bros. didn’t place any ads promoting what was their biggest film of the year. Still, Judy and James Mason both received Oscar nominations, and the film was also nominated for Art Direction, Set Decoration, Costume Design, Musical Score and Song ("The Man That Got Away"). It wouldn't win any of them. Oddly, neither George Cukor nor the film itself received nominations.

This oversight was partly due to a sort of “backlash” against the film. Warner would tell anyone who listened how Judy and Sid were reckless and irresponsible while making the film, and that was the reason for the high costs (ignoring his own part in all of it). Plus, everyone in Hollywood knew that the final release version was not the same film they all loved at the premiere and immediately afterwards.

However, everyone unaimously agreed that Judy gave not only her own personal best, but one of the greatest performances in screen history, musical or non-musical.

Judy lost the Oscar to Grace Kelly. Legends abound. One book that I saw quite a few years back about the Oscars reported either Hedda Hopper or Louella Parsons stating that they knew for a fact that most of the MGM studio executives supposedly voted against Judy – their noses out of joint that she would go to Warner Bros. rather than MGM to make her comeback masterpiece. Another legend is that many people in Hollywood felt that Judy was a spoiled Hollywood brat who still created temperamental, unprofessional delays on every film she made and this was her comeuppance. Other scenarios have Grace Kelly as the “new hot thing” in Hollywood (she was) who was willing to “de-glamourize” herself for a dramatic role – and Grace was indeed a hot commodity, who allegedly had slept her way to the top (I told you there would be some “legends” reported). Whether these or any of the other stories are really true is beside the point. The main point is that this really was “make or break” for Judy in Hollywood. Losing the Oscar was proof to her that Hollywood didn’t really want her back.

Most of Judy's contemporaries have gone on record stating that they all thought that Judy should win the Oscar, and they thought that she would. The shock of Judy not winning was such that she received dozens of telegrams of “condolences”. The most famous being the telegram from Groucho Marx, which read “[this is] the greatest robbery since the Brinks.”