list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around A Star is Born on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/A_Star_is_Born/32766/default.aspx Title: A Star is Born
Year: 1954
Director: George Cukor
Plot: The 1954 musical remake of A Star is Born could have been titled A Star is Reborn, in that it represented the triumphal return to the screen of Judy Garland after a four-year absence. The remake adheres closely to the plotline of the 1937 original: An alcoholic film star, on his last professional legs, gives a career boost to a unknown aspiring actress. The two marry, whereupon her fame and fortune rises while his spirals sharply downward. Unable to accept this, the male star crawls deeper into the bottle. The wife tearfully decides to give up her own career to care for her husband. To spare her this fate, the husband chivalrously commits suicide. His wife is inconsolable at first, but is urged to go "on with the show" in memory of her late husband. In the original, Janet Gaynor played Esther Blodgett, who with no training or contacts came to Hollywood hoping for stardom. The remake, scripted by Moss Hart, is a shade more realistic: Garland's Esther, though far removed from fame, is a working professional singer/dancer when first we meet her. Both Gaynor and Garland are transformed from "Esther Blodgett" to "Vicki Lester" after being screen-tested, though Gaynor goes on to star in fluffy costume dramas while Garland more logically headlines big-budget musicals. The 1937 Star is Born costarred Fredric March as Norman Maine, Esther/Vicki's sponsor-cum-spouse. March patterned his performance after the tragic John Barrymore, reining in his emotions in favor of pure technique; James Mason's interpretation is more original, more emotional, and far more effective (who can forget the scene where Norman sobbingly overhears Vicki planning to give up her career for his sake?) As the studio's long-suffering publicist, the 1937 version's Lionel Stander is more abrasive and unpleasant than the 1954 version's introspective, intellectual Jack Carson; on the other hand, Adolphe Menjou and Charles Bickford are fairly evenly matched in the role of the studio head. Several important omissions are made in the remake. The 1937 Star is Born included Esther's indomitable old grandma (May Robson), a helpful assistant director (Andy Devine) and a soft-hearted landlord (Edgar Kennedy); all three characters are missing from the 1954 version, though elements of each can be found in the "best friend/severest critic" character played by Tommy Noonan. Wisely, both versions end with the grieving Vicki Lester coming out of her shell at a public gathering, greeting the audience with a proud, defiant "Good evening, everybody. This is Mrs. Norman Maine". Though directors William Wellman (1937 version) and George Cukor (1954 version) handl
Times Tagged: 13
Number of Lists: 7
Number of blog posts: 51
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:03:10 GMTA Star is Born1954George CukorThe 1954 musical remake of A Star is Born could have been titled <I>A Star is Reborn</I>, in that it represented the triumphal return to the screen of <a href="/players/P____25962/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judy Garland</a> after a four-year absence. The remake adheres closely to the plotline of the 1937 original: An alcoholic film star, on his last professional legs, gives a career boost to a unknown aspiring actress. The two marry, whereupon her fame and fortune rises while his spirals sharply downward. Unable to accept this, the male star crawls deeper into the bottle. The wife tearfully decides to give up her own career to care for her husband. To spare her this fate, the husband chivalrously commits suicide. His wife is inconsolable at first, but is urged to go "on with the show" in memory of her late husband. In the original, <a href="/players/P____26244/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Janet Gaynor</a> played Esther Blodgett, who with no training or contacts came to Hollywood hoping for stardom. The remake, scripted by <a href="/players/P___161116/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Moss Hart</a>, is a shade more realistic: Garland's Esther, though far removed from fame, is a working professional singer/dancer when first we meet her. Both Gaynor and Garland are transformed from "Esther Blodgett" to "Vicki Lester" after being screen-tested, though Gaynor goes on to star in fluffy costume dramas while Garland more logically headlines big-budget musicals. The 1937 <a href=/films/32766/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Star is Born</a> costarred <a href="/players/P____45310/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fredric March</a> as Norman Maine, Esther/Vicki's sponsor-cum-spouse. March patterned his performance after the tragic <a href="/players/P_____4291/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Barrymore</a>, reining in his emotions in favor of pure technique; <a href="/players/P___101610/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Mason</a>'s interpretation is more original, more emotional, and far more effective (who can forget the scene where Norman sobbingly overhears Vicki planning to give up her career for his sake?) As the studio's long-suffering publicist, the 1937 version's <a href="/players/P____67551/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lionel Stander</a> is more abrasive and unpleasant than the 1954 version's introspective, intellectual <a href="/players/P____11363/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Carson</a>; on the other hand, <a href="/players/P____48438/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adolphe Menjou</a> and <a href="/players/P_____6091/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charles Bickford</a> are fairly evenly matched in the role of the studio head. Several important omissions are made in the remake. The 1937 <a href=/films/32766/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Star is Born</a> included Esther's indomitable old grandma (<a href="/players/P____60867/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>May Robson</a>), a helpful assistant director (<a href="/players/P____18841/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andy Devine</a>) and a soft-hearted landlord (<a href="/players/P____37701/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Edgar Kennedy</a>); all three characters are missing from the 1954 version, though elements of each can be found in the "best friend/severest critic" character played by <a href="/players/P___119538/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tommy Noonan</a>. Wisely, both versions end with the grieving Vicki Lester coming out of her shell at a public gathering, greeting the audience with a proud, defiant "Good evening, everybody. This is Mrs. Norman Maine". Though directors <a href="/players/P___116375/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Wellman</a> (1937 version) and <a href="/players/P____86340/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Cukor</a> (1954 version) handl13Tag Target (>10)7512http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t34053z9njk.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/A_Star_is_Born/32766/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/3/40799.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2009 5:03:10 PM
Body: In addition to winning Best Picture (and seven other awards) at the Oscars last week, Slumdog Millionaire passed a major box office benchmark. It has now grossed more than $100 million in the U.S., which is pretty astonishing for a film with one-third of its dialogue in a foreign language. But is Slumdog’s popularity a one-shot in terms of its audience’s interest in India, or are moviegoers actually now more curious about the nation and its own films? Some websites are simplifying the question of whether or not Slumdog will be a gateway film with polls asking if American moviegoers will now “go Bollywood” (40% of Cinematical readers flat out answered, “no.”), which is rather silly since Danny Boyle’s movie bears no resemblance to the majority of Bollywood pictures. In fact, Americans have in the past received far greater entry points into Indian cinema by way of films involving Anglo or NRI (non-resident Indian) protagonists directed by culturally bridging filmmakers (such as NRI helmers Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha), than the more-touristy type of filmmaking represented with Slumdog. If someone truly wants to become familiar with Bollywood, he or she should probably just jump right in and then patiently get used to the style, which can be quite difficult for Westerners to immediately grasp. The extremely interested might benefit from reading the section on popular Indian cinema in Dimitris Eleftheriotis and Gary Needham’s Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide, a book that does a really great job acquainting the Western spectator with Eastern film form. Or, the more casually curious cinephile could simply follow our guide to accessible Indian (or India-based) films for the Slumdog lover to watch next: Sita Sings the Blues (Nina Paley, 2008) What it’s about: Paley’s semi-autobiographical animated feature self-deprecatingly depicts the events of the filmmaker’s divorce crosscut with a somewhat paralleling adaptation of part of the epic Indian poem Ramayana. Why you should see it: Although not an Indian production nor made by an Indian filmmaker, Sita does offer an entry point for the mythological genre of Indian films and/or an introduction to Hindu myths, a number of which are the basis for a lot of Bollywood musical numbers. If that’s not enough reason, though, here’s what Karina wrote about the film in her review: “Sita Sings the Blues is a strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Where to see it: Sita won the Gotham Award for Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You and will infamously remain without a distributor forever. However, those of us in the NYC area can watch the film on PBS’ Reel 13 program on March 7. Those of you outside New York are in luck, too; the film is currently available for free on Reel 13’s website as a streaming video. Salaam Bombay! (Mira Nair, 1988) What it’s about: A 10-year-old boy tries to survive on the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai) after being told to go out and find work by his mother. Why you should see it: With all the crossover movies from the past two decades dealing with interracial relationships, arranged marriage and the complications of NRI life, Nair’s films are typically the most entertaining. But while minor gateways could be found in her films The Namesake (starring Harold & Kumar’s Kal Penn), Mississippi Masala (starring Denzel Washington) or the very enjoyable Monsoon Wedding, this Oscar-nominated drama might be what Slumdog fans seek most if primarily interested in more “poverty porn.” Like Slumdog, Salaam Bombay! even starred actual non-professional street children. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) What it’s about: The first installment of Ray’s Apu trilogy (which also includes Aparajito and The World of Apu), Pather Panchali is a tragedy-filled tale of a poor family living in rural Bengal in the 1920s and concentrates on the coming of age story of young Apu. Why you should see it: Aside from being one of the greatest films ever made, let alone one of the greatest Indian films, Pather Panchali tells a universal story of family and is quite Western in form (for one thing, it lacks musical numbers), a fact that made it somewhat looked down upon in its own country. But in addition to its accessibility, it can also serve as a starting point to melodramatic conventions found in many classic Indian films. The abandoning patriarch, the significantly strong matriarch and other common national metaphors are present and will familiarize you for the next title on this list. Where to see it: This is one of those films that’s constantly being screened at repertory houses, so see it on a big screen if you have the chance. Otherwise, the entire Apu trilogy is unfortunately out of print on DVD. But such masterpieces can’t possibly be unavailable for too long, so pick up a box set whenever one is released. Mother India (Mehboob Khan, 1957) What it’s about: An epic maternal melodrama and metaphor for post-colonial India, Khan’s Oscar-nominated film focuses on a poor Indian family throughout many years, as the patriarch leaves the home and the mother is left to deal with two very different sons. Why you should see it: If you enjoy Pather Panchali, you may at least appreciate the story of Mother India, though the latter has a much more melodramatic and emotional tone. Unlike Pather Panchali, it does feature musical numbers as well as a bit of comic relief, courtesy of a very bratty little boy. Also, it’s basically the Gone With the Wind of India, at least in terms of its national significance — and one familiar-looking shot — if not in terms of its plot. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001) What it’s about: Oppressed Indian villagers battle against their British governors … in a cricket match seemingly depicted in real time. Also, one of the villagers becomes entangled in a love triangle between his true love and a British woman, who is also the sister of the film’s villain. Why you should see it: First of all, it’s one of the most accessible foreign films of the last 10 years, period. For the guys: Lagaan is just like all your favorite underdog sports flicks except that it gives you even more of the game, as well as some singing and dancing here and there (with music by Slumdog Oscar-winner A.R. Rahman). So what if you don’t know anything about cricket; just pretend it’s baseball. For the gals: there’s just as much romance as cricket playing. Advice for both sexes: you might want to fast forward through the song that the British woman sings. It’s the single unbearable moment in the nearly 4-hour film. Where to see it: Apparently unavailable through rental sites like Netflix, but you can pick up a DVD through Amazon affiliates. Hum Tum (Kunal Kohli, 2004) What it’s about: Basically, though not officially, it’s the Bollywood remake of When Harry Met Sally. Why you should see it: If Lagaan is the perfect gateway for guys, Hum Tum is the perfect gateway for girls, although like Lagaan, this film has something for both sexes. All guys can appreciate When Harry Met Sally, after all, right? Where to see it: Also unavailable through Netflix, but you can find a very cheap all-region DVD through Amazon affiliates. Abhimaan (Hrishikesh Mukherjee, 1973) What it’s about: Inspired by A Star is Born, a famous singer meets, falls for and fosters the career of a young woman, who ends up more popular than him. Why you should see it: First of all, every Slumdog fan should become acquainted with Amitabh Bachchan (the celebrity whose autograph the young excrement-covered Jamal acquires), who costars here with his real-life wife Jaya Bhaduri (a bigger star at the time). Second of all, because the musical numbers all figure into the plot, either as recording studio sequences or concert performances, there’s not as much of that jarring, interruptive nature of most Bollywood musicals. Where to see it: Available on DVD. It’s also one of the many Indian films available for streaming on Netflix’s Watch Instantly. Amar Akbar Anthony (Manmohan Desai, 1977) What it’s about: Another great metaphor for post-colonial India, this other Bachchan-starring classic tells the story of three brothers separated as infants, who end up growing up under very different circumstances. One is adopted by a Hindu policeman and becomes the same; one is brought up by a Muslim taylor and becomes a popular singer; and the third (played by Bachchan) is raised Catholic and enters a life of crime. Why you should see it: For more Amitabh Bachchan after he became India’s favorite actor. Though not technically a great film, it is filled with a lot of absurd moments and can serve as a gateway for those cinephiles who can only approach new things first through ironic appreciation. Such viewers should really love the Easter scene in which Bachchan jumps out of a giant egg wearing a top hat and monocle to sing a song about himself. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD. Krrish (Rakesh Roshan, 2006) What it’s about: This sequel to the sci-fi movie Koi…Mil Gay is your typical superhero action flick, except done in the style of Bollywood. Why you should see it: This one is primarily for getting your kids into Indian cinema, because kids will watch just about any superhero movie, regardless of the language or setting. Though the original more-E.T.-than-Superman film, Koi…Mil Gay, should probably be watched first, there’s nothing wrong with making this your primary gateway for the little ones. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD Vanaja (Rajnesh Domalpalli, 2006) What it’s about: Set in South India and controversially made outside the local “Tollywood” film industry, Domalpalli’s comparatively non-musical film follows the story of a 14-year-old girl who is pretty much sold off by her father to a wealthy landowner who puts her to work while also teaching her traditional Kuchipudi dance. Why you should see it: While not very relative to Slumdog or most of the other films on this list, Vanaja will open up viewers to other cinemas of India, even if this rather Western-form film was a Columbia University graduate thesis film and even if it is considered more “art house” than the popular cinema of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Like the slightly similar coming of age art house film Pather Panchali, Vanaja is a wonderful film and a terrific start for beginners. But because this film features Indian music and dance, it may also function as a gateway to the typical musical films of India, either produced in Andhra Pradesh or Mumbai (Bollywood) Where to see it: Available on DVD. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:03:10 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/3/2009 5:03:10 PMIn addition to winning Best Picture (and seven other awards) at the Oscars last week, Slumdog Millionaire passed a major box office benchmark. It has now grossed more than $100 million in the U.S., which is pretty astonishing for a film with one-third of its dialogue in a foreign language. But is Slumdog’s popularity a one-shot in terms of its audience’s interest in India, or are moviegoers actually now more curious about the nation and its own films? Some websites are simplifying the question of whether or not Slumdog will be a gateway film with polls asking if American moviegoers will now “go Bollywood” (40% of Cinematical readers flat out answered, “no.”), which is rather silly since Danny Boyle’s movie bears no resemblance to the majority of Bollywood pictures. In fact, Americans have in the past received far greater entry points into Indian cinema by way of films involving Anglo or NRI (non-resident Indian) protagonists directed by culturally bridging filmmakers (such as NRI helmers Deepa Mehta, Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha), than the more-touristy type of filmmaking represented with Slumdog. If someone truly wants to become familiar with Bollywood, he or she should probably just jump right in and then patiently get used to the style, which can be quite difficult for Westerners to immediately grasp. The extremely interested might benefit from reading the section on popular Indian cinema in Dimitris Eleftheriotis and Gary Needham’s Asian Cinemas: A Reader & Guide, a book that does a really great job acquainting the Western spectator with Eastern film form. Or, the more casually curious cinephile could simply follow our guide to accessible Indian (or India-based) films for the Slumdog lover to watch next: Sita Sings the Blues (Nina Paley, 2008) What it’s about: Paley’s semi-autobiographical animated feature self-deprecatingly depicts the events of the filmmaker’s divorce crosscut with a somewhat paralleling adaptation of part of the epic Indian poem Ramayana. Why you should see it: Although not an Indian production nor made by an Indian filmmaker, Sita does offer an entry point for the mythological genre of Indian films and/or an introduction to Hindu myths, a number of which are the basis for a lot of Bollywood musical numbers. If that’s not enough reason, though, here’s what Karina wrote about the film in her review: “Sita Sings the Blues is a strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Where to see it: Sita won the Gotham Award for Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You and will infamously remain without a distributor forever. However, those of us in the NYC area can watch the film on PBS’ Reel 13 program on March 7. Those of you outside New York are in luck, too; the film is currently available for free on Reel 13’s website as a streaming video. Salaam Bombay! (Mira Nair, 1988) What it’s about: A 10-year-old boy tries to survive on the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai) after being told to go out and find work by his mother. Why you should see it: With all the crossover movies from the past two decades dealing with interracial relationships, arranged marriage and the complications of NRI life, Nair’s films are typically the most entertaining. But while minor gateways could be found in her films The Namesake (starring Harold & Kumar’s Kal Penn), Mississippi Masala (starring Denzel Washington) or the very enjoyable Monsoon Wedding, this Oscar-nominated drama might be what Slumdog fans seek most if primarily interested in more “poverty porn.” Like Slumdog, Salaam Bombay! even starred actual non-professional street children. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955) What it’s about: The first installment of Ray’s Apu trilogy (which also includes Aparajito and The World of Apu), Pather Panchali is a tragedy-filled tale of a poor family living in rural Bengal in the 1920s and concentrates on the coming of age story of young Apu. Why you should see it: Aside from being one of the greatest films ever made, let alone one of the greatest Indian films, Pather Panchali tells a universal story of family and is quite Western in form (for one thing, it lacks musical numbers), a fact that made it somewhat looked down upon in its own country. But in addition to its accessibility, it can also serve as a starting point to melodramatic conventions found in many classic Indian films. The abandoning patriarch, the significantly strong matriarch and other common national metaphors are present and will familiarize you for the next title on this list. Where to see it: This is one of those films that’s constantly being screened at repertory houses, so see it on a big screen if you have the chance. Otherwise, the entire Apu trilogy is unfortunately out of print on DVD. But such masterpieces can’t possibly be unavailable for too long, so pick up a box set whenever one is released. Mother India (Mehboob Khan, 1957) What it’s about: An epic maternal melodrama and metaphor for post-colonial India, Khan’s Oscar-nominated film focuses on a poor Indian family throughout many years, as the patriarch leaves the home and the mother is left to deal with two very different sons. Why you should see it: If you enjoy Pather Panchali, you may at least appreciate the story of Mother India, though the latter has a much more melodramatic and emotional tone. Unlike Pather Panchali, it does feature musical numbers as well as a bit of comic relief, courtesy of a very bratty little boy. Also, it’s basically the Gone With the Wind of India, at least in terms of its national significance — and one familiar-looking shot — if not in terms of its plot. Where to see it: Available on DVD. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001) What it’s about: Oppressed Indian villagers battle against their British governors … in a cricket match seemingly depicted in real time. Also, one of the villagers becomes entangled in a love triangle between his true love and a British woman, who is also the sister of the film’s villain. Why you should see it: First of all, it’s one of the most accessible foreign films of the last 10 years, period. For the guys: Lagaan is just like all your favorite underdog sports flicks except that it gives you even more of the game, as well as some singing and dancing here and there (with music by Slumdog Oscar-winner A.R. Rahman). So what if you don’t know anything about cricket; just pretend it’s baseball. For the gals: there’s just as much romance as cricket playing. Advice for both sexes: you might want to fast forward through the song that the British woman sings. It’s the single unbearable moment in the nearly 4-hour film. Where to see it: Apparently unavailable through rental sites like Netflix, but you can pick up a DVD through Amazon affiliates. Hum Tum (Kunal Kohli, 2004) What it’s about: Basically, though not officially, it’s the Bollywood remake of When Harry Met Sally. Why you should see it: If Lagaan is the perfect gateway for guys, Hum Tum is the perfect gateway for girls, although like Lagaan, this film has something for both sexes. All guys can appreciate When Harry Met Sally, after all, right? Where to see it: Also unavailable through Netflix, but you can find a very cheap all-region DVD through Amazon affiliates. Abhimaan (Hrishikesh Mukherjee, 1973) What it’s about: Inspired by A Star is Born, a famous singer meets, falls for and fosters the career of a young woman, who ends up more popular than him. Why you should see it: First of all, every Slumdog fan should become acquainted with Amitabh Bachchan (the celebrity whose autograph the young excrement-covered Jamal acquires), who costars here with his real-life wife Jaya Bhaduri (a bigger star at the time). Second of all, because the musical numbers all figure into the plot, either as recording studio sequences or concert performances, there’s not as much of that jarring, interruptive nature of most Bollywood musicals. Where to see it: Available on DVD. It’s also one of the many Indian films available for streaming on Netflix’s Watch Instantly. Amar Akbar Anthony (Manmohan Desai, 1977) What it’s about: Another great metaphor for post-colonial India, this other Bachchan-starring classic tells the story of three brothers separated as infants, who end up growing up under very different circumstances. One is adopted by a Hindu policeman and becomes the same; one is brought up by a Muslim taylor and becomes a popular singer; and the third (played by Bachchan) is raised Catholic and enters a life of crime. Why you should see it: For more Amitabh Bachchan after he became India’s favorite actor. Though not technically a great film, it is filled with a lot of absurd moments and can serve as a gateway for those cinephiles who can only approach new things first through ironic appreciation. Such viewers should really love the Easter scene in which Bachchan jumps out of a giant egg wearing a top hat and monocle to sing a song about himself. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD. Krrish (Rakesh Roshan, 2006) What it’s about: This sequel to the sci-fi movie Koi…Mil Gay is your typical superhero action flick, except done in the style of Bollywood. Why you should see it: This one is primarily for getting your kids into Indian cinema, because kids will watch just about any superhero movie, regardless of the language or setting. Though the original more-E.T.-than-Superman film, Koi…Mil Gay, should probably be watched first, there’s nothing wrong with making this your primary gateway for the little ones. Where to see it: Currently available on DVD Vanaja (Rajnesh Domalpalli, 2006) What it’s about: Set in South India and controversially made outside the local “Tollywood” film industry, Domalpalli’s comparatively non-musical film follows the story of a 14-year-old girl who is pretty much sold off by her father to a wealthy landowner who puts her to work while also teaching her traditional Kuchipudi dance. Why you should see it: While not very relative to Slumdog or most of the other films on this list, Vanaja will open up viewers to other cinemas of India, even if this rather Western-form film was a Columbia University graduate thesis film and even if it is considered more “art house” than the popular cinema of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Like the slightly similar coming of age art house film Pather Panchali, Vanaja is a wonderful film and a terrific start for beginners. But because this film features Indian music and dance, it may also function as a gateway to the typical musical films of India, either produced in Andhra Pradesh or Mumbai (Bollywood) Where to see it: Available on DVD. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/11/7/37063.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 11/7/2008 2:01:06 PM
Body: A number of our blogging friends have picked up the Alphabetical Favorites meme. The idea is that you list 26 favorite movies, one for each letter of the alphabet. Some people are adding comments, but I think it’s more interesting to just toss the titles out there, to see how they fit together within a single list and how they match up to other lists. Also, it’s been a hell of a week and I’m exhausted. I will say this: after not being able to think of a single movie beginning with the letter “J” that I enjoy more than Joe Versus the Volcano, I noticed that several commenters at the House Next Door had slotted the same film in the same face. So much for Todd McCarthy’s contention in his Doubt review that John Patrick Shanley’s first directorial effort was “misguided.” So! My list is after the jump. Ali: Fear Eats The Soul Barry Lyndon Charade Deconstructing Harry Eyes Wide Shut Forty Second Street Ghostbusters Happy Together I Walked With a Zombie Joe vs. the Volcano Killers, The (1946) Long Goodbye, The Morocco North By Northwest On The Town Purple Rain Querelle Rules of the Game, The Star is Born, A (1954) They All Laughed Une Femme est une Femme Vivre Sa Vie When A Woman Ascends the Stairs Xanadu Yolanda and the Thief Zabriskie Point Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:01:06 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog11/7/2008 2:01:06 PMA number of our blogging friends have picked up the Alphabetical Favorites meme. The idea is that you list 26 favorite movies, one for each letter of the alphabet. Some people are adding comments, but I think it’s more interesting to just toss the titles out there, to see how they fit together within a single list and how they match up to other lists. Also, it’s been a hell of a week and I’m exhausted. I will say this: after not being able to think of a single movie beginning with the letter “J” that I enjoy more than Joe Versus the Volcano, I noticed that several commenters at the House Next Door had slotted the same film in the same face. So much for Todd McCarthy’s contention in his Doubt review that John Patrick Shanley’s first directorial effort was “misguided.” So! My list is after the jump. Ali: Fear Eats The Soul Barry Lyndon Charade Deconstructing Harry Eyes Wide Shut Forty Second Street Ghostbusters Happy Together I Walked With a Zombie Joe vs. the Volcano Killers, The (1946) Long Goodbye, The Morocco North By Northwest On The Town Purple Rain Querelle Rules of the Game, The Star is Born, A (1954) They All Laughed Une Femme est une Femme Vivre Sa Vie When A Woman Ascends the Stairs Xanadu Yolanda and the Thief Zabriskie Point Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/7/37062.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/7/2008 2:00:55 PM
Body: A number of our blogging friends have picked up the Alphabetical Favorites meme. The idea is that you list 26 favorite movies, one for each letter of the alphabet. Some people are adding comments, but I think it’s more interesting to just toss the titles out there, to see how they fit together within a single list and how they match up to other lists. Also, it’s been a hell of a week and I’m exhausted. I will say this: after not being able to think of a single movie beginning with the letter “J” that I enjoy more than Joe Versus the Volcano, I noticed that several commenters at the House Next Door had slotted the same film in the same face. So much for Todd McCarthy’s contention in his Doubt review that John Patrick Shanley’s first directorial effort was “misguided.” So! My list is after the jump. Ali: Fear Eats The Soul Barry Lyndon Charade Deconstructing Harry Eyes Wide Shut Forty Second Street Ghostbusters Happy Together I Walked With a Zombie Joe vs. the Volcano Killers, The (1946) Long Goodbye, The Morocco North By Northwest On The Town Purple Rain Querelle Rules of the Game, The Star is Born, A (1954) They All Laughed Une Femme est une Femme Vivre Sa Vie When A Woman Ascends the Stairs Xanadu Yolanda and the Thief Zabriskie Point Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:00:55 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/7/2008 2:00:55 PMA number of our blogging friends have picked up the Alphabetical Favorites meme. The idea is that you list 26 favorite movies, one for each letter of the alphabet. Some people are adding comments, but I think it’s more interesting to just toss the titles out there, to see how they fit together within a single list and how they match up to other lists. Also, it’s been a hell of a week and I’m exhausted. I will say this: after not being able to think of a single movie beginning with the letter “J” that I enjoy more than Joe Versus the Volcano, I noticed that several commenters at the House Next Door had slotted the same film in the same face. So much for Todd McCarthy’s contention in his Doubt review that John Patrick Shanley’s first directorial effort was “misguided.” So! My list is after the jump. Ali: Fear Eats The Soul Barry Lyndon Charade Deconstructing Harry Eyes Wide Shut Forty Second Street Ghostbusters Happy Together I Walked With a Zombie Joe vs. the Volcano Killers, The (1946) Long Goodbye, The Morocco North By Northwest On The Town Purple Rain Querelle Rules of the Game, The Star is Born, A (1954) They All Laughed Une Femme est une Femme Vivre Sa Vie When A Woman Ascends the Stairs Xanadu Yolanda and the Thief Zabriskie Point Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jjgittes/archive/2008/7/11/32444.aspx Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 7/11/2008 4:58:29 PM
Body: I hadn't seen the Judy Garland version of A STAR IS BORN before its airing on Reel 13, but I have been very familiar with the horror stories swirling around the production. As a matter of fact, the film is probably more famous for the backstory than it is for the film itself. Garland's husband Sidney Luft produced the film to somehow rescue her career that was in a tailspin, more due to her increasing addictions and mood swings than any on-screen failures. Apparently, Garland battled her demons and director George Cukor vehemently throughout the endless production, most famously during the shooting of the production number "The Man That Got Away" which she allegedly filmed in a drugged out state and only did one take of (it's all they needed…). The results of all this behind the scenes drama is one of the most schizophrenic performances in perhaps one of the most schizophrenic movies I've ever seen.There are a handful of moments in the film in which Garland is just awful – overacting with no sense of character nuance or inner truth. There are other moments in the film – performing "The Man That Got Away", her "I hate me" speech and her love confession to James Mason - in which she is more honest and powerful than I've ever seen her. Similarly inconsistent, the film itself has this "Born in a Trunk" number that is twenty minutes long and does NOTHING to advance the narrative – it's entirely from a film within the film. And yet there are several wonderful private moments between Mason and Garland that range from touching (the "New World" number, though I think Cukor should have let her sing the whole thing a capella instead of just the first verse) to fun and joyful (the "Somewhere/Someone" number). Cukor handles these scenes and several others like them with extreme delicacy, choosing not to cut very much, but let the camera move fluidly with the actors. It's a bit theatrical in theory, but the staging is never proscenium-like, using the depth of the sets to keep things cinematic and visual.The element that really rescues the film from being a shambles is the performance of James Mason as Norman Maine. Though in real life, Garland was the one struggling with addiction, it is ironically Mason's Maine character in the film that wages that war and does so in an intelligent, palpable manner. He is probably the most believable cinema drunk of the 50's, adding layers of self-loathing, pride, honor, pain, hope and love to his character which makes him simultaneously flawed and sympathetic – a balancing act that all actors attempt and only few achieve. It is truly an awesome performance. While A STAR IS BORN may have been a vehicle for Garland, it's really Mason's movie.
]]>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:58:29 GMTjjgittesjjgittes Blog7/11/2008 4:58:29 PMI hadn't seen the Judy Garland version of A STAR IS BORN before its airing on Reel 13, but I have been very familiar with the horror stories swirling around the production. As a matter of fact, the film is probably more famous for the backstory than it is for the film itself. Garland's husband Sidney Luft produced the film to somehow rescue her career that was in a tailspin, more due to her increasing addictions and mood swings than any on-screen failures. Apparently, Garland battled her demons and director George Cukor vehemently throughout the endless production, most famously during the shooting of the production number "The Man That Got Away" which she allegedly filmed in a drugged out state and only did one take of (it's all they needed&hellip;). The results of all this behind the scenes drama is one of the most schizophrenic performances in perhaps one of the most schizophrenic movies I've ever seen.There are a handful of moments in the film in which Garland is just awful &ndash; overacting with no sense of character nuance or inner truth. There are other moments in the film &ndash; performing "The Man That Got Away", her "I hate me" speech and her love confession to James Mason - in which she is more honest and powerful than I've ever seen her. Similarly inconsistent, the film itself has this "Born in a Trunk" number that is twenty minutes long and does NOTHING to advance the narrative &ndash; it's entirely from a film within the film. And yet there are several wonderful private moments between Mason and Garland that range from touching (the "New World" number, though I think Cukor should have let her sing the whole thing a capella instead of just the first verse) to fun and joyful (the "Somewhere/Someone" number). Cukor handles these scenes and several others like them with extreme delicacy, choosing not to cut very much, but let the camera move fluidly with the actors. It's a bit theatrical in theory, but the staging is never proscenium-like, using the depth of the sets to keep things cinematic and visual.The element that really rescues the film from being a shambles is the performance of James Mason as Norman Maine. Though in real life, Garland was the one struggling with addiction, it is ironically Mason's Maine character in the film that wages that war and does so in an intelligent, palpable manner. He is probably the most believable cinema drunk of the 50's, adding layers of self-loathing, pride, honor, pain, hope and love to his character which makes him simultaneously flawed and sympathetic &ndash; a balancing act that all actors attempt and only few achieve. It is truly an awesome performance. While A STAR IS BORN may have been a vehicle for Garland, it's really Mason's movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/7/26/16600.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/26/2007 4:56:32 PM
Body: I *really* didn’t want to do back-to-back Lindsay Lohan posts, but I just can’t pass up an opportunity to talk about A Star is Born. Blame Jeff Wells. Okay: back in June, I wrote a column for the Huffington Post, in which I placed Ms. Lohan’s downward spiral in a trajectory of wrecked childstars that possibly began with Judy Garland. I wrote: Lindsay and Judy have an awful lot in common. Both were child stars, raised by stage mothers far more interested in their daughter’s fame than in their actual well-being. Judy’s life-long drug addiction began when her mother (in cahoots with Louis B. Meyer) put her on uppers to lose weight; if Lindsay’s mom isn’t actually doing drugs with her daughter, she’s at the very least accompanying Lindsay to clubs and turning a blind eye on her daughter’s substance abuse…[W]hen that letter from the producer of Georgia Rule leaked, all I could think of was Garland’s famous suspension at MGM in the late 40s, which inevitably led to the end of her career in movies. The drugs that kept [Judy] slim and energetic in musicals as a teen and 20-something had taken their toll by her 30s, and through a combination of her declining looks and her inability to show up on time, she became virtually unemployable. She lived out the last decade of her life broke, semi-homeless, and all but forgotten by the producers who made millions off of her as a teenager. Four years after Judy Garland was dropped from her MGM contract, she famously tried to make a comeback by producing and starring in a musical remake of A Star is Born. In that film, Garland played an up-and-coming singer/actress whose rise to the top of the Hollywood ladder parallels her alcoholic actor husband’s fall. At the end of the film (spoiler alert!), the husband, whose stage name is Norman Maine, gets arrested for drunk driving and, in an attempt to spare his wife further embarrassment and bother, walks into the ocean. Seen today, with Garland’s drug-fueled demise far in the rearview, A Star is Born plays like a failed attempt on the part of the former childstar to publicly exorcise her crippling demons. Needless to say, that didn’t work; Star also didn’t do much to revitalize her film career. As news of Lohan’s latest arrest spread across the web this afternoon, various self-appointed experts have rushed to diagnose the damage done by this incident to Lohan’s career. E! Online speculates that Lohan will almost surely lose a role currently on her slate, and Perez Hilton says (caps, of course, his), “NO ONE is going to want to work with her now. And IF they do hire her, Lohan will most likely be forced to pay for her own insurance on films, which will be VERY COSTLY.” Jeffrey Wells puts it like this (again, emphasis his): She can’t be an “actress” any more because there’s no accepting her as anyone other than herself — the dumbest and most arrogant meltdown case in Hollywood history…It goes without saying that she’s become the industry’s youngest-ever Norman Maine. If this was a movie, the classy sad solution would be to walk into the Pacific…and stay there. This, just a week after Jeremy Blake, in response to the suicide of girlfriend Theresa Duncan, allegedly did the same thing with a different ocean. Nobody seemed to think Blake’s walk into the Atlantic was “classy”–in fact, a friend of Blake and Duncan told the New York Post that he thought it was “cliche” and “calculated.” But I guess Blake wasn’t famous/famously messed up enough for his walk into the sea to qualify as a career “solution.” In other news, Lindsay has a movie coming out this weekend! Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:56:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/26/2007 4:56:32 PMI *really* didn’t want to do back-to-back Lindsay Lohan posts, but I just can’t pass up an opportunity to talk about A Star is Born. Blame Jeff Wells. Okay: back in June, I wrote a column for the Huffington Post, in which I placed Ms. Lohan’s downward spiral in a trajectory of wrecked childstars that possibly began with Judy Garland. I wrote: Lindsay and Judy have an awful lot in common. Both were child stars, raised by stage mothers far more interested in their daughter’s fame than in their actual well-being. Judy’s life-long drug addiction began when her mother (in cahoots with Louis B. Meyer) put her on uppers to lose weight; if Lindsay’s mom isn’t actually doing drugs with her daughter, she’s at the very least accompanying Lindsay to clubs and turning a blind eye on her daughter’s substance abuse…[W]hen that letter from the producer of Georgia Rule leaked, all I could think of was Garland’s famous suspension at MGM in the late 40s, which inevitably led to the end of her career in movies. The drugs that kept [Judy] slim and energetic in musicals as a teen and 20-something had taken their toll by her 30s, and through a combination of her declining looks and her inability to show up on time, she became virtually unemployable. She lived out the last decade of her life broke, semi-homeless, and all but forgotten by the producers who made millions off of her as a teenager. Four years after Judy Garland was dropped from her MGM contract, she famously tried to make a comeback by producing and starring in a musical remake of A Star is Born. In that film, Garland played an up-and-coming singer/actress whose rise to the top of the Hollywood ladder parallels her alcoholic actor husband’s fall. At the end of the film (spoiler alert!), the husband, whose stage name is Norman Maine, gets arrested for drunk driving and, in an attempt to spare his wife further embarrassment and bother, walks into the ocean. Seen today, with Garland’s drug-fueled demise far in the rearview, A Star is Born plays like a failed attempt on the part of the former childstar to publicly exorcise her crippling demons. Needless to say, that didn’t work; Star also didn’t do much to revitalize her film career. As news of Lohan’s latest arrest spread across the web this afternoon, various self-appointed experts have rushed to diagnose the damage done by this incident to Lohan’s career. E! Online speculates that Lohan will almost surely lose a role currently on her slate, and Perez Hilton says (caps, of course, his), “NO ONE is going to want to work with her now. And IF they do hire her, Lohan will most likely be forced to pay for her own insurance on films, which will be VERY COSTLY.” Jeffrey Wells puts it like this (again, emphasis his): She can’t be an “actress” any more because there’s no accepting her as anyone other than herself — the dumbest and most arrogant meltdown case in Hollywood history…It goes without saying that she’s become the industry’s youngest-ever Norman Maine. If this was a movie, the classy sad solution would be to walk into the Pacific…and stay there. This, just a week after Jeremy Blake, in response to the suicide of girlfriend Theresa Duncan, allegedly did the same thing with a different ocean. Nobody seemed to think Blake’s walk into the Atlantic was “classy”–in fact, a friend of Blake and Duncan told the New York Post that he thought it was “cliche” and “calculated.” But I guess Blake wasn’t famous/famously messed up enough for his walk into the sea to qualify as a career “solution.” In other news, Lindsay has a movie coming out this weekend! Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/music/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusic
Number of films tagged: 4341

Number of people who tagged: 144

Number of times used: 481

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT4341144481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suicide/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuicide
Number of films tagged: 1828

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 185

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:40:50 GMT182880185Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/a/MemberTagFilms.aspxa
Number of films tagged: 69

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 78

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:47:14 GMT696978Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriage/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT347167267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/to/MemberTagFilms.aspxto
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 69

]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:54:49 GMT585369Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alcoholism/MemberTagFilms.aspxalcoholism
Number of films tagged: 1151

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 64

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:16:58 GMT11513564Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxactor
Number of films tagged: 2328

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 55

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT23282555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/selfdiscovery/MemberTagFilms.aspxselfdiscovery
Number of films tagged: 514

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 38

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT5142238Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fame/MemberTagFilms.aspxfame
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 36

]]>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:38:57 GMT6101736Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmmaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmmaker
Number of films tagged: 1675

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT16751730Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/behindthescenes/MemberTagFilms.aspxbehindthescenes
Number of films tagged: 2757

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 16

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:02:41 GMT27571516Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chilling/MemberTagFilms.aspxchilling
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 12

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:46 GMT101112Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/song/MemberTagFilms.aspxsong
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 16

]]>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:08:24 GMT161116Tag