¡La estrella!

Given that STAR! was cruelly dismissed by critics and public in 1968, I was surprised to find that despite its length, it does entertain with a fine performance by JULIE ANDREWS as the famous stage performer (who did occasional films) and by RICHARD CRENNA and DANIEL MASSEY in good supporting roles.

Andrews makes the most of every musical number--and there are plenty of them--demonstrating her enormous talent along with a flair for a more sophisticated style of acting miles apart from her "Mary Poppins" or "Sound of Music" image. And the staging of these musical portions makes excellent use of the WideScreen photography, emphasizing the lavish budget expended on costumes and sets.

The central reason for the film's lukewarm reception at the box office is surely the fact that no attempt is made to make Miss Lawrence a truly likable person. She is shown, flaws and all, throughout--quarreling with those around her as she puts herself, first and foremost, above all other considerations. It seems that only Richard Crenna (as the man she eventually marries) is able to stand up to her stubborn nature with a will of his own.

Coming on the heels of Julie's outstanding success in previous musicals, it's easy to see why audiences found it difficult to accept her as Gertude Lawrence--when actually, she gives a very strong performance. The script has to share some of the blame. It's a lumbering thing as it attempts to frame the story with newsreel accounts of Lawrence's life before ending the tidbits of information by delving into the main structure of the story.

For fans of Julie who enjoy hearing her belt out song after song in various stages of Miss Lawrence's career, the film does homage to Julie Andrews herself more than to the famous stage thespian.

Forty-five years have passed since this film debuted! A notorious flop in its day, the film looks better all the time. An old-fashioned, full-throttle musical starring diva Julie Andrews as diva Gertrude Lawrence in a series of musical numbers with dramatic scenes interspersed. As biography, it's bosh, but as entertainment it's aces.

Andrews is superb as Lawrence, capturing the blazing talent and her inability to deal with reality and men. The film nicely captures the razzle dazzle of Broadway in the 20s and 30s when there were such things as stars on stage. The musical numbers of terrific. The costumes are eye popping. Only the story lags.

I suspect that those who say Andrews is "stiff" in this film haven't seen it. Andrews is a whirlwind of singing, dancing, and acting as she covers Lawrence's life from early adulthood til her marriage to Richard Aldrich in 1940 and her triumph in LADY IN THE DARK.

Co-stars include the marvelous Daniel Massey as Noel Coward, Richard Crenna as Aldrich, Michael Craig, Robert Reed, Anthony Eisley, Jenny Agutter, Beryl Reid, Bruce Forsythe, and Alan Oppenheimer as Charlot.

Look quick for Conrad Bain, Tony Lo Bianco, J. Pat O'Malley, Anna Lee, Ballard Berkeley, Bernard Fox, and Don Crichton (CAROL BURNETT SHOW dancer)in the "Limehouse Blues" number.

STAR! ranks as one of Julie Andrews' very best performances. And that's saying a lot.

Star! is publicized as the flop that ended Julie Andrews' career. None of the blame should be laid at Julie's feet however. Her performance, especially in the musical numbers, is unparalleled. Julie WAS the greatest musical star of her day: if you don't believe me, imagine Barbra (whom I adore also) being tossed around by chorus boys in the "Jenny" finale. Also, kudos must go to Daniel Massey as Noel Coward: he could have really "camped" up the role but, thankfully, he played it with restraint. The problem with the movie is that it is constructed with the great musical numbers connected by a very flawed & minimal plot. Furthermore, the musical numbers don't advance the plot at all (only in a few spots do they even parallel Gertrude Lawrence's life-situations of the moment). So, what we're left with is a revue...a pastiche of musical numbers..a Ziegfield Follies of 1968!! So, the character of Gertrude Lawrence isn't fleshed out enough for audience sympathy to develop. Finally, the choice of imitating b&w newsreel footage just doesn't work and further distances the audience from the movie. Check it out though---the musical numbers are super-spectacular and Julie Andrews gives a Star!-performance

If somebody wins a fortune at a Casino, will you finance the winner to have another go? Absurd, right? That's what I'm afraid happened here. Robert Wise and Julie Andrews were coming out of the most sensational success with "The Sound of Music". The kind of success that tends to be unrepeatable. What were they thinking then? The experts, I mean. The green light guys. Gertrude Lawrence was not Maria Von Trapp. But Julie Andrews was, is and always will be Julie Andrews. For an actor that must be a blessing even if most actors treat it like a curse. We can accept Julie in everything as long as you don't expect us to forget that she's Julie. She can poke fun at herself and show her boobs in "S.O.B" or pretend to be a man pretending to be a woman in "Victor Victoria" She can also play a quadriplegic in bed with Liam Neeson in "Duet for One" because the writing and the treatment of the character is, one way or another, tailor made. She managed to be Julie Andrews without betraying what the public, her public expects of her. A blessing or a curse? It doesn't matter, the actress herself can decide whether is one thing or the other. Julie Andrews has remained a name to be reckon with. Right up to Shrek. Star! gives her some fantastic moments, musical moments. Surrounded by great production values and wonderful costumes plus a delightful Daniel Massey as Noel Coward. But the shape of the film is a mess. We can't truly connect with her and we get lost in the masses and masses of information. From biopic to comedy, to drama to musical the film never finds the right tone. Disjointed, confused and confusing. I'm sure the film will find a new breath of life after we stop breathing. There is something in it that it's valuable and great but, at the moment, remains buried under the puzzling heaviness of its intentions.

*THUD* Like that the romance between box office and Julie Andrews was over.

Why?

There are a variety of answers. Tastes had changed. Big-budget musicals were on their way out (and continued to fall out of favor as the decade proceeded--see "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," "Camelot," and "Paint Your Wagon" for further evidence). And the public had mysteriously cooled on Julie Andrews as well, although the reason behind that eludes those of us who still carry the torch for her.

Caught in the downward spiral, unfortunately, was "STAR!" the musical that was supposed to recapture the magic of "The Sound of Music" by allowing Andrews, Wise, and Chaplin the opportunity of working again. According to critics and box-office receipts, this reunion failed miserably.

But there has been a revisionist feel to "STAR!" over the past few years, as evidenced by the VHS and laser releases, and that's a good thing. This treasure certainly didn't deserved to remain buried forever.

Andrews gives a tour de force performance, tackling a barrel full of unforgettable songs from some of the world's greatest composers/lyricists. She's also given amply opportunity to show off her acting chops, as her Gertie is alternately dazzled and dazzling, enraged, funny, drunk, enamoured, witty, urbane, base, coy, and even sad, lonely, and depressed.

Last, Julie/Gertie is dolled up in some of the most exquisite costumes to ever grace a screen--the Donald Brooks outfits and Cartier jewels will knock your eye out.

That Andrews voice... that Andrews face... that Andrews talent... that Andrews dancing... All up on the screen with nobody to appreciate it in 1968. Luckily, it's now all within grasp.