annalbin-1

It's a little quaint by today's standards, but the writing is witty and the cinematography is excellent. More than that, it's an opportunity to see a 36 year old James Mason acting in a role where he ages 25 years. This was the one Gainsborough film he actually wanted to make, although he had hit the top of the charts with other Gainsborough Gothics such as The Wicked Lady and The Man in Grey. I was rather astonished at his ability to transform his extraordinary brooding good looks into those of a kindly, elderly gentleman with a twinkle in his eye. His gait, voice, and body movements so fitted the role of the elderly man, I believe he could have fooled me without all the makeup.

Chances are you will never have an opportunity to see this film as it hasn't been on TV for ages. However, I wouldn't say it is as bad as some of the comments. I thought it was well acted, but the ending left the viewer confused about exactly what had happened with the boys. The fates of two of the three major characters are also left to the viewer's imagination. Robert Preston and James Mason made interesting foils. Mason managed to make his character a man to be despised and pitied. Preston was also quite capable in his role - all sweetness and light with increasingly malevolent undertones.

If it had been as dull as described in some of the other comments, I probably wouldn't have been able to stay awake since I watched it in the wee hours of the AM.

There are many things to love about A Star is Born. Judy Garland's fabulous singing talent is on full display. The script is witty, clever, truthful, and in some ways very daring in its exposure of the Hollywood experience (particularly the studio experience). However, as much as I am bowled over by Garland's singing, it gets in the way of the story in several places. As the viewer is just beginning to suspend belief and think of Judy as Esther Blodgett or Vicki Lester, she lets us know that she's Judy Garland again through some show stopper of a number. I understand that Judy and her husband produced this movie as a comeback vehicle for her, but had they showed a little more restraint, it would have been a better movie, I think. The other part of the movie deals with two adults who fall in love. Both people are flawed, particularly Norman Maine (James Mason), but the depth and complexity of these two characters (particularly Mason's character) and their screen chemistry is something to behold. Off the screen, Mason and Garland became very close and Mason delivered the eulogy at Garland's funeral. In summary, I wish there had been more balance between Judy the star singer and Vicki/Norman, a couple desperately in love and doomed to fail, because it's the latter than brings the poignancy to the film. Mason did an outstanding job of keeping the "couple" story line compelling to the tragic end. He provided the romantic bitterness that's needed to keep this film on its tragic trajectory - although many of his scenes toward the end of the movie are so raw and emotional, they are hard to watch. I had to keep reminding myself, "it's just a movie".