A Estrela

It's de rigeur to dish this film; yes, it's interminable, and it's inevitable that Andrews outlives her welcome. (Not sure I can think of any star who WOULDN'T become somewhat wearisome in a biopic of this length). The pace is incredibly leisurely; the decision to work towards a wedding means that there is simply too much material. Unfortunately, there is no motor in the plot, no 'desire' that runs throughout, no theme; Andrews can't find a line for character development. Instead, there are endless changes of image, and endless set-piece re-creations of theatre history. Whatever else, you can't say that you're short-changed, but the experience is a little like having a whole box of chocolates force-fed to you at a sitting.

But Andrews works her tail off; she sings, she comedies, she thesps. She does her all-time best dancing. She generally outshines the frocks and the sets. It's probably deliberate that Gerty is chosen as the subject: it's an ADVANTAGE that most of the audience has never seen the real thing. Andrews is not trapped into a Streepish impersonation - she plays the script as if it's fiction.

Daniel Massey's Noel Coward is trapped by audience expectation; personally, I think it's very good, provided you accept that 'Noel Coward' is a fictional character based on a real person. He and Andrews have an excellent rapport, although I suspect the real Noel and Gertie were a bit more feral as performers. (Coward liked his godson's impersonation: but "A shade too many 'dear boys', dear boy.") In other roles, Beryl Reid and Bruce Forsyth are worth the price of admission (it's the English musical numbers that work best). The "beards" are dull: dull performers with a script that gives them absolutely nothing. (How much Sound of Music depended on the implicit threat of Christopher Plummer! )

In other news, Lennie Hayton's musical direction of this film is exemplary. The arrangements are simply splendid; this must just about be the last gasp of Hollywood's ability to pastiche all the styles of vaudeville and Broadway.

Bernie Leven's production design is so pervasive that it warrants savouring. You could argue that this is a movie that has been hi-jacked by its tradesmen: Wise hires all these great talents, and then "gives them their head".

I think "Star!" has all the joys of a triumphant folly. It's utterly predictable, but never dull (cf. Jumbo!) You have to be in the mood for it, and probably its pleasures are best savoured over several days, interspersed with Godard and Ken Loach.

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.

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.

Yes, the story is somewhat thin. But Julie's performance, the music, the backstage scenes, the glamorous locales, the automobiles, the stage -- fill in where plot is lacking. This is, after all, a docu-musical that is, from what I know, a more literal rendering of Gertrude Lawrence's razzle-dazzle lifestyle, than a falsification of what actually happened. Robert Wise has said, to paraphrase him, that this is the one film he wished he could have done something else with. I personally would have included more scenes of Gertie being interviewed as she watched her life on the black & white tinny newsreels, and thus it may have bracketed her full color TODD-AO widescreen recollections. It might have drawn us more into her point-of-view. Still, the stage numbers, locales, party scenes (drunken one or two may have been) are fun to watch and experience. Script aside, the film is very well crafted, indeed.

"Star!" was one of the most notorious financial bombs of the 1960s, the main reason probably being that when it was released the public was getting tired of musicals. Certainly, the movie itself has some faults that may not have attracted some audiences. The movie is both too long and not long enough, for one thing. It's kind of tough to sit through a movie that's almost three hours long. And curiously, despite this long running time, the portrait of Gertrude Lawrence seems unfinished. We don't really get to see what is driving this woman. And her personal life is only lightly looked at, such as the fact that while she had a daughter, this daughter character has hardly any time devoted to her.

But the movie also has its share of strengths. The performances are very good, the strongest being that of (no surprise) Julie Andrews. She puts so much enthusiasm into her role that it does help make up for her somewhat shallowly written character. And the musical numbers sprinkled throughout are indeed excellent, with some great choreography mixed in as well. Fans of movie musicals will probably embrace this movie the best, but the movie does have some genuine appeal to other people as well, if they are patient enough to sit through almost 180 minutes of film that isn't perfect.