A Star is Born (1954)
- What A Disgrace
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Amazon lists the running time as 287 minutes, which is precisely the running time of the restored version of the film plus the 1937 William Wellman film.
Hoping against hope.
Hoping against hope.
- Zumpano
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:43 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
If this transfer is the same one being shown on HDMovies, I wouldn't get too excited...
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
No, I think that's an old transfer. I do think, however, that the new HD transfer is available on Netflix Instant. I watched a good portion of it last night (okay, "The Man That Got Away" and the "Born in a Trunk" medley), and it looked exceptionally good (with the occasional rough spot or off color).Zumpano wrote:If this transfer is the same one being shown on HDMovies, I wouldn't get too excited...
-
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:44 pm
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Some of you guys must have read this unreal entry that the blog owner linked from the Home Theater Forum. For the rest of you, here it is.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
- Location: Lebanon, PA
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
I couldn't get through it. I t reminded me too much of emails I get that always begin, "I like to write for your magazine. I've enclosed som articles I've wrote..."zq333zq wrote:Some of you guys must have read this unreal entry that the blog owner linked from the Home Theater Forum. For the rest of you, here it is.
-
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:44 pm
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
I certainly can't blame you, but, FYI, this guy apparently eliminated any notion for adult members of this forum to view the premiere version of A Star Is Born before we pass away. Copied and pasted from the publicly available Home Theater Forum:HarryLong wrote:I couldn't get through it. It reminded me too much of emails I get that always begin, "I like to write for your magazine. I've enclosed some articles I've written..."zq333zq wrote:Some of you guys must have read this unreal entry that the blog owner linked from the Home Theater Forum. For the rest of you, here it is.
SpoilerShow
* Chuck Pennington
* Joined: May 2001
* Post Count: 555
The problem is these methods sometimes make things much worse. It's actually akin to bullying. I have it on good authority that Warner was in talks with the collector, and, once thejudyroom.com article went up and various comments were posted on HTF, that those talks abruptly ended.
Let's not forget this material was dumped, discarded and disrespected by Warner at one time, so I can understand why a collector, who was able to rescue it from complete loss, would then be hesitant to entrust it to the same company that, at one time, was hell bent on its destruction. We also don't know the details on what prior events occurred between the two parties in the past to complicate such a negotiation.
It's easy for any of us to say, "Hey, turn it over!" But isn't that the same thing that was told to the theaters about returning the trims after they cut the film to conform to Warner's instructions?
I'm reminded of that old saying that goes something like, "You catch more flies with honey than...," well, you get my drift.
I find it odd how some people feel this urgent need to be THE ONE to right the wrongs, to be the instigator, to raise their voice to espouse their feelings and cause to rise above anyone else's. In a way it comes off as selfish to me, one person doing what they can to put their own name and stamp on the legend. Now, I'm a fan of Don Quixote and the ideal of fighting the good fight when everyone else believes the cause to be hopeless. I also think it's important to stand up and blow the whistle when we see injustice and deception, regardless of what anyone else might think. However, publishing the name of a private citizen and rallying the troops based on nothing but third-hand information that is sketchy at best brings to mind the scene near the end of Disney's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, when the villagers band together to storm the beast's castle, rushing to the conclusion that he will make off with their children in the night and terrorize them all, not even taking into consideration that the beast actually has a good and moral soul.
I'll all for tilting at windmills, but there has to actually be a windmill first. Believing that there MIGHT be one just isn't enough. And aren't people supposed to be presumed innocent until proved otherwise?
What happened to the idea of trying to engage someone into coming forward, to join the club, to be welcomed and congratulated for sharing what would have been lost if not for their foresight? Seems to me that would be a far better way to get results than resort to what teeters on harassment. Does anyone remember how we got some of our best intelligence information from the people we captured during WW2? It wasn't from water boarding - it was from playing cards and befriending them.
Edited by Chuck Pennington - 5/21/10 at 12:06pm"
* Joined: May 2001
* Post Count: 555
The problem is these methods sometimes make things much worse. It's actually akin to bullying. I have it on good authority that Warner was in talks with the collector, and, once thejudyroom.com article went up and various comments were posted on HTF, that those talks abruptly ended.
Let's not forget this material was dumped, discarded and disrespected by Warner at one time, so I can understand why a collector, who was able to rescue it from complete loss, would then be hesitant to entrust it to the same company that, at one time, was hell bent on its destruction. We also don't know the details on what prior events occurred between the two parties in the past to complicate such a negotiation.
It's easy for any of us to say, "Hey, turn it over!" But isn't that the same thing that was told to the theaters about returning the trims after they cut the film to conform to Warner's instructions?
I'm reminded of that old saying that goes something like, "You catch more flies with honey than...," well, you get my drift.
I find it odd how some people feel this urgent need to be THE ONE to right the wrongs, to be the instigator, to raise their voice to espouse their feelings and cause to rise above anyone else's. In a way it comes off as selfish to me, one person doing what they can to put their own name and stamp on the legend. Now, I'm a fan of Don Quixote and the ideal of fighting the good fight when everyone else believes the cause to be hopeless. I also think it's important to stand up and blow the whistle when we see injustice and deception, regardless of what anyone else might think. However, publishing the name of a private citizen and rallying the troops based on nothing but third-hand information that is sketchy at best brings to mind the scene near the end of Disney's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, when the villagers band together to storm the beast's castle, rushing to the conclusion that he will make off with their children in the night and terrorize them all, not even taking into consideration that the beast actually has a good and moral soul.
I'll all for tilting at windmills, but there has to actually be a windmill first. Believing that there MIGHT be one just isn't enough. And aren't people supposed to be presumed innocent until proved otherwise?
What happened to the idea of trying to engage someone into coming forward, to join the club, to be welcomed and congratulated for sharing what would have been lost if not for their foresight? Seems to me that would be a far better way to get results than resort to what teeters on harassment. Does anyone remember how we got some of our best intelligence information from the people we captured during WW2? It wasn't from water boarding - it was from playing cards and befriending them.
Edited by Chuck Pennington - 5/21/10 at 12:06pm"
- movielocke
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
that reminds me of the story that Criterion was going to release eraserhead, and coincidentally, online speculation they were going to release Eraserhead made Lynch think Criterion had been talking and he angrily bowed out of the negotiations.
Only this is much worse, the Judy Room and Stan Heck began openly advocating the harassment of the person with the prints, which caused the secret negotiations WB already had going with the collector to collapse. If WB could have established a good relationship with this guy, who knows what other materials he might be able to put them in touch with, major collectors are a small network of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has more treasures, or knows where many are.
That said, none of it would have happened if HTF member Joe Caps had kept his mouth shut on the identity of the collector when talking to the "press" (as if the Judy Room is press), but some people just LOVE to show off how much they know.
Only this is much worse, the Judy Room and Stan Heck began openly advocating the harassment of the person with the prints, which caused the secret negotiations WB already had going with the collector to collapse. If WB could have established a good relationship with this guy, who knows what other materials he might be able to put them in touch with, major collectors are a small network of people, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has more treasures, or knows where many are.
That said, none of it would have happened if HTF member Joe Caps had kept his mouth shut on the identity of the collector when talking to the "press" (as if the Judy Room is press), but some people just LOVE to show off how much they know.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
- Location: Lebanon, PA
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Oh, that's the least of his crimes against the English language (I did go back & struggle through to the end).david hare wrote:Heck strikes me as a particularly shrill JudyGarlandQueen with a weak grasp of literacy ("I should of"...etc). I would take everything he said here including his life story with a glass of salt.
I also find it mind-boggling that he goes out of his way to bring attention to the guys who purportedly have complete prints of STAR (including pointing out the one guy to everyone he can at the post-film party) but asks the JudysRoom site not to use his name because he didn't want to risk having his TCM invite rescinded.
Heck strikes me as more than just clueless... he strikes me as a mental case.
- Cash Flagg
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:15 pm
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
There wasn't much doubt, but the Wellman version definitely isn't included. From DVD Talk:
The First Disc (Blu-ray) has a runtime of 2:56:17.
The Second Disc (DVD) is simply the Special Features. I'm going through it now and don't see a version of the 1937 version at all.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
- Location: Lebanon, PA
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Or less, a la one of his predecesors...david hare wrote:At least Gerard could do the Malibu suicide scene in Speedos.
- What A Disgrace
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
[/quote]The First Disc (Blu-ray) has a runtime of 2:56:17.
The Second Disc (DVD) is simply the Special Features. I'm going through it now and don't see a version of the 1937 version at all.
Went from "must buy" to "rent".
- jsteffe
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
One of my friends received an advance copy of the Blu-ray and is raving about it. He said he popped it in to see how it looked and ended up watching the whole thing from beginning to end in one sitting. Considering what he knows about the film's restoration history and about film restoration in general, this has me genuinely excited.
- Finch
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Edinburgh, UK
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Finished watching this 15 minutes ago and it is quite a treat on BD. Some flickering is evident in one or two scenes and some wide shots look a bit soft but it's all inherent in the material (the same scenes were affected on the SD SE). All the same, it looks gorgeous, and while the still insertions are still far from ideal, I get more used to them each time I revisit the film. Truth be told, if you omitted them entirely, a straight transition from the scene in Danny's apartment to the sequence of Esther getting her "facelift" would have been even more awkward. Either way, this wonderful film's hold on me remains undiminished and again I was moved to tears by Esther's final declaration - Cukor's joint best film with 1938's Holiday.
- CSM126
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: The Room
- Contact:
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
To be fair, blu-ray.com's review has screengrabs from the old DVD for whatever reason, not new blu-ray grabs. If you mouse over any of the pics, you get a caption box saying as much.
-
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: Round Lake, Illinois USA
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Saw Blu-ray version...excellent! both image and sound. I wish they a running commentary and a extra on the restoration of the film.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re:
I totally agree with this (and devlinn's beautifully evoactive re-telling of the Man That Got Away number which follows the post I've quoted and which nails that perfect moment of the film).david hare wrote:Strictly speaking I don't really think Star is Born is a Musical. The 20 minute Born in a Trunk sequence which was added to the original after the cuts were made, and directed by Richard Barstow perhaps pushes the film briefly into that mode - certainly giving Judy's persona that of a musical star. But all the remaining musical numbers are entirely diegetic, and they don't spring out of nowhere to drive the action. And Judy's film persona is left largely untouched by the screenplay.Few musicals are as powerful dramatically as the 1954 A Star is Born
The Man that Got Away has the power of a big dramatic "discovery" scene, which it literally is. And even Put on that Happy Face is an ironic "pickup" after Judy's big breakdown scene. But I don't think of Star as a Musical in the true sense of the term.
I certainly see A Star Is Born as not as a musical but as a 'drama set in the musical scene'. I especially like the way that there are many different ways of fitting the musical numbers into the action, such as the nightclub performance or the re-enactment of Esther's number that she was filming to Norman in their living room, using every possible fixture and furnishing as a prop.
But even more interesting is the way that these numbers get interrupted, such as the opening number where Norman stumbles onto the stage drunk and then gets incorporated into the act by Esther. davidhare above mentions the way that Lose That Long Face breaks off part way through in order to change camera positions, sending Esther to her dressing room to have her breakdown, before we return to the big finale number that is given an even more ironically touching power.
Similarly the astonishing Born In A Trunk scene is wonderfully constructed as a flashback within a film within a film (also bookended with the two performances of Swanee as the reminiscence catches up with the present). It allows for ever more increasing levels of stylisations as we see the character Esther is playing in the film recount her life story. The way that this sequence showing the preview film takes over the entire film itself, which then moves straight into the intermission without restoring us back to the 'reality' of the world of Esther and Norman, also feels like it encapsulates the popularity of the musicals as being another world that you can lose yourself in.
The musical has taken over for an extended period, but there is always the conflict or interruption between the fantasy and the real world, often portrayed through showing the mechanics of filmmaking, and one which Norman is cut off from when he is removed from his contract and cannot find any other work. Not just in fantasy terms but in the way his real name keeps cropping up in the latter half of the film, the first time with its reveal during his marriage ceremony - Esther's name gets obscured as she becomes Vicki, while 'Norman Maine' fades in the memory...at least until it gets brought back to attention in the final spectacular, but itself transient, gesture.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
It arrived this weekend, which is why it came to mind today! Hopefully I will have a chance to give all the extras a play at some point this week.
I agree. The Born In A Trunk sequence is crucially important, and rightly feels like a totally different film, and mode of filmmaking (It is just that in this film, the real world issues mostly predominate over the musical interludes, playing out a similar battle going on in cinema itself over gritty 'realism' versus flights of fantasy artifice), and one of the few instances of extra additions actually helping a film. We get to see Esther's/Vicki's star making performance - the role she will always be remembered for - for ourselves rather than just having to take her success as given. It's something very difficult (and brave) to try and pull off - far easier to make something that plays as ironically cheesy but which the 'dumb' audience enjoys rather than the all out extravaganza for the pleasure of all, not least the performers, that we get presented with here.
Finally the preview film manages to leave real world grounding behind as we see the character in the film at the highpoint of her career reminiscing, with the arc of the character sort of similar to that of Esther's, but in more 'Hollywood' terms. You become a huge success but are always living in the past to some extent and a product of your climb to the heights, but whereas Born In A Trunk is celebratory of this 'remembering your roots' idea, Esther's grand success will be painfully bitter sweet.
And then you get the Judy Garland meta-level layered on top of that. It feels like you move further away from the actress as you move further into the levels of artifice, yet the artifice allows for a more stripped down consideration of 'actress as struggling star' into its archetypal elements. The Born In A Trunk sequence at the mid-point takes us the furthest through these various levels and then the film retraces its steps back out of it through to the almost transcendent ending when, while it completes Esther's journey in a moving and satisfying manner, it could just as meaningfully be Judy herself there getting a standing ovation on the stage.
The Born In A Trunk sequence lifts us up and out of the film (the perfect point for the intermission), but also dives deeper into the importance of fantasy as a tool of self-analysis or self revelation (or self motivation) which becomes the big theme of the film in the second half. Something which might easily tip over into delusion, but which is important nevertheless. The need for some place where you can become someone, act in something bigger, and work out your concerns away from the direct pressures of a reality that might be too terrible to bear if you confronted it straight on is perhaps getting to the central theme of all art.
And it's a wonderfully entertaining film too!
I agree. The Born In A Trunk sequence is crucially important, and rightly feels like a totally different film, and mode of filmmaking (It is just that in this film, the real world issues mostly predominate over the musical interludes, playing out a similar battle going on in cinema itself over gritty 'realism' versus flights of fantasy artifice), and one of the few instances of extra additions actually helping a film. We get to see Esther's/Vicki's star making performance - the role she will always be remembered for - for ourselves rather than just having to take her success as given. It's something very difficult (and brave) to try and pull off - far easier to make something that plays as ironically cheesy but which the 'dumb' audience enjoys rather than the all out extravaganza for the pleasure of all, not least the performers, that we get presented with here.
Finally the preview film manages to leave real world grounding behind as we see the character in the film at the highpoint of her career reminiscing, with the arc of the character sort of similar to that of Esther's, but in more 'Hollywood' terms. You become a huge success but are always living in the past to some extent and a product of your climb to the heights, but whereas Born In A Trunk is celebratory of this 'remembering your roots' idea, Esther's grand success will be painfully bitter sweet.
And then you get the Judy Garland meta-level layered on top of that. It feels like you move further away from the actress as you move further into the levels of artifice, yet the artifice allows for a more stripped down consideration of 'actress as struggling star' into its archetypal elements. The Born In A Trunk sequence at the mid-point takes us the furthest through these various levels and then the film retraces its steps back out of it through to the almost transcendent ending when, while it completes Esther's journey in a moving and satisfying manner, it could just as meaningfully be Judy herself there getting a standing ovation on the stage.
The Born In A Trunk sequence lifts us up and out of the film (the perfect point for the intermission), but also dives deeper into the importance of fantasy as a tool of self-analysis or self revelation (or self motivation) which becomes the big theme of the film in the second half. Something which might easily tip over into delusion, but which is important nevertheless. The need for some place where you can become someone, act in something bigger, and work out your concerns away from the direct pressures of a reality that might be too terrible to bear if you confronted it straight on is perhaps getting to the central theme of all art.
And it's a wonderfully entertaining film too!
- hamsterburger
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:12 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Has anyone in the UK picked up the recently released UK blu-ray?
I would like to know if this has the second DVD of extras that is present on the US blu-ray release.
Thanks for any info on this.
I would like to know if this has the second DVD of extras that is present on the US blu-ray release.
Thanks for any info on this.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Heads up, MoMA is screening Warner Bros.' "restored" version on Thursday, July 23 at 7:00 p.m. This is a DCP, presumably the recent one they made in 4k.
(FWIW, they were planning on showing a vintage 35mm print, but decided not to due to the print's poor condition.)
It would've been even better if they managed to show a 35mm print of the COMPLETE version that is in the hands of a private collector (and there may even be several of these), but alas...
(FWIW, they were planning on showing a vintage 35mm print, but decided not to due to the print's poor condition.)
It would've been even better if they managed to show a 35mm print of the COMPLETE version that is in the hands of a private collector (and there may even be several of these), but alas...
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
I had heard 35mm but I can't remember where. Regardless, here's where I first heard about it.
- marknyc5
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:38 pm
Re: A Star is Born (1954)
Here's the latest, which I heard from someone who says he has seen the footage Arick has. According to this guy, it is NOT a complete print. He has alternate takes that were being thrown out. They are silent, and so they wouldn't synch up with the soundtrack. Much of the missing footage has no dialogue, so that would be no problem. But many of the missing scenes are dialogue scenes, so alternate takes would not work. Also, I would be surprised if the outtakes he salvaged happen to include all of the ten minutes of missing footage. Here's what he wrote me:
The people I spoke with from Warners knew the names of
the 2 people that have the footage and that it does exist.
One of the persons that has that footage is Arick, who
took alternate takes home...from the trash and when it was
discarded Warners didn't give a darn about the footage and considered it worthless
since it consisted of alternate takes and not the actual
footage in the final print. Arick has kept that footage
all these years....it has only become important since the
actual footage has proved to have been destroyed and a complete final print does not
exist. The 2nd person that has the footage obtained
most of what he has from Arick in trades for other lost
footage that he too took from Warners at a different period of time.
I saw the missing footage from this 2nd person. He
has it on VHS tape and thats the medium I saw it on....but
it had no sound. Which makes sense since the soundtrack
was on stereo tape and not on film when it was put in the
Warner archives..... Warners is aware of BOTH of these 2 people and their names and
their addresses but will not make an attempt to prosecute
because they prob wont be able to....and IF faced with
prosecution the 'collectors' have threatened to
destroy the film to eliminate any evidence.
It is also been confirmed by many people that Arick has
other alternate takes from many Warner films of the
1953-1956 era....Giant, Rebel Without A Cause, etc....that
were thrown away and instead of making their way to the
trash bin, Arick scarfed them and took them home. In a sense he did preserve them for
posterity, but his evil little mind wont share them, for
fear of prosecution and also because these weirdo collectors
dont like to 'share' what they feel is their stuff....it makes them feel special
if people want these clips and people like Arick are the
only ones that have ever seen them.
The people I spoke with from Warners knew the names of
the 2 people that have the footage and that it does exist.
One of the persons that has that footage is Arick, who
took alternate takes home...from the trash and when it was
discarded Warners didn't give a darn about the footage and considered it worthless
since it consisted of alternate takes and not the actual
footage in the final print. Arick has kept that footage
all these years....it has only become important since the
actual footage has proved to have been destroyed and a complete final print does not
exist. The 2nd person that has the footage obtained
most of what he has from Arick in trades for other lost
footage that he too took from Warners at a different period of time.
I saw the missing footage from this 2nd person. He
has it on VHS tape and thats the medium I saw it on....but
it had no sound. Which makes sense since the soundtrack
was on stereo tape and not on film when it was put in the
Warner archives..... Warners is aware of BOTH of these 2 people and their names and
their addresses but will not make an attempt to prosecute
because they prob wont be able to....and IF faced with
prosecution the 'collectors' have threatened to
destroy the film to eliminate any evidence.
It is also been confirmed by many people that Arick has
other alternate takes from many Warner films of the
1953-1956 era....Giant, Rebel Without A Cause, etc....that
were thrown away and instead of making their way to the
trash bin, Arick scarfed them and took them home. In a sense he did preserve them for
posterity, but his evil little mind wont share them, for
fear of prosecution and also because these weirdo collectors
dont like to 'share' what they feel is their stuff....it makes them feel special
if people want these clips and people like Arick are the
only ones that have ever seen them.