MovieChat Forums > A Star Is Born (1937) Discussion > My favorite scene***Spoilers***

My favorite scene***Spoilers***


I loved the scene where Norman & Vicki are looking out over the city lights of LA and he explains his disenchantment of Hollywood and his feeling his life has been wasted.

He tells Vicki he hopes stardom will make her happy, it certainly didn't bring him happiness. Very Poignant.

I found myself wondering how Vicki would turn out later in her career - would she become just as bitter with Hollywood? Just as disillusioned as Norman was with stardom?

Ironically, I thought Frederic March's acting was 1,000 times better than Janet Gaynor's in this film!!! It was a real struggle for me to view him as a "has-been".

reply

It was a struggle for me to see him (Norman Maine) as a "has-been" too. An alcoholic? Yes. A poor actor? No - I saw nothing to verify it.

I love Fredric March; I think he's a consummate actor! But the problem I had with this film is that everything that happens involving the very premise of the film happens off-screen. Do we SEE Vicki Lester doing such an incredible acting job? Do we SEE (or NOT see, as the critics sniped) Norman Maine doing poor acting?? No, I don't think so.

Heck, to me they made it seem like Vicki was an overnight success whose acting was the caliber of a Barbara Stanwyck while Norman Maine suddenly became an actor the caliber of Ed Wood! Well, I didn't buy it and the way poor Norman was treated seemed at times to border on the sadistic!

I think Fredric March should've won Best Actor for his performance as his Norman Maine broke my heart.

"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton

reply

The story wasn't so much about their acting, as their personal lives and the fickleness of Hollywood as a whole and its fan base. Think of John Boles or John Gilbert, these men were far from being bad actors, but were considered has beens, thanks to the fickleness of the times. This movie was focusing on that, the real world behind the glamor.

Credo ergo sum

reply

But I still would've liked to have seen SOME showing of what was happening on-screen (within the film) to them. I know it's not out of the realm of possibility, but for a rookie like Vicki Lester to just suddenly, totally overshadow the troubled yet (I would guess) still somewhat professionally competent Norman Maine in her first film was just hard for me to fathom.

You say the story wasn't so much about their acting, but still their acting apparently had a huge effect on their personal lives (and sadly, eventually to Norman's downfall). When Norman "crashed" Vicki's Oscar-winning ceremony, he was drunk and bitterly sad over his own falling star - maybe he didn't see or understand why it had happened - so he succumbs to the tragic spiral of depression. And why that one guy held such a deep-seeded, mean-spirited disdain towards Norman bothered me too - kicking a man when he's down right after he's released from the hospital.

Anyway, there's certainly no doubt in my mind about the acting abilities of Janet Gaynor and Fredric March! :-)


"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton

reply

MissyH416 says > I still would've liked to have seen SOME showing of what was happening on-screen (within the film) to them.
I'm not sure what you were watching but I feel there was a lot in the movie that showed us exactly what happened to Norman. It wasn't necessarily that his acting skills declined though that may have been a factor. His problems on-screen stemmed from all his off-screen antics.

Here are a few examples: He was a sloppy drunk who behaved badly. He held up production whenever he went missing. After a wild night of partying he'd show up on set unprepared. He was hung over and looked worn out from lack of sleep. When he forgot his lines it required more takes; not only did those things cost money, they also did not endear him to the people he worked with. His public intoxication caused the public to sour on him and once they stopped turning out for his movies theater owners demanded the studios stop sending them his movies.

for a rookie like Vicki Lester to just suddenly, totally overshadow the troubled yet (I would guess) still somewhat professionally competent Norman Maine in her first film was just hard for me to fathom.
You have to remember, tastes change over time. What's hot today may not still be hot tomorrow. The newest, latest, 'in' thing isn't necessarily better than the one it replaced; it's just different, new, fresh. It's not anyone's fault, for whatever reasons, people get tired of what they've become accustomed to and what something different. It happens and not just in Hollywood.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

Right- think Errol Flynn. He was a pretty good ringer for Norman Maine ten years later.

Meanwhile, Janet Gaynor actually was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and was only slightly past her career peak (which fully returned with this film) so for me, I didn't really need much screen time diverted to proving her character could do what she'd been doing for a decade.

I worked on a film called "Space Jam", and likewise, we decided not to spend too much screen time convincing the audience that Michael Jordan could really play basketball.

reply

jdsuggs says > Right- think Errol Flynn. He was a pretty good ringer for Norman Maine ten years later.
Errol Flynn is a perfect example. His off screen life took a big toll on his career. Whether he was a ringer, looks-wise, for Norman Maine, I don't know. He did lose much of his looks but that may not be what you're saying anyway.

I didn't really need much screen time diverted to proving her character could do what she'd been doing for a decade.
I'm not sure why someone had a hard time believing an actor could be a so-called overnight success. We see it all the time. Even if they had been struggling to make it for years, they were unknown to most people. Going from obscurity to big star after one very successful role or project would not be unusual.

I worked on a film called "Space Jam", and likewise, we decided not to spend too much screen time convincing the audience that Michael Jordan could really play basketball.
That's funny but, as odd as it may seem, there are still plenty of people who watch movies but do not follow sports or have a clue what's going on in popular culture. Still, I think you're right. It would not have been necessary to spend valuable screen time proving Jordan could play. Most viewers were already big fans of his; the others would have assumed a tall black guy could handle a basketball. Yes, I said it and you know it's true; it would have been assumed.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

I don't recall hearing anyone in the movie saying noman's acting had become bad, just that his popularity had declined. Popularity has little to do with the actor's chops.

reply