The greatest version

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't think Judy was over dramatic in her version, and your wrong, the musical works VERY WELL. GREAT songs, great acting. I'm about the watch the Janet Gaynor version.


the Barbra Streisand version wasn't that good, however.

[deleted]

I agree. The remakes lose out on what the theme of this movie was about regarding the time period of the transition into sound. It was about the fickleness of fans. Granted the remakes touch on rising and falling stars, well, it loses when it is no longer about that early Hollywood storyline. Many stars lost their fame, fortunes, and lives in that transition. The movie is a Hollywood film about Hollywood. It's what made it special. Hollywood was turning a mirror onto itself. I don't feel that connection in the remake, even the one with Judy Garland and James Mason.

Credo ergo sum

The 1937 is my favorite of the versions I've seen, however, it must be noted it is not in fact the first version of this story. It was first filmed as What Price Hollywood in 1932, a story with a marginally different plot line, but similar enough that Selznick International almost got sued for plagiarism. A Star is Born (1937) was an unauthorized remake.

I agree with what others have said that the setting in the mid to late 1930s helps the film, giving the collapse of Norman Maine silent-to-sound transition implications. It was one of the principal inspirations for the recent successful modern silent on that theme, The Artist for this reason, and was itself loosely inspired by a number of incidents involving fallen silent stars. Frederic March is perfectly cast, and Gaynor's performance, and the production in general (possibly save for the somewhat imperfect early color...my dvd is low quality so this could be the reason) has a certain simple tragedy and subtle intuition that I feel sets it apart from the Judy Garland version.

I must add that I very much enjoy the 1954 remake. It was a good production. The musical element and the glossy, 1950s setting give it more of a Valley of the Dolls feel than its more subdued predecessor. In some ways it helps the film, in others detracts. Some of the musical numbers worked well for it ("The Man That Got Away" is brilliant and perfectly complements the tone of this work), but it gets bogged down in showy musical numbers that do nothing to further the story along, and dramatic confrontation after dramatic confrontation. The best parts of it are the elements it borrowed from the '37 film. Judy was fantastic and deserved an Oscar (so did Gaynor), and it's one of the better remakes as remakes go, but the epic length detracts from the simplicity of this human story. Both versions are well worth a watch though.

I haven't seen the Barbara Streisand version, and I have very little temptation to.

It could be remade again and again and still be ok, but the 1937 is the best in my opinion. It's a timeless story, but in 1937 it was also timely.

I vaguely recall having seen another version of this movie with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson. I hated it. I watched this movie because of when it was made. I enjoyed it. The story was more entertaining in my opinion.


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