Judy Garland Amazing - For Me and My Gal (1943) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

Yes. She was amazing. Great voice and amazing dancing as usual. And I loved the chemistry between her and Gene Kelly.

"Hi, hi, hi there! At last we meet."

reply

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

The chemistry between Garland and Kelly in this film was the main reason that MGM paired them up again in "The Pirate" and "Summer Stock". Also, there were some thwarted attempts at re-teaming them as well. "Easter Parade" was supposed to have been a Garland/Kelly pairing, but Gene broke his ankle. I've also heard that Garland and Kelly were originally meant to star in "Good News" too. Don't know for sure about that one though.

reply

[–] alliekat9090 10 years ago

Gene Kelly got this part at the insistence of Judy. The studio really didnt want to use him because he was an unknown at the time. She said she would not do it without him. Gene Kelly always said he owed his career to Judy.

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

alliekat9090 says > Gene Kelly got this part at the insistence of Judy. The studio really didnt want to use him because he was an unknown at the time. She said she would not do it without him. Gene Kelly always said he owed his career to Judy.

For as long as I can remember I've heard how great Judy Garland was as a singer, actress, performer, and person but I cannot for the life of me understand what people saw in her that was so great. Okay, she could sing but so can a lot of people and her style wasn't my taste.

I have enjoyed some of her movies but I don't know why people think she's such a great actress. In my opinion, there wasn't much variety in her roles. Basically she was playing a variation of herself, a musical performer. She didn't dazzle me.

Her personal life was a real mess. She had all sorts of issues from early on which caused her to behave completely irresponsibly. It sounds like the studio put her on pills because they weren't getting much out of her. She was quick to tire and couldn't be relied on to look the same throughout one movie shoot. She often showed up late or not at all and was unprofessional. She was often fired from projects and from contracts.

It sounds like she slept her way through Hollywood even with married men and while she was married herself. Besides husbands, she also mistreated a lot of her co-stars and colleagues. Apparently she tried to get some fired, saying they couldn't act or do their jobs and was ungracious and unkind.

By the end of her life she was even estranged from her own children. They had been through a lot and didn't want anything more to do with her. Naturally, I wasn't around and did not know her so these are things I've read. At least some of it must have been true.

I was happy to hear what she had done for Gene Kelly but I was also a little cynical. Maybe she went to bat for him because she was hoping to make him her next lover. He was a newlywed so that probably never panned out. Maybe other people were tired of working with her. Her long time reliable co-star Mickey Rooney wasn't being cast with her anymore. Maybe she knew Kelly would be grateful and would put up with her or maybe she knew he was so good the movie would be successful.

Clearly she did do good by him but a few nice acts cannot make up for all the negatives. I have to assume to some extent people think better of her than she actually deserved because they felt sorry for her. She did have a tragic life starting with no childhood. She was pushed into show business by her very determined mother. She was successful but was miserable and lost everything. To top it off she died young and supposedly accidentally.

When people die young and/or tragically or before their time, they seem to take on qualities they may not have had in life and all their traits are elevated. James Dean, for instance, was said to be such a fine actor. Marilyn Monroe was brilliant. Elvis was the king as was Michael Jackson... Yes, these people were good at what they did but why should their untimely deaths put them on such a high pedestal and for all time; especially since their own actions or problems seem to have led to or contributed to their death.

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

reply

[–] alliekat9090 8 years ago

There is so much you have wrong here that I wont even bother to take time for a rebuttal.

reply

[–] gbennett5 8 years ago

I agree. Only an idiot would say of Garland "okay, she could sing, but a
lot of people can." We KNOW a lot of people can, but who from American
Idol or The Voice can compare to Judy Garland? Nobody. And her acting
was amazing in this, and in all of her films. One of the single
greatest performers who ever graced our planet.

"Judy Garland was the greatest singer of the 20th century." - Tony Bennett

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

gbennett5 says > Only an idiot would say of Garland "okay, she could sing, but a lot of people can."

Sorry to disappoint you but you're wrong. A non-idiot can and did make that statement. Had I said she couldn't sing, that would be one thing. You could dispute that but how can you argue with my personal preference? Garland's voice and style have never appealed to me; not one bit. Naturally, I would have a hard time understanding why some people think she's so great.

I was hoping her fans could enlighten me a bit but so far there's been none of that. People seem to just want to tell me how wrong and stupid I am. I guess they don't want to admit they don't know why they're on the Judy bandwagon. I guess it means they're just good, eager followers.

We KNOW a lot of people can, but who from American Idol or The Voice can compare to Judy Garland? Nobody.

I never mentioned those shows. I've seen them, of course, but they weren't my frame of reference. However, since you mentioned them I can think of a few people from those shows that I'd much rather listen to than her.

And her acting was amazing in this, and in all of her films.

As I said before, in every movie I've ever seen her, she always played a version of herself. There wasn't much variation. That gets boring. I realize that may not have been her fault; the studio did typecast her but she wasn't the only actor in that position. I think the issue I have with both her acting and singing is she came across very whiny. There's a plaintive quality to her songs, the characters she played, and her life in general that I find off-putting.

Also, my idea of a good actor is someone who can portray a character so well all I see is the character within the story. With Judy, whatever the character I always saw Judy. The fact most of her movies were musicals didn't help either. They're not my favorite genre and they're usually light on plot and substance.

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

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

alliekat9090 says > There is so much you have wrong here that I wont even bother to take time for a rebuttal.

I suppose you think you have all the 'right' facts but prefer to keep them to yourself. That's fine. I'd expect more of someone who is, based on your comment, probably her fan.

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

reply

[–] communicator-1 8 years ago

Obviously, mdonin, you have never seen "Judgement at Nuremberg" or "A Child is Waiting." When you say Judy Garland can't act, you show a lack of knowledge of film history. You don't care for her singing or dancing? Fine. But don't show your misunderstanding of the acting profession, by making such a silly statement.

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

communicator-1 says > When you say Judy Garland can't act, you show a lack of knowledge of film history.

...or, one could simply say I have my preferences and Garland's not among them. I don't know what film history has to do with it. Winning awards or being nominated for them doesn't impress me either. Watching the movie is all I need to determine whether or not I liked the movie and thought the actor was convincing in the role.

Obviously, mdonin, you have never seen "Judgement at Nuremberg" or "A Child is Waiting."

There goes that theory! I actually have seen and liked both movies. As I recall, I thought Garland was okay but I wouldn't say I was blown away. In any case, neither performance turned me into a fan.

In her earlier movies I thought Garland pretty much played a version of herself and the stories could have easily been about her life. In these later movies I feel she did kind of the same thing. She played, what could be described as, haggard women who had been through a lot of difficult times in their lives. That describes where Garland was in her personal life too.

I believe I read later that she was barely holding it together at that point so working was difficult. Directors gave her a break and co-stars helped prop her up so she could get through it. The same was said of Clift during the making of Nuremberg.

Apparently, the director managed to coax a decent performance out of her but a lot of what came through was a woman in distress. It may have worked for the role but was it really acting? Who's to say? Clearly some people bought it.

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

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alliekat9090 8 years ago

And as far as sleeping her way to the top and carrying on like a cheap tramp you could not be farther from the truth. She had a very unhappy love life and and made some bad choices in men but she was never a cheap party girl. And she was NEVER estranged from her children. She loved her kids dearly & all three of her children adored her in spite of her faults and continue to do so to this day. I really have no idea where you came up with this information.

reply

[–] richspenc 8 years ago

I agree with you completely. Judy was never cheap. And she did love her children truly, unconditionally. I also agree with your other comment about Gene owing the initial boost in his career to Judy. Judy walked him through and was so sweet and helpful to him throughout "For me and my gal". How can someone be badmouthing this wonderful woman, and at that have such inaccurate information about her. I completely agree with your defence comments alliekat. And I know it's not just because we're fans. Judy Garland was amazing and wonderful. You ever read the website " Judy Garland, too pure for this world"? That page just about says it all. And it's true cause it matches up with almost everything else I've ever seen about her. Judy was a loving person with a heart of gold. And Judy's pill addictions, it's not even her fault she got addicted to pills. Her mother and MGM made her start taking these pills all the time at an early age. She was not someone who just chose to go down the wrong road in life.

reply

[–] alliekat9090 10 years ago

This was probably the 1st movie where Judy's phenomenal gift for acting became apparent. Before this movie she was primarily showcased for her singing. She breaks your heart in this movie.

reply