MovieChat Forums > Annie Get Your Gun (1950) Discussion > I Think That They Were Lucky...

I Think That They Were Lucky...

posted 13 years ago by xerses13
16 replies | jump to latest

...that JUDY GARLAND could not handle the situation and was replaced by BETTY HUTTON. Ms. Hutton hit the role on the head. She had the right 'over the top' approach that bridged the role from Broadway with ETHEL MERMAN. Whose interpretation would have been too strong for the silver screen. Just like all of Ms. Merman's appearances in Cinema.

Nobody has more of a appreciation of the talents of Ms. Garland then we do. She carried films that hold up today solely because of her superior talent. Her natural acting style as well as singing skills saved many a M.G.M. effort by several STARS! This film just was not one of them.

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

If Judy Garland had been well, her performance as Annie would have been entirely different and just fine. MGM should have concentrated on getting her well rather than shoving her in one film project after the other only to keep firing her when she couldn't live up to expectations.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

dmnemaine; True, M.G.M. mismanaged a valuable asset who had some personal issues. Don't know if she could have been helped or not, but that intensive work schedule could not have been a aid.

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

Judy Garland stayed two weeks in a sanitarium in Massachusetts shortly after completing filming on "The Pirate". She was actually starting to get better, but MGM insisted that she come back and start working again. Had they allowed her to have a real rest, she would have been a much more valuable asset to the studio than she was in her final three years with them.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

dmnemaine; I believe that we agree on this point. What is amazing is how fast her disintegration occurred. Look at IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMER TIME (1949) verses SUMMER STOCK (1950) just one (1) year later. In the former JUDY is still a vibrant young women. In the latter She looks like a late middle-aged house-wife that has to endure a lousy Husband. A Person who has forgotten that She is still a young Women. The age difference twenty-seven (27) then twenty-eight (28). My S.O. acts and looks more vibrant at age fifty-eight (58) then JUDY did!

After 1950 She NEVER reclaimed what she had. Even with Her superlative performance in A STAR IS BORN (1954) a decline had set in that would lead to the inevitable, suicide.

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

That hairstyle she has in Summer Stock didn't help matters any either, and playing a rustic farm woman has to be taken into consideration as well. Although, in the "Get Happy" sequence, she is back looking like the "vibrant young woman".

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

dmnemanine; Check out our comments and others on SUMMER STOCK (1950). Right, that/those hair style did SUCK! Aging Women of that generation too looking like their Grand-Mothers!

Disagree, even at the end with GET HAPPY, She still looked very drawn, not looking youthful, but trying to hard to be so. A last HURRAH in a film dominated by GENE KELLY. Though We enjoy the film more then it appears audiences did at the time of its original release.

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

Actually, I'm in the middle of watching "Summer Stock" as I type this, and the Portland Fancy number just ended. Judy was fantastic in that number. One of the few times that one's eyes are drawn not to Gene Kelly but to his dancing partner. Garland stole the number from him hands down. I think you're right about Judy Garland not looking her best in this film, but she gave it everything she had, and her performance shines in this film. Sorry, but I do not agree that the film is dominated by Gene Kelly. This was every bit Garland's film as it was his.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

dmnemaine; We seem to be at a impasse' in this discussion. So it is time to end it, too agree to disagree.

[–] cclowell 13 years ago

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that after the ANNIE fiasco and some of Judy's other problem film productions, MGM did offer to pay her salary while she took a year off to recover, but insisted she continue her psychiatric sessions as part of her recovery plan.

Judy refused to agree saying: "It's not my head, it's my body that's tired!"

To be fair to MGM (and the other studios), as others have pointed out, other stars had schedules and pressures just as demanding as Judy's and managed to handle the pressures without falling apart.

[–] dmnemaine 13 years ago

"Other stars" were not Judy Garland. What one person can handle another person cannot. You can't generalize like that. Judy Garland had mental illness that went untreated, and no one cared about it. All they were interested in was how much money they could make off her. To be fair, what we know now about mental illness was not widely known at the time of Garland's trouble with MGM. Nobody may have realized that she was sick and crying out for help. The fact still remains though, that a lot of people brush off mental illness as "Oh, they just couldn't handle it," or "Other people didn't crack under the pressure".

[–] cclowell 13 years ago

"Other stars" were not Judy Garland. What one person can handle another person cannot. You can't generalize like that. Judy Garland had mental illness that went untreated, and no one cared about it. All they were interested in was how much money they could make off her. To be fair, what we know now about mental illness was not widely known at the time of Garland's trouble with MGM. Nobody may have realized that she was sick and crying out for help. The fact still remains though, that a lot of people brush off mental illness as "Oh, they just couldn't handle it," or "Other people didn't crack under the pressure".

I disagree. Feel free to offer any corrections/insights you may have, but I don't recall Judy ever being diagnosed with a specific mental illness or illnesses. Substance abuse problems, yes, and the emotional problems that lead to substance abuse issues, but not a mental illlness. I remember reading that Joe Mankiewicz accused her of being a "pathological liar" while he was dating her, and told her she needed psychiatric help, and I think Dirk Bogarde made a comment on one of the Garland documentaries that she was a manic-depressive, but neither Mankiewicz nor Bogarde were mental health professionals.

From what I've read, Judy had many opportunities to get the help she needed while she was at MGM and she failed to do so, not because it wasn't offered, but because she never committed to it on a long-term basis.

I've seen and read the interviews by people like her sister Virginia and Marcella Rabwin, where they recalled that Judy would often come out of her psychiatric sessions and brag about how effectively she'd lied to her psychiatrist. When they remonstrated with her, reminding her of the fortune the studio was paying to help her, and that she wasn't doing herelf any good, she'd brush it off, not the studio.

And I don't recall reading of any meaningful efforts on her part to get a handle on her problems once she left MGM. Did she ever seek out any additional substance abuse counseling or psychiatric care for the almost 2 decades she lived after leaving MGM? Again, if someone has information on this issue, feel free to share, but I don't recall that she did.

[–] cclowell 13 years ago

Nobody has more of a appreciation of the talents of Ms. Garland then we do. She carried films that hold up today solely because of her superior talent. Her natural acting style as well as singing skills saved many a M.G.M. effort by several STARS! This film just was not one of them.

That's an interesting comment...

Could you possibly provide a list of films that Judy carried solely on her own talent?

I'm a big Garland fan, but other than LITTLE NELLIE KELLY, I can't think of a single Garland MGM production where she wasn't given ample support to help her carry her films. Even in small programmers like THOROUGHBREDS DON'T CRY and LISTEN, DARLING, she had comparably popular stars like Mickey Rooney and Freddie Bartholemew co-starring with her. In fact, except for WORDS AND MUSIC, all of her co-starring films with Mickey Rooney were produced at a time when he was a bigger star than she was...and got the lions' share of praise and attention from film critics.

She also usually had Technicolor, big budgets, original song material composed by Roger Edens to help endear her to audiences, and the best behind-the-scenes talents that MGM could muster to help her shine onscreen.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

cclowell; This is not the grade school where you mark the papers. Anybody with a critical analysis would obviously see her talents superseded most if not all of her co-stars. Unless you think MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS is a classic because of 'Leon Ames' and that is a very easy mark. Without her THOROUGHBREDS DON'T CRY and LISTEN, DARLING would not even be watchable.

As for 'Mickey Rooney' a enduring Star. Watch closely though, it is Ms. Garland whose performances hold up till today, while his are a little ripe. Or another way to put it a 'ham'. That is not me talking, but Mr. Rooney himself about his co-star. You you would be aware of this you had watched any of the documentaries of their careers. Back too Film Studies 101 for you. Hopefully the second time your Professor will give you a passing grade.

[–] cclowell 13 years ago

Xerxes: I was not speaking of the later impressions of these films from people of succeeding generations, who viewed them for the first time long after Judy became an iconic figure of 20th century entertainment. My comments were directed toward the films when they were initially released.

As you are probably well aware, at that time, Judy's contributions, even to some of her most notable films, were often considered to be secondary to those of her co-stars. Even the NEW YORK TIMES, reviewing her most iconic role in THE WIZARD OF OZ, had this impression in its' August 18, 1939 review, stating: "Judy Garland's Dorothy is a pert fresh-faced miss with the wonderlit eyes of a believer in fairy tales, but the Baum fantasy is at its' best when the Scarecrow, the Woodman and the Lion are on the move."

Whether you think much of Freddie Bartholemew's talent compared to Judy's in LISTEN, DARLING, the fact remains that, Judy's songs aside, as the primary mover and schemer to find a suitable husband for Mary Astor, he has a bigger and more active role than she does. Same with both Rooney and Robert Sinclair in THOROUGHBREDS DON'T CRY. Even the "Coming Attractions" trailer for THOROUGHBREDS focuses almost exclusively on Sinclair, mentioning Judy only in passing.

These reviews were never more prevalent than in Judy's co-starring films with Mickey Rooney. As you probably know, at the time Rooney was the number one box office star in the country, and though Judy also got into the Top Ten list for 1940 and 1941, I'm guessing that it still wasn't enough for MGM to start building her up as a star in her own right, because she continued to appear almost exclusively in co-starring films which featured Rooney more prominently than her. She didn't achieve the solo, above-the-title billing of a top star until 1942 with FOR ME AND MY GAL. Rooney, on the other hand, made many films without Judy during this time where he was the top-billed attraction.

I'm not saying that I agree with MGM's gradual approach to acknowledging Judy's stardom or talent, just that that's the way they did it. Many of Judy's contemporaries were truly expected to carry their films to success on their own, without the luxury of a Rooney, Kelly, Astaire, or Margaret O'Brien to help them bring in the crowds. In 1939, who helped Shirley Temple turn THE LITTLE PRINCESS into a hit? Richard Greene? Mary Nash? Or Deanna Durbin make FIRST LOVE into a smash? Robert Stack? Leatrice Joy? I don't think so.

Whether Judy's performances today are consdered the best moments in these films (and I agree, they sometimes are), doesn't change the fact that she's often protected in them by being paired with comparably popular stars, or in Rooney's case, a more popular one, to a degree other stars were not.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

cclowell; That JUDY had been always supported by a strong cast is a specious argument. That is typical of that period. All Studios would support important prospects with mutually supporting talent from there stable of Character Actors and as they grew, Stars. If you can find me one that was not, show me.

The question is how does their roles hold up today in the 21st Century and JUDY is way ahead of most of her peers. How films are seen by later generations is a important consideration. It is how both Films and Stars are judged. That is why Great Stars, Films, Directors are held in such high regard today. They have out lasted their contemporaries.

Going back to the original topic, it is better that BETTY HUTTON took the role over in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. JUDY by that time did not have the commitment or energy for the role, BETTY did, nuff said.

[–] spookyrat1 7 years ago

Going back to the original topic, it is better that BETTY HUTTON took the role over in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. JUDY by that time did not have the commitment or energy for the role, BETTY did, nuff said.

Definitely!🐭