MovieChat Forums > A Star Is Born (1954) Discussion > didn't anybody care how judy LOOKED in ...

didn't anybody care how judy LOOKED in this movie?


I can think of perhaps three scenes, one of them at the Academy Awards, where she looks halfway decent. Never does she look anything near a movie star. She looks plain, unattractive, old, and sometimes downright ugly. Sure, she wasn't classically beautiful, but if you contrast her appearance in this film with how she looks in her later MGM pics beginning with Meet Me In St. Louis, and then, only at the Christmas scene, but through some of her scenes in Easter Parade, In The Good Old Summertime,The Pirate-- it's like MGM knew how to make her look okay, but Warner Bros., where Star was filmed, didn't have a clue. Just my opine, but is there anybody who thinks she looks GOOD in Star?

reply

robert...judy looks good in the academy award scene and in the born in a trunk production number...the scene in which norman maine doesn't recognize vicki before her screen test because she's so made up is judy's way of getting back at mgm for all the crap they used to do to her to make her glamorous like lana turner and ava gardner

i enjoy the scene of the proposal on the recording stage while she's singing and they secretly record her chat with norman maine

another issue besides her fluctuating weight was the fact that cukor (nor anyone at warners for that matter)had never worked in cinemascope and many many times her image is so terribly distorted because of the anamorphic lense

actually mason looks sensational in that early 50s hollywood chic casual look...just what you'd think a big movie star would look like...convertibles, cashmere sports coats, open collars and ascots, big pleated wool slacks

you should read the book the making of a star is born by ronald haver, the guy who helped restore the picture...

reply

what's wrong with a movie star using all the tricks at her disposal to look her best? i know about judy's MGM fake nose, the removable bridge work, etc. BUT JUDY HAD BAD TEETH! and using that whiteout stuff doesn't always disguise it. never understood why she never got her teeth capped. this isn't dump on judy time, but she's responsible at least somewhat for her dowdy, at-times plain appearance. and i'm supposing that the early 50s wardrobe and not-particularly-flattering hairdos don't work in her favor either.
read haver's book about a decade ago.
just finished seeing Star again to see if perhaps my initial comment was too harsh... and no, sorry to say i don't think it was. judy looks anywhere from 25 (what i would guess esther's age to be) to about 45-- from one scene to the next! couldn't anybody pull in the reins, even her husband sid luft? is it any wonder that Star didn't recoup it costs? who wants to see a movie where the star is hard to look at? her face goes from pudgy to okay from one scene to the next. i don't know a darn thing about makeup, but it doesn't seem like anybody at warner bros. did either. and mightn't a little nip and tuck been just what a doctor would order?
yes, i know the overdone judy when maine doesn't recognize her is a takeoff on a studio's making over somebody to the extreme.
is all always forgiven when it comes to judy garland because of that nasty Louis B. Mayer and his insistance that judy control her weight with diet pills when she couldn't do it herself? what happened to a star's alleged massive ego about his/her own appearance?
no, judy didn't deserve to be an addict. but she might have had some self-discipline. ask anybody in recovery.
and i wasn't in the least talking about james mason's appearance. he looks fine.

reply

Judy looked beautiful no matter how she looked because her inside glowed. One thing everyone is forgetting Judy is HUMAN!!

NO ONE looks "gorgeous" or is a "knock-out" all the time.

She had her bad days, so what, she's just like the rest of us. There are more people that loved the movie than the few on here than have their opinioins about her looking bad.

I enjoyed the movie because she did a GREAT job in it... and if more people focused on the MOVIE rather than apperances than this post wouldn't even exsist.

At times she looked like an "average- non-movie star" HUMAN but that was her role. She was an "average" girl brought to stradom because of her VOICE not looks.

If you were blind and could only hear the music would you still of enjoyed it?

I didn't see a problem with the way she looked; if you really think about it and compare Liza looks exactly like her mother in this movie. So if you aren't to fond of Liza (apperance) then you probably wouldn't like Judy (apperance) in this movie.

One thing us non-celbrities are forgeting that NO ONE wakes up looking gorgeous; therefore everyone is an "average" person. If you can't except the average, then what can you except?

Just remember an opinion is an opinion; it's neither right nor wrong! And in no way are my comments on here to offend anyone or threaten their feelings.

For anyone that loves Judy no matter what, you may want to check this webpage and post a comment in the comment area about how she touched your life.

http://www.myspace.com/officialjudygarlandfans

God Bless!



reply

Or it's part of the film's design. The film shows movie stars as real people. Judy spends her time in recording studios (who gets dolled up to spend an entire in a stuffy recording studio in front of a bunch of techs), in rehearsal (dress for comfort for rehearsals), and various other non-performing situations.

She's not meant to be glamorous. Movie stars aren't glamorous when they're not in front of the camera or on the red carpet. They're just people going to work.

reply

I'm really against capping of teeth unless your teeth are irreperably damaged. That's like saying to have your real ugly leg cut off for a fake prosthetic Bec that's what they do to your real teeth to cap it, they literally file it down to destroy it and use it to hold up the fake caps. I saw an aunt's sister once who had her teeth capped previously. They had to fix it and removed all the caps and she looked Gastly! Her teeth were filed narrow, like fangs with spaces in between, it was horrid and gross what they do just to cap your teeth. And I never knew that's what many stars do to their own real teeth.

reply

There was nothing wrong with Garland's teeth. They looked fine in every movie.

reply

I made no mention of Garland's teeth.

reply

Yes I agree that Judy did not look picture plastic perfect but I think she was beautiful in "Star." She was absolutely brilliant and perfect in this role. She looked so real.

It's posts and thinking like this that perpetuate the stereotype that only "gorgeous" or "perfect" people have a right to grace the screen. It's very sad actually.



"There are 3 things you don't discuss with people:religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin."

reply

Add a fourth, apparently: Judy Garland!

reply

I'm with you, Judy looked great, sounded great and her performance was terrific.

reply

DIDDO! She looked beautiful! I have no idea what any of these people are talking about, short of their obvious desire to trash Judy - the same way she was in life by the same people that used her again and again and told her she was ugly and fat until she had a nervous breakdown. I'm not really sure how you think a 32-year-old woman who has been addicted to uppers and downers and sleeping pills and alcohol practically from the time she was 17 is supposed to look. Even after all this, and MGM having worked her into a sanitarium, I thought she looked wonderful and sounded even better AND her acting was first rate. Grace Kelly couldn't act her way out of a paper bag compared to Judy. She was simply eye candy, and everyone knew it. Oscar is a popularity contest and always will be. Haters!

reply

She is indeed a beautiful woman. I think she was her most innocently beautiful in "The Clock".

No, she wasn't the perfect beauty of Rita, Grace or Liz. But a great actress, fine dancer, and a voice unmatched! Turner should have been jealous! Once Judy starts strutting her stuff she has no equal!


.

reply

She is indeed a beautiful woman. I think she was her most innocently beautiful in "The Clock".

No, she wasn't the perfect beauty of Rita, Grace or Liz. But a great actress, fine dancer, and a voice unmatched! Turner should have been jealous! Once Judy starts strutting her stuff she has no equal!

I think she was equally beautiful in "Girl Crazy" with Mick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sepcDxEOYeI

Apocryphal or not, it's been written that the beauties of her era that she envied, envied HER for her talent.

Judy had a special beauty that I find difficult to put into words. I believe Vincente Minnelli said, "She could will you to love her."

reply

We do indeed live in a strange and cracked up world, where every entertainer, princess, and first lady is supposed to look like Miss Universe in order to vindicate themselves and appease the jealous public that they are worthy of so much fame, money, and power. We need only compare the coverage of the late Diana, Princess of Wales and her equally charismatic daughter-in-law Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, with that of the reviled Sarah, Duchess of York, and the widely hated Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, both of whom are sorely lacking in the looks department.

The news media and the powers that be (agents, executives, producers, directors, etc.) are just as responsible, and since men still rule the roost it will continue to stay that way. Critics have often panned a woman's performance if they don't like her appearance. The most egregious example was the terrible lampooning of Sofia Coppola in The Godfather III movie in 1990. Thank God she actually does have talent and later won the Academy Award for Best Screenplay for Lost in Translation. Her direction of Marie Antoinette was also superb. I think she would have won anyway due to nepotism, but she deserved it.

The fact that the gorgeous Grace Kelly downplayed her beauty with drabness and played someone two decades older in order to be Oscar worthy in The Country Girl doesn't justify the fact that the great Garland was robbed of the Best Actress prize. Judy was ten times the actress and talent that Grace was, although I admit that Grace Kelly had more class and beauty and was so perfectly suited to become the wife of a European prince, even if he did reign over a tiny kingdom that was/still is a tax haven for rich crooks. It's doubly ironic that Grace Kelly at age twenty-six at the height of her fame looked much older then than actresses in their forties do today.

I hate to rant like this, but I am further infuriated with the fact that few people nowadays remember what a great all-around performer and triple-threat Judy Garland was: a fabulous singer, dancer, and actress. Grace was a pretty good actress who only ever had to play herself as an heiress, top model, or trophy wife (which she was in real life). She never had to stretch herself as an actress. And a lot of her acting was affected and mannered with an English accent she had cultivated, although this was done to the maximum effect in her greatest film Rear Window. It would have made more sense if she had won the Oscar for the Hitchcock classic.

Judy had guts and courage due to her rough childhood on the vaudeville circuit. Grace was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, as were Vivien Leigh and Elizabeth Taylor, those other prized stallions in the MGM stable. Back then, if you came from a lower class background, those were the parts you were cast in. Judy played a lot of chorus girls, singers, etc. And Marilyn Monroe was typecast the same way because the studio bosses perceived her as a working-class bimbo. When the aristocratic Audrey Hepburn came on the scene, roughly at the same time as Monroe and Kelly, Billy Wilder said it was refreshing to see such a lovely new face that didn't have that cheap look with the loose sweater girl appeal: "Not since Garbo has there been anyone like her, with the possible exception of Ingrid Bergman. After so many drive-in waitresses in movies, here is class." One writer at the time put it in a nutshell: "It's Judy Garland born in a vaudeville trunk vs. Grace Kelly born in a Philadelphia mansion." Living proof that the critic Danny Peary was right when he wrote in 1991 that Hollywood was obsessed with prestige.

On some other notes: I would just like to say that this is Judy's greatest film role other than as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (my all-time favorite movie). It is also the best of the four films made with the same storyline, although only Barbra Streisand's 1976 version is actually an Oscar winner (for Best Original Song). How fitting. Barbra adored Judy and got her first break on television on Garland's variety show when she was barely twenty. I have a feeling that Barbra's movie was a tribute to Judy's memory. Streisand is the greatest female talent Hollywood has produced since Judy Garland.

Doesn't Judy look so much like her daughter Liza Minnelli in this picture? I can't get over it. She didn't age well, but she looks wonderfully vibrant and healthy, if not pretty, as Esther/Vicki at the age of thirty-one, which she was at the time they filmed A Star Is Born.

I suppose it would have been difficult for the Academy to give Judy the Award since her character Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester actually wins the Best Actress statuette in the movie, and because of the fact that Garland did win the honorary Juvenile Oscar in 1940 when she was a mere seventeen for her role as Dorothy in Oz.

Of the two alcoholic husband performances which were also nominated that year, I prefer James Mason's Norman Maine over Bing Crosby's Frank Elgin in The Country Girl, although I admit that Bing's acting in this topped his 1944 winning role in Going My Way. It's too bad that Brando had the Oscar-hungry role in On The Waterfront. In my humble opinion: a tie between Mason and Marlon since Bing already had one.

Finally: A Time magazine article this fall lamented Hollywood's obsession with remaining ageless, noting that fifty-one-year-old Sandra Bullock looked half the age of the middle-aged Princess Grace who died at 52 in 1982, and that if botox had been all the rage back then the former Grace Kelly would have looked old for her age. Or rather, she'd look old for her age today. Never mind Judy Garland, who did indeed look old for her age when she died much too soon of a drug overdose at the age of forty-seven in 1969 when Sandra was still a babe in the woods.

reply

She's not gorgeous, her best years look wise were in the '40s, but I don't think Judy ever needed to be gorgeous. Her talent surpassed looks by a long shot. They say that although someone like Lana Turner was better looking, those girls always were jealous of Judy for her talent. Not to say those girls weren't talented, but that Judy didn't need beauty--she had a beautiful voice.

I don't think she was ugly though either in this movie. She was loosing and gaining weight a lot from 1950s onward but def. not an ugly lady.

reply

Perfect response, marilyn_glamour.

He said it's all in your head, and I said, so's everything--
But he didnt get it.

reply

I think the scene in which she looked the most beautiful in this movie was during "Born in a Trunk" when she's singing "Meloncholy Baby".

reply

God, die hard Garland fans can be obnoxious in their attacks. If you even suggest that Judy was imperfect you get accused of bashing her. No one said they wanted plastic perfection, or that Judy wasn't one of the greatest, but the truth is she looks matronly in a good deal of this movie. Most of her fashions were unflattering (as they were to many women in the early fifties) and her hair and makeup were not the greatest either. She looked best when dressed in just the shirt and tights for Someone at Last or as a male for Swanee. She looked better years later after her Carnegie Hall comeback. Does it make a huge difference in appreciating her performance as Esther? No. But,this is a story about a girl hitting it big in the movies,not the stage, and for all of her talent, Esther might have had trouble in 1954 competing with Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor or Doris Day looking as she does in the film no matter how great her singing. I adore Judy--saw her give magnificent live performances four times--and I always support her against unwarranted criticism, but I have to agree that she did not look her best in this film. Get over it.

reply

But,this is a story about a girl hitting it big in the movies,not the stage, and for all of her talent, Esther might have had trouble in 1954 competing with Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor or Doris Day looking as she does in the film no matter how great her singing.
I don't dispute what you say. But, this statement of yours jumped out at me, because Esther's dream (as stated in her conversation with Norman in her motel room) was never to be a screen actress, but to be a singer, to have a #1 record, played on all the jukeboxes, "And, then I'll be made!"

It was Norman who told her that her dream wasn't big enough. And, it was he who used his influence at the studio to get her into pictures -- pictures equaling public exposure.

I always had the feeling that Esther was somewhat of an unwilling participant in the whole Hollywood thing. She (like Judy herself), had a self deprecating style and no illusions of being a glamour girl. She wanted to sing (again like Garland), and pictures became the means to that end.

I'm not sure Esther would have worried about competing with the screen beauties of the day -- after she got her voice out there.

Just a thought.

reply

I read a Judy Garland bio., by her daughter Lorna, and according to the book she tried to recover from her various drug/alcohol habbits (which included the uppers/downers she took for energy [in addition to the diet pills]) on numerous occasions and actually I don't think she really could have taken control of herself--she was doomed from childhood.

BTW: I understand what you're saying, about her looks, movies are about fantasy, particularly hers, and I don't think I'd want to stare at big puffy pink eyes and jagged yellow teeth for two hours, I know I certainly would have preferred a healthier Judy in the part, but the movie wasn't materially affected by her fluctuating weight and her age. It still worked wonderfully, besides who could've possibley taken the part in her place?

reply

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm amazed at the Pandora's box I opened up with the musing-- and not all responses were as kind (or thoughtful) as yours. I like what you say about movies being about fantasy. Great way to put it. Robert.

reply

I think she looks quite lovely in the part of "Born in a Trunk" where she sings "Meloncholy Baby."

reply

Sure! Had forgotten about that scene-ette. Did you know that that was the last shot filmed for the flick? Read that in the "Making Of A Star Is Born" book. Am adding that to the scenes where she looks quite okay: Academy Awards, etc., as I mentioned in my first musing. Can't remember if I included the scene where Norman proposes. That works for me, too, as well as the opening number at the benefit concert.

reply

I am watching this film for the first time. I am sorry everyone jumped down your throat and they may do the same to me. The movie is enjoyable and yes she is a great talent, but I agree with you completely. The first thing that struck me was how unhealthy she looked and, at times, down right unattractive. The jowls around her jawline are what struck me the most. Watching her in this film makes me a little sad and it is hard for me to focus on the cinderalla story aspect of her rise while she looks so unhealthy. In fact, I have paused the film and am on this site specifically to see if anyone else noticed and commented about this. The people who insulted you seemed to just not want to hear any critism about their beloved Judy, but she really does not look well here. That is no slight to her, her talent, her hardships, or this film. That is the simple truth.

reply

Wow, thank you so much. Like I said, I had no idea I'd opened up such a Pandora's Box. And not sure if I mentioned this earlier (the thread is a couple of months old), but my humble opinion of why she didn't win the Best Actress Oscar is three-fold: First, as I mentioned, she looked horrible. Second, despite moments of true brilliance in her performance, by and large the performance is over the top (and not in a good way) and third, her unprofessionalism due to her chemical dependency and refusing to work before 4:00 pm caused the film to go way over budget and resulted in its appearing bloated.
Read the book on the making of this flick! Fascinating!

reply

I absolutely agree with you, and I thought it was just me, because all I've ever heard about this movie before watching it myself (many times now) is good, and how Judy just put so much of herself into it, etc. I like Judy Garland, especially in movies like "The Clock" where she is still a working actress, a professional, but not yet nearing "legend" status.

I was uncomfortable watching this one from the first, and you put your finger on it-it's just over the top, her performance. Too much of the trademark quaveriness in her voice, too little modulation her singing-everything, everything, is belted, even when she lowers the volume a little. I'm too aware of Judy The Show Must Go On persona, and too little of the actual character. I feel uncomfortable on James Mason's behalf, like what the heck is he doing in a picture like this, when he's just too British to "go Hollywood" in this way.

The hard, shellacked to an inch of its life 50s style doesn't suit her a bit.

Somehow the picture sucks me in every time, I don't know who gets the credit for this. It seems that it does go to show, to me, how the Hollywood studio system was beginning to flounder, whacking people over the head with Cinemascope, Technicolor, etc. I like a big splashy musical as well as the next person, but this one doesn't seem to know if it's fish or fowl. The big musical numbers seem to not really belong to this story.



















What we're dealing with here... is a complete lack of respect for the law.

reply

You have to remember that this film was made during a very difficult, painful, and stressful time in her life. A few years ago, she had left MGM and was bvasically considered box office poison. She had also just had a baby and probably hadn't lost a lot of the baby fat yet, not to mention that Judy always had weight problems and her weight fluctuated throughout her life, sometimes between scenes in the same movie. Yes, Judy has looked better, but I still think she turned in one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema in this film.

reply

Right - let's remember that Judy was only about 31 when she filmed A STAR IS BORN - and was considered a has-been by Hollywood standards! A truly incredible concept!

As for her "un-movie-star-ish" appearance - I don't care who you're talking about, from Nicole Kidman to Reese Witherspoon, I'll bet you that NOBODY looks like a movie star when they wake up in the morning! Though Meryl Streep is certainly a movie star, she usually doesn't "look" like one. I'm thinking of the interview Streep, Kidman and Julianne Moore did on the DVD of THE HOURS - there were Streep and Moore looking great, just themselves, and Kidman all done up as a movie star, as though the make-up man had just stepped out of camera range, which he probably had. It's always like that with her.

"...don't let's ask for the moon - we have the stars!"

reply

i don't think it's so much that we dont want to hear anything bad about our precious Judy, as that, we understand, or better yet, apprecaite her. there are so many emotions, some that we know about, and some we dont, and you must never forget that there are things we dont know about. That book you worship is not God, it is not alive, it can not chose right from wrong, there are corners that it cannot shed light on, partly because the only one that knew about them was judy, and because, they were not meant to be known. This is a beautiful picture because the emotions are real and raw. You and I, and the writer of that book, make mistakes, we not perfect. And for you to creat a thread like this shopws how truly superfishial you are. And Im guessing you look less that a movie star your self at your best.

If I became fire, would you burn up with me? Would you burn down with me?

reply

I'm not sure I deserved the personal attack that you leveled at me. I'm reporting your response to IMDB.

reply

So you're saying you can dish it out, but you can't take it? It's an opinion, just like yours, look at both sides of the experience. Report me, it's not that big of deal, I get banned, then I get banned, but speaking my mind is a right that we all have, and debating is also one of those rights.

If I became fire, would you burn up with me? Would you burn down with me?

reply

I repeat, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I didn't attack you in the slightest way. And your Satanic references are downright scary. I have reported you and will report your latest comments as well. I'm just curious, though, why you've chosen me as the object of your wrath. I'm glad that you're unable to locate me, where I live, or my phone number. Perhaps you need to find a better outlet for your anger than anonymously posting things here at IMDB.

reply

I didn't think that i was being that negitive, and am not angrey, its just a debate, good grief. I dont want to personaly attck you, and i dont care where in "losangeles" you live or what your phone # is. Im not venting, dont you see that, im not just a picture, a model, I was sharing my opinion, your just not reading it the way that I see it. and maybe im not reading your comments the way that you see it either, but man take a chill pill.

If I became fire, would you burn up with me? Would you burn down with me?

reply

i'm guessing now that you don't realize that what you're saying is truly offensive-- "you can dish it out, but you can't take it" when what i'm talking about Warner Bros. failure to make Judy Garland look good in A Star Is Born. Dish what out? And you seem to think that this wondering about The Studio System warrants your attacking me. i don't even know you. are you a teenager or something? your style of corresponding with someone you've never met and don't know isn't what you might call a healthy debated. "take a chill pill"? i'm a 52-year-old high school English teacher for Pete's sake and if kids in school talk that disrespectfully, they get sent to the dean's office. if you read other people's responses to my wondering, you'd see that i'm raising what i and some other people think is a valid point about the movies-- that movies are about illusion. but you keep coming at me, so is it any surprise that people who seem to have nothing better to do than try to engage others in their mental meanderings are somewhat frightening? and whatever you mean by your statement
"If I became fire, would you burn up with me? Would you burn down with me?" seems satanic with its references to hell and fire. and it's somewhat on the threatening side. but the bigger question is: why can't you just leave me alone?this is what's truly scary.

reply

If I became fire is a quote from a movie about love, im not satanic, you act like a 15 year old with mood swings. I dont think she was suppost to look "good" in Star to the extent that your speaking. Because looks do not determine how much some one can love another person. Why are you so bitter? I feel like your taking this beyond the true context and just firing right back at me. just because your 52 doesnt mean that you dont need to take a chill pill. Maybe, purly as a suggestion, you should be examined for your mental compasity, as an adult wouldn't get this upset at someone they dont know, and drag this out as long as you have. Yes, it's patly my fault, but i htink we are equally to blame for htis whole thing.

reply

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP POSTING YOUR REPLIES WHICH CONTAIN PERSONAL ATTACKS? "you act like a 15 year old with mood swings," "you should be examined for your mental capacity," "just because your 52 doesn't mean that you dont need to take a chill pill" IF YOU'D TAKE THE TIME TO READ HOW I'VE RESPONDED TO YOU, YOU'D SEE ThAT UP TILL NOW, I'VE NOT RESPONDED IN KIND TO YOUR ATTACKS. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU DON'T SEE THEM AS ATTACKS. I WAS MERELY POINTING OUT THE FAILURE OF WARNER BROS.' COSTUME AND MAKEUP PEOPLE TO NOT PRESENT JUDY AT HER BEST IN THIS FILM, WHICH SOMEHOW YOU'VE MANAGED TO CONSTRUE AS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON FIRST, JUDY HERSELF, AND THEN ON YOURSELF. IF YOU'RE SO CERTAIN THAT I NEED TO TAKE A "CHILL PILL"-- BTW,I DON'T DO DRUGS-- HERE'S A SUGGESTION: YOU MIGHT BE TAKEN A LITTLE MORE SERIOUSLY IF YOU'D FIRST LEARN HOW TO OPEN A DICTIONARY AND LEARN HOW TO SPELL. FOR THE RECORD, THE CORRECT SPELLINGS ARE:
"I'm" "don't" "supposed" "you're" "someone" "doesn't" "purely" "compacity"
"partly" and "this." The following isn't a sentence, so it shouldn't end in a period: "Because looks do not determine how much some one can love another person." As for your question, "Why are you so bitter?", I'll ask YOU the following question: "What gives you the right to psychoanalyze someone you don't know in a public forum such as this, when the person whom you've been criticizing and now psychoanalyzing began this thread as a serious discussion of the failure of Warner Bros.' costume and makeup department?" I fully expect (yet more) smart-alecky remarks from in response to what I've said here. And are you saying that I'M to blame for your responses by posing the topic that I did? That's a trip. Once again, you're proving my theory that Judy Garland fans are unable to see the forest for the trees. Judy was a fantastic talent, an original, a great actress-- but she also was a drug addict, which proved to be her undoing. And finally, as for your "love story quote" about "If I became fire, would your burn with me" or whatever it was,I do apologize if I mistakenly thought it was satanic. It's just that I don't know of anybody other than the Goth kids at school who wear black, wear spikes and cut themselves on purpose who use words like that. Wait, I just thought of an adult-- Patricia Keneely (not sure of the spelling), Jim Morrison's girlfriend. At least that's what they tried to say that she'd said in the movie THE DOORS.

reply

Ok, i cant spell, that nice, thanks. Now to the subject at hand. In my last post I said that an adult would have taken this so far, and yet you continue this in a negitive way. Now I want you to go back and read your comments and tell me that your not also attcking me. and FYI Judy did quit the pills many times, maybe if you knew more about the realJudy you would be able to understand my point of view. And another thing, there are very few real goths in existance. Im friends with some of the people who wear black and spikes. You're just kind of stereotypeing evrybody out there. I may be 16 years old, but I fell like Im handling this in a more mature fashion than you have been. control your emotions a little bit.

If I became fire, would you burn up with me? Would you burn down with me?

reply

Actually, I believe the word is "capacity," so you are both wrong.

Did I read somewhere that you are a teacher?

reply

no idea what you're talking about, but, oh, god, yet another fanatatical garland fan who takes any less-than-stellar comments about their beloved druggie icon personally and feels that he/she/it must launch an attack. why don't you all get lives instead of berating people you don't know on the internet? i'd better watch it, or you'll go satanic, just like that chick did a couple of weeks ago.


'

reply

Thank you for reading my remark, and for your thoughtful reply.

I don't much care about Judy Garland one way or the other, so you give me too much credit when you refer to me as "yet another fanatatical [sic] garland [sic] fan."

I was merely pointing out that the word judy4mee and you both misspelled was "capacity," not "compacity." I was unaware that pointing out misspellings on this thread was considered an "attack" on you, or could be considered "berating." I was merely following your lead, as you did the same thing to judy4mee. Do I understand correctly that if you point out someone else's errors you are doing them a favor, but if someone points out yours, it is a personal attack? I must have missed that section of the Terms and Conditions.

I must also have missed the post you mention in which someone became satanic; if it is convenient for you perhaps you could direct me to it?

reply

[deleted]

Ok, whoa whoa whoa. I know I'm probably very late to this conversation but I found it interesting because I just watched A Star is Born and found Judy to be surprisingly jowly. It was distracting at times. I wondered if other people thought that too.

I love Judy. I'm a huge Judy fan. But I thought that there were times in this movie when she looked more like the older Judy of the 50s and 60s than like a young ingenue. Was it her fault? Was it the studio's fault? Was it the fault of the drugs? Do we know? Does it matter?

I also thought she was spectacular in this movie. By the end the jowliness (I'm sure this is not a real word) didn't matter. I had forgotten she was Judy and she became (to me) Esther/Vicki. Even the jowliness fit in as she was portraying a woman torn apart by her love for a self destructive man.

Her performance was amazing. Did she look her best? Not in my opinion.

But holy cow people - the personal attacks!?!? What's with that? Robert, I was totally on your side until you upped the attack.

reply

Bravo! Well said indeed! Very well phrased!

reply