MovieChat Forums > The Country Girl (1955) Discussion > Judy was better.

Judy was better.

posted 17 years ago by jpseacadets
23 replies | jump to latest

Judy Garland not winning in 1955 stands as a historically glaring mistake
by the Motion Picture Academy. Her performance in A STAR IS BORN stands as
the crowning glory of her career. Having already won the Golden Globe that
year, she was poised to win the big one from a hospital bed rigged up to
provide a remote since she had just given birth to her son Joey. All of
Hollywood was rooting for her to win. Gable, Crawford, Lucy & Desi...all
raved about her steller acting. Garland, a show business legend, happened
to be in a musical and some snobs don't think this takes acting. Well...
singing and dancing is hard work, and nobody worked harder than Judy did
in 1954 to make this film. In the scene where she's applying clown make-up
while fighting back tears shed over her alcoholic husband ruining his career,
is truly heart-breaking.

Kelly in THE COUNTRY GIRL gives a good performance. In truth, however, it's
clear she's much too young to be the wife of an obviously older Bing Crosby.
Uta Hagen, an older actress, originated this role on the stage and won the
Tony Award. This miscasting of Kelly, known more for wearing pretty clothes
and her ravishing blonde locks, reduces the impact of this film. She is
out-acted by the two bigger stars, especially Crosby who is superb, despite
heavy make-up and dowdy clothes to make her look like a character propping
up a weak, broken-down alcoholic husband for years. Her popularity with
audiences and the three studios she worked for is what led to her win - -
not her acting.

- - SoundTrak

[–] thesupremediva1 17 years ago

Sing it sister. Garland BY FAR deserved the Oscar that year, her performance touched my heart. Grace Kelly did a commendable job but really, there's no comaprison since Judy's just on a whole other level. Another glaring Academy mistake. If anyone deserved an Oscar for this film, it was William Holden.

[–] mgconlan-1 17 years ago

Has anybody but me ever noticed that Judy Garland's role in "A Star Is Born" and Grace Kelly's in "The Country Girl" were virtually the same character -- both nursemaids to alcoholic ex-star husbands many years their senior? The only difference was that Judy's character was herself a performer and Grace's was not.

That said, there's no doubt in my mind: Judy WAS better, worlds better. The enduring mystery of Grace Kelly's career is how she managed to have such a great -- if brief -- star career when she could barely act at all. In her three films for Alfred Hitchcock ("Dial 'M' for Murder," "Rear Window" and "To Catch a Thief") he somehow managed to make her sensual and alluring. In all her other films, including "The Country Girl," she's about as sexy as an ice cube -- and about as compelling an actress.

If anyone deserved an acting award for "The Country Girl," it was Bing Crosby. As the alcoholic has-been attempting a comeback, he's utterly convincing, easily out-acting James Mason in "A Star Is Born" and Ray Milland in "The Lost Weekend" in his portrayal of alcoholism and its discontents. A pity Judy and Bing couldn't have made either or both of these movies together!

[–] DiggityDogg 17 years ago

Good point about the 2 roles being the same character... interesting!

But..to the point...JUDY WAS ROBBED! How ANYONE can look at those 2 performances and give the Oscar to Grace Kelly -- who, I'm sorry, was NOT good in the role of Georgie. Each and every year I watch the Oscars - to this day - I'm reminded of this travesty. And, apparently, it was a slight that Judy never got over.

I've never gotten over it either, Judy!!

[–] churei 17 years ago

Let's now put the whole thing in perspective... Garland was superb... BUT she was rally, in all honesty, wrong for the part. By the time of the film, she was older and definitely overweight. She would never have zoomed to stardom in a big musical pic so quickly. Her acting is fine, but she is never convincing in the physical sense, and that does work against the film. Other oddities in the film --- are we supposed to really believe that absurd Oscar ceremonies which was underway on TV, interrupted, with no one saying anything on the air... Not every gonna happen, folks. Never did. James Mason also gives a good performance, but is never physically convincing either as a faltering matinee idol, loved by millions of women. Nope.... no a chance. the filmm works on other levels and reaches its peak when Garland sings The Man That Got Away... A monumentally perfect song by Harold Arlen. Jack Carson and Charles Bickford were both excellent... but why, in the credits, is there a mention of Amanda Blake when we see Joan Shawlee at the premiere??? Amanda is nowhere to be seen, and Shawlee's name is nowhere. I like the film, in many aspects, though I dont run around hysterically over it. Grace Kelly did not deserve the Oscar either, though she is far more in character that Frances McDormand is on Broadway today (May '08). McDormand has been awfully directed by Mike Nichls who loses the entire essence of what Clifford odets was illustrating. the film should have dealt with someone like Jennifer Jones, who later did it on stage. She had the ability to go from slovenly and mean to understanding.

[–] jpseacadets 17 years ago

The Oscar scene was right out of the 1937 version. Remember, this is 1954
and the televised show was new(only its second showing). Years later we
got a naked streaker, an actress protesting mistreatment of Native-Americans,
an anti-Zionist winner - - all seen by millions of viewers. James Mason
was playing a famous actor who already won an award. His appearance there
would not be unexpected, especially with his wife on stage a winner. What
were they supposed to do...drag him off with a large hook? Judy was hugely
popular when she made this film. Her live shows drew big audiences. Why
is thirty-two too old? Nobody complained about Barbra Streisand playing
a middle-aged Fanny Brice twice. Janet Gaynor was just a year younger than
Judy when she starred in the original. Also, this was a comeback movie for
her and many were willing to overlook a few flaws to see her succeed. As for
the Amanda Blake thing, Blake was not yet known when this movie came out.
Her part was probably cut after the movie was released when Jack Warner
ordered cuts so that the movie could have more showings in theatres. Why
is Judy blamed for this? Seeing this movie years later on tv was not
envisioned by Warner Bros. in 1954, remember. They wanted a quick profit
return on their investment. Did you know that Jack Haley was cut out of
NEW YORK, NEW YORK? ...and for the same reason: to shorten its length. Do
you blame Liza Minnelli for that? I saw the restored version last night,
Haley intact, for the first time in 31 years! So don't bug as about
Miss Kitty.

- - SoundTrak

[–] gonewiththewindlove 17 years ago

i 100% agree w/ you. judy was sooo much better then any of the other nominee's that year and she also earned it with all the great performances she gave in the pass.
also it probably would've made history as one of the most famous wins in oscar history. but sadly thw oscars are looked down at b/c of this and probably is the reason why people might think the oscars are just a popularity contest and it is considered to be 1 of the worst oscar wins in history

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DiggityDogg 17 years ago

You're right about Bing. I loved him in The Country Girl. It's my favorite performance of his.

[–] Fritz33 17 years ago

There's nothing more annoying than Judy Garland-fans...

Grace deserved the Oscar.

[–] DiggityDogg 17 years ago

Oh, STOP IT.

[–] runneryogafreak 17 years ago

Grace Kelly was fantastic. Judy Garland still deserved the Oscar.

"Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't it."

[–] metalman091 17 years ago

Part of the reason on why Judy didn't get her Oscar is that there were the stories going around about her temperament and missed working days, all of which was taken out of context. George Cukor, James Mason and Jack Carson all knew how hard she worked on the film and that sometimes she would not be fit to perform in front of the camera (it should be pointed out that Judy was exhausted and when she didn't perform, it was usually because of a strenous work performance earlier) and besides the three men all denied she was temperamental.

Besides that, yes I agree Judy should have won the Oscar. Judy did it all with this film and proved she was the greatest entertainer of them all. But I will say that I wouldn't have mind if Dorothy Dandridge had won either. I just couldn't understand why Grace Kelly had to win of all people. Ava Gardner could have been the other nominee for 'The Barefoot Contessa'.

[–] Jane_Doe01 17 years ago

Sure there are. People who think that Grace Kelly was ever deserving of an Academy Award, i.e., glamour-blinded youngsters incapable of distinguishing "good looks" from "good acting".

[–] Fritz33 16 years ago

If you say so...

But the most annyoing people are those who think that putting on some clown make-up and overacting in a dressing room is Oscar-worthy...

[–] stayprettystockholm 12 years ago

wow, no kidding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8w6PI-xPq4 she's so good in Oz but that is some serious overacting. She makes Katharine Hepburn looks monotone.

I love Jesus AND Jesus-hating atheists and am 100% proud!

[–] Mickey77 16 years ago

I agree Judy gave the better performance.

However, it should be judged in context.

Grace Kelly was a huge hollywood star at the time - and was in three hit movies in a short space of time in 1954 - DIAL M FOR MURDER, READ WINDOW and THE COUNTRY GIRL. She also had won awards for several other critic groups before the Oscars.

A STAR IS BORN was a huge box office flop at the time and Judy Garland was no longer as popular as she was in the 1940's or nowhere the icon she has since become.

Watched now THE COUNTRY GIRL dates badly - and Kelly really was not that great an actress. The restored A STAR IS BORN is a great movie with Mason and Garland at their very best.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=32397724

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 16 years ago

Groucho Marx said it best when he called it "the biggest robbery since Brinks" lol. Judy may have lost, but hey atleast it stands as one of the most glaring Oscar mistakes of all time. And Garland was also placed on Premiere's 100 Greatest performances of all time list, with Kelly nowhere in sight.

I've seen this film and Grace Kelly didn't do anything in this film that many other actresses could have done better, and she was just miscast at that. Where as Judy Garland in A Star is Born is incomparable. Her crowning achievement guaranteed to give you goosebumps. For her to lose in the manner she did was a travesty but I suppose hollywood politics had a lot to do with it. Poor Judy.

"Farewell Ethel Barrymore, I must tear myself from your side" *rip*

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 14 years ago

Neither actress should be slighted. They each gave great performances, Judy in her more emotional way and Grace in her subdued and cool way.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] jaben12345 13 years ago

Both Dorothy Dandridge and Audrey Hepburn were better than either Grace Kelly or Judy Garland that year. I suppose the reason why neither won is that Hollywood was too racist and Hepburn( a long with Wyman ) was a recent Oscar winner. That said I still don't see how Grace Kellys win was seen as a surprise since she won a lot of the awards coming into the Oscars.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

I can see a good argument for Dorothy Dandridge, but certainly not for Audrey Hepburn who was her usual lovable and vivacious self, but not of Oscar quality in her performance. IMHO, of course.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] sirjeremy 11 years ago

God, yes. How Judy managed to summon up that extraordinary power in that film, I don't know. Kelly was mostly fine, never exceptional, and nowhere near as memorable as Garland.

But you know, was Hollywood 'rooting for her', really? Taking nothing away from her many talents, she was not popular at the time this film was made.