didn't anybody care how judy LOOKED in this movie? - A Star Is Born (1954) Discussion

[–] DryToast 19 years ago

I think Warner Brothers did what they could with this short woman of fluctuating weight and embattled health and temperament who was not flattered by the styles of the day.

The styles of the forties (and of her period movies made in the forties) seem to flatter, soften and feminize her. The mid-50s were harsher times, with their frank eyebrows and merciless waists. Though the fashions were very lovely, we usually think of Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn wearing them, not a short, energetic woman with an inelegant face who was inclined to look pudgy.

"Everett Sloane - he was good - pills. Margaret Sullivan, pills. Lupe Velez, a lot of pills."

reply

[–] robertinlosangeles 19 years ago

Interesting, thoughtful and insightful reply, particularly in light of what this fanatical satanic Garland fan has been wasting his/her time writing about. Not sure what sex he-she is-- but come to think of it, isn't a he-she someone in transition? Maybe that's what "it" is.) It's for responses like yours that I made the original posting, not for personal attacks at me for posing the question. BTW, why is that people put quotes at the end of their postings? Just curious. He-she has this satanic one about "If I were fire, would you burn in hell with me." Re: Lupe Velez-- do you believe the story in Hollywood Babylon about her drowning in her own toilet after she tried suicide, but barfed up all the pills?

reply

[–] judy4mee1254 19 years ago

The quote does not say burn in HELL it say burn down, its simple to be a play on words, was never meant to be thought of in that way. You say Im attcking you? read what you wrote to me in your late post, you dont call thast an attack? then what is it pray tell. also, alot of people put qoute at the end of their posts, so why is that important. On another note, have you ever read the report the coroner did? She was found SITTING her head or really her chin was in her chest, there was no vomiting. why are you being to grusim?

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

reply

[–] tiplens-1 19 years ago

would you quit calling her satanic? You claim that like yourself, she should refrain from personal attacks but you name-call her and then further attempt to demean said poster by alluding to her spelling. Perhaps if you were not so personally involved in your opinons and did not consider each opposing response as an indictment of yourself, you would be better able to communicate your sometimes insightful remarks without eliciting the ire of others.

reply

[–] robertinlosangeles 19 years ago

i'm sorry, but she started this with her attacks, wouldn't back off, and kept them coming. i started this discussion. i haven't responded to her for over a week. i realize i made mistake by responding to her at all and politely asked her to refrain from the personal attacks, but she didn't. i should have just ignored her in the first place. and i'm not at all sure that this is a female writing.

reply

[–] judyis4me1254 19 years ago

I cannot believe what you just said, I was stating my opinion, and you lashed out at me. Then you say that it is my fault? get a life, And I am female, Im not satanic either. Could you get over yourself, and quit lying? Maybe you need to refresh about our "conversation" Anyway, back to the point, I think that you cannot compare the MGM days to this, she was unhappy there, she had no self esteem, thanks to LBM and his staff. Then at Warners, Luft didnt really have the power to say that she should look better, Watch "Me and My Shadows; the Life og Judy Garland, by Lurna Luft" There is a sceen where Warner says to Luft "Were loosing thousands of dollars a dayt. Now thats not just my money, your money too... Those jerks at Mgm babied her... Tell her this at least, tell her to stop acting like royalty and start thinking like a producer." Then after the 28 minutes are cut out he says to them(Judy and Sid) "if anybody killed this picture it was the two of you" when really he made all the decisions. The other things you gotta think about is the fact that Lorna was just born, Now a lot of woman dont lose that extra weight for a while, at least all the woman Ive known, my sister, mother... so one so forth. So quit telling my that im incompitant, get over your little self centered fits. There is no place for it here.

reply

[–] judyis4me1254 19 years ago

You know the is a debate, ok, your not my teacher, your not even an aquaintance, therefore, why did you threaten me with your "deans office" ?? if I had been a thirty five year old woman would you have sent me to the deans office? quit thinking like a teacher and start looking at this as though we are equals. Because under the constitution we are. You're not a teacher here, you have no authority here, you are given no specail rights, stop acting like your better than the rest of us. thank you.

reply

[–] dth1212 19 years ago

Personally, I think Judy looks great in the entire BORN IN A TRUNK sequence, where her costumes where designed by the great Irene Sharaff, who knew how to work around Judy's body, especially her short waist. Too bad Sharaff wasn't hired for the rest of the film, where the costumes range from decent (Oscar ceremony and "The Man that Got Away") to horrible (beach house party). Judy also could've used the wonderful Sydney Guilaroff, who did many of her hairstyles at MGM. Personally, I think Judy never looked better than she did in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE CLOCK, which were directed by Vincent Minnelli, who oversaw how she looked in both those movies. Too bad Sid Luft couldn't accomplish the same on STAR. Over all, however, I think the power of her performance and the story (especially in it's restored version) overshadow the inconsistencies of her hair, clothing and weight.

reply

[–] robertinlosangeles 19 years ago

Granted, she looks okay in BORN IN A TRUNK-- didn't know that Irene Sharaff had designed the costumes, and quite okay in the Oscar ceremony. MAN THAT GOT AWAY? Hmm... But you're 100% on the money about how Minnelli made her look, though he does his best with her gaunt appearance in The Pirate. I'd completely forgotten about The Clock. She looks fabulous in that oft-forgotten flick. My all-time favorite image of her in any flick is when she sings HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY LITTLE CHRISTMAS in Meet Me In St. Louis when she takes off that veil. Her eyes were never so expressive and liquid. She looks absolutely and stunningly beautiful. Say what you will about the demons at MGM, but they made sure that she looked great. Can this be the same woman's face nine years and seemingly decades later in STAR? It's as if, as I posed in my initial comment, that it seemed that nobody cared how she looked. Somewhere in this thread I recall someone talking about the the importance of illusion in the movies. That contributor hit it on the head. She looks quite okay in Ziegfeld Follies and Easter Parade as well, it should be noted. Let's not go anywhere near her last flick with Gene Kelly where she starts the movie singing on a farm on a tractor and is as big as a barn. But this is the same flick where she looks so hot in BE HAPPY. So the question perhaps needs to be rephrased: "How come Judy's own husband Sid Luft didn't appear to give a rat's you-know-what about how his own wife LOOKED in A STAR IS BORN?" And that beach house scene orange monstrosity? Was she trying to look like a Christmas tree ornament? LOL. For the record, I happen to think that her performance in STAR at times borders on the virtuoso, but at just as many other times it's over the top and doesn't appear to be grounded in any emotional realism. It's as if Cukor's need for a 20th take had left her without even a drop of feeling.

reply

[–] marbleann 19 years ago

I am not going to argue over a opinion. But this movie was made in the 50's. You cannot judge the standards of beauty then to the standards now. People were not so obsessed over unnatural pearly white teeth as they are now. ALso remember she was not suppose to look that glamorous. She was a small town girl. Part of the attraction of this movie and the first version is her being just a ordinary small town girl who captures the eye of a glamorous movie star. She was way different then Normans usual girlfriends, such as the star we see in the beginning of the movie. If you want to see the Garland looking ad take a look at Judgement at Nuremberg, IMO her best role ever.

reply

[–] judyis4me1254 19 years ago

Thank you, I love your comment! you said something that I totally agree with 10000 percent!

reply

[–] marbleann 19 years ago

I thought she looked pretty good. I loved her haircut. Remember the scene right after she sang the Man Who Got Away and Norman asked her did anyone ever tell her how good she could sing and she replied no. Well right there it should be obvious she she was a fish out of water in the Hollywood scene. A voice like that and no one told her she could sing? Incredible. Before that when she first met Norman she was like a school girl fan. Also you can see she hung around the guys a lot. Her best friend was that pianist. So people looking at the movie should have seen she was not suppose to be some glamour queen, but just a regular girl with a big voice who marries a movie star.

reply

[–] dth1212 19 years ago

Well said, marlbeann. I agree.

reply

[–] marbleann 19 years ago

Thank you. Also I don't care if Liz Taylor or Lana Turner played the part anyone who had the Vicki Lester role next James Mason's Norman Maine, who was devastatingly handsome, is going to pale in comparison. I think that was the point in them casting such a handsome actor. Even when he was drunk in the movie he was charming and debonair. No other actor IMO other then perhaps Richard Burton could have pulled that off. So we must not forget Mason's role in making his co star look less glamorous. Anybody would of looked like a Plain Jane next to him.

I saw this movie with Mason, "Full of Life", and he played this school teacher who starts taking this medicine and he turns into a maniac. Even as a maniac I was saying he looks more threatning because he was so handsome. Look at Lolita. If anyone else played is role it would of looked ridiculous. But because he is so good looking one can see how was able to weasel his way into a family because her mother was so over taken with his looks she didn't see what was going on with him and her daughter.

reply

[–] judy4mee1254 19 years ago

I thought that too, it was like even though you know he was a "bad" person, or supose to be one, you were drawn toward him. I also find that in many of his other roles. I think too, thought, that he is hansome in his own way, when compared to people like cary Grant you see a different kind of hansomness. But he carries like a pocket of charm that sourounds the air about him.

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

reply

[–] marbleann 19 years ago

Mason also had a very distinctive voice, like no other. I agree Cary Grant was gorgous, but it was a different type of good looking, he I would compare to a Rock Hudson or Tyrone Powell handsome. Typical good looking stars. But Mason was not what you call typical good looking. He was a like a Errol Flynn, Robert Mitchum or Gregory Peck all had very unique faces. No one else looked like them. But all three would knock your socks off. I saw him in The Verdict the other day and he had to be in his 70's and he still had that something going for him. So I don't think any woman had a chance looking glamorous next to Mr Mason in the Vicki Lester role. Oh BTW I like your last line. It is the element of charm that makes a movie star. Something we do not se in the actors of today.

reply

[–] gbennett5 19 years ago

Lol!! I've posted about Judy's DREADFUL appearance in this
movie for YEARS. Each time, I, too, get shot down by diehards
who refuse to admit that Garland looks AWFUL in this movie.

And you know what? I'm a "diehard", too.

But let's stick to some curious facts.

In 1944, Judy, at HER request, asked for, and received
makeup genius DOTTIE PONEDELL, who had worked with the
great beauty Marlen Dietrich. The film was "Meet Me
In St. Louis." Ponedell rehaped Judy's eyebrows (wing-like)
to make her face more sophisticated and not look so round.
She gave her a bigger bottom lip, gave her a wonderful ruge,
and for the rest of Judy's MGM pics, she looked very attractive
to -- sometimes -- gorgeous. Think "The Clock", "The Harvey
Girls", "Ziegfeld Follies", "Till The Clouds Roll By." Even
when Judy was ill in "The Pirate", she looked incredible.
At MGM, she was lit right, made-up right and looked wonderful.
Even when she gained weight in "In The Good Old Summetime", she
looked wonderful. Same with "Summer Stock." Weight. Ugly
overalls. Stupid, man-ish Ethel Mertz hair-don't. But
pretty face. Again, THE MAKE-UP.

Dottie Ponedell became Judy's great friend and confidant.

So...what LosAngeles is trying to point out (but he keeps
getting attacked by a true NUT) is that with Ponedell at
her disposal, Judy having creative control, WHY COULDN'T
SOMEONE DO SOMETHING WITH HER MAKE-UP????

Don't just blame her personal woes. It should be noted that
TEN YEARS AFTER THIS MOVIE, Judy began a weekly TV series
where she was ten years OLDER, had had ANOTHER baby and
had survived obesity and other illnesses and LOOK GORGEOUS.
She looked older, but ATTRACTIVE.

Why? Because she lost weight and was properly costumed and
made up, with her makeup highlighting her best feature --
her magnificent EYES.

Bottom line: In "Star" she is 15 to 25 pounds overweight
(depending on the scene), looks like she's wearing pancake
base and cheap eyeliner. There's no attention paid to her
eyes! (I must say I stand alone on the "Born In A Trunk"
sequence -- I think she looks awful there, too).

As for the scene where she's in a blonde wig with all the
makeup, the joke is on JUDY. She may have THOUGHT she
was lampooning her Marilyn Miller look in "Till The Clouds
Roll By", but this is the ONLY scene where looks attractive
to me! When she pulls off the wig, it looks like a male
impersonator.

Great performance. Great movie. Ugly star. Period.

reply

[–] judy4mee1254 19 years ago

You cannot call yourself a die hard and then say that she looks like a male impersonater, you just contrdicted yourself kid. Its not about her looks its about Judys real beauty, as a person, no body has the right to say that she looks ugly because you cannot define beauty, there for you cannot define what ugly is. By saying all that you have said you lose the title of a so called "die hard." On another note, everyone who has seen the meet me in st louis commentary knows about Dottie, and all the OTHERS involved in the films sucess. I still cant grasp how you can call yourself a diehard and say these things.

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

reply

[–] gbennett5 19 years ago

Uh....yeah....well, um, okay...if it reeeeeally makes your
day to dethrone me as a diehard, go right ahead. In fact,
throw a "dethroning" party. Never mind, I'll do it.

Please folks, everyone enter this way...champagne's on the
right, finger sandwiches on the left...there's marble cake,
butter toffee, chocolate mousse...

Judy looked gorgeous at MGM. She looked gorgeous on her
TV series. She looked awful in "A Star Is Born."

This is my opinion. I'm now reinstating myself as a diehard,
"kid."

Get over it.

reply

[–] judyis4me1254 19 years ago

But she didnt always look "Gorgeous" on her television show, there were times where she was so thin and fragile that it's hard to look at her. I would take the plump happier Garland over the other.
on the other subject, your a lieing to yourself, you cant say things so rude and truly hurtful like you said and still call yourself a diehard, the end, so get over YOURSELF.

reply

[–] gbennett5 19 years ago

"your a lieing to yourself..." (!)

First, it took me about a minute and a half to read your
horribly-typed paragraph (robertinlosangeles is right --
you cannot construct a sentence to save your life).

Second, we were mainly discussing Judy's makeup, which was
awful in "Star", nuanced and lovely in her series. So
your last "point" is moot.

Third, I can be a fan AND be objective -- Judy looked terrible
in her "comback" film and more attention should've been paid
to her makeup.

Lastly, if any quote applied to you, it's this one. So,
read it and repeat as necessary:

"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because
the masses are always ready to defend their most precious
possession -- their ignorance. -- Henrik Willem Van Loon

reply

[–] judy4mee1254 19 years ago

Wait a minute, you yourself were talking about her weight, so dont nab me for talking about it too.
And what the hell difference does it make how i spell or type or what ever, the fact that you dont know me personally should have something to do with it.... well, maybe I cant spell, but I dont really care, this is the only time I get to type, other wise I have to think what I am going to say through extensively, because I cant control my shaking, ok you wanna get personal about it.

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

reply

[–] judy4mee1254 19 years ago

Oh... yeah I forgot, what's wrong with my "paragraph" I dont see much. As for "roberta" in some of his comments I cant read them worth SH*T. I think it's funny how you people are so superfucial(oh.. look it's spelled wrong). Also, if your were a diehard, would you be flaunting it allover the place the way you are? what are you 4?

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

reply

[–] gbennett5 19 years ago

Since it's so important to ya, Toots, we're gonna let you
have the last word...even though you're ("you're" as in
"you are") not saying much.

So, have had it...the next reply (which will undoubtedly
be yours) will be the last, as I, and everyone else on this
thread, are bored silly by you.

Oh...noticed you referred to Robert (clearly a male) as
"Roberta". You obviously have major gender issues yourself.
Me thinks you're (again, "you're" is for "you are") definitely
a female...with male genitalia. And this bothers you (sniff
sniff)...so you're bitching everyone else out here.

Anyway, that's it for me...you can have the last word,
although I'm not gonna bother reading it and I doubt anyone
else will either. This will upset you, so buy yourself
a new bra.

Uh...You DO know how to spell "word", right?

Thanks for the laughs. Trust me, they were on you.

reply

[–] carolyn-18 19 years ago

I just have to chime in on this thread. I think you all are a little over the top, but very intertaining. I loved this movie and I was fortunate to see it in the restored version at it's premier in LA. and it was wonderful. I think it would have been a bigger hit back when it first came out if they had'nt butchered it as they did. Anyway, I think the original question was how she looked? I think she looked fine! considering the styles of the time, as one poster pointed out, the styles weren't that flattering to her. Personally I hated some of the 50's styles. The 40's were so much more glamorous.
and remember we are looking back on that time period. I'm sure the people of that time thought the styles were great since they were wearing them. DUH! Does that make sense?

I think Judy was absoluteley lovely in "The Clock." Perhaps at the peak of her beauty!

ps. forgive me if I mispelled any words!

"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." "Now Voyager"

reply

[–] judyis4me1254 19 years ago

Thank you carolyn-18, I totally agree with your comments. and to anyone who cant read, robert refered to me as a he she, just returning the favor.

reply

[–] carolyn-18 19 years ago

So, you can be nice! Just kidding! HA! I forgot to mention the most important thing about Judy was her incredible talent as a singer and an actress. How many others could have indured what she went through and still come out singing, so to speak! It's just such a tragedy that she had to die so young! God Bless Her!!!

"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." "Now Voyager"

reply

[–] carolyn-18 19 years ago

I did notice! I think he mentioned being a teacher? If that is so, all I can say is I wouldn't want to be one of his students! SCARY!

"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." "Now Voyager"

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] judyis4me1254 19 years ago

Boozing? Where did you hear that? Judy did drink excessively, and I'm not sure if you can call it pill popping, i mean it was an addiction, but Judy was handed her first dose of Medication as a child, she hid candy bars in the beginning, but later she began to hide the pills in the same fashion.
And yes I am nice, to people who are nice to me, but that guy was really weird,
I mean come on, he treatend me and then said i was attacking him, lol!

reply

[–] Tirogesflair 19 years ago

I have to say this thread on what Judy Garland looks like in the movie has been very entertaining ! Having just watched the restored version on DVD - my only complaint was that though it had two disks - there was no back story about the movie. For me - a movie buff - I like to know what happened on the movie - and why it was cut.

reply

[–] carolyn-18 19 years ago

I haven't got the restored version on dvd as yet. How disappointing that there is no back-story. From what I understand, they cut the movie because of it's length and without George Cukor's consent and he was furious and wouldn't watch the cut version and was looking forward to seeng it restored, but died before the restoration was completed. Anyway that is what I've heard or read.

"Don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." "Now Voyager"

reply

[–] judy4mee1254 19 years ago

Yeah, the theater owners complained that it was to long and was costing them money, like 28 min would make it back? lol, and I had but two of the dvds, and not open one because I was scared that since its a double sided disc i might ruin it on accident. But I do like the fact that they show all the footage of The man that got away and Premere night with the stars although it was kinda long.

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

reply

[–] AbsolutelyDawn 19 years ago

Amen!

her skin looked so bad, saggy sometimes (which i suppose is to be expected from her rapidly fluctuating weight)- horribly made up, terrible hair, and those dresses! Augh. The costumer should be shot if they aren't already dead. I don't know who's idea it was to put her in the tight blue number (the young judy in the insanely long scene born in a trunk) or the astoundingly discusting orange thing. And those pants, omg, i had forgotten about those. oh lord! why, WHY!!! someone must have really hated her to let her think that she looked presentable in those patched-pants from hell. Judy could be hot when she tried, but dear God!... she never ever had the body for that orange dress... actually I don't think anyone would look good in that, its just plain hideous.

and for those of you participating in the mispelled, satanic, life threatening debate. lol, i havent laughed this hard at work in a long time. thanks :)

and please dont hate me. i know i cant spell. actually i spell atrosiously (sp?) but I love me some judy convos so i intend to stay.

thanks for starting this "thread" i think you guys called it. I'm 22 and i still know nothing of technology, so sad. :)

reply

[–] cyndrv 18 years ago

Just curious but have you scene the original ASIB with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March? The makeup scene in that is almost exactly the same as how it was used in the Garland version so I don't think it was written exactly for Judy....I just hope i dont offend anyone by this....

reply

[–] AcademyAwardWinnerJordy 15 years ago

"Anybody would of looked like a Plain Jane next to him"

I know this is four years later but I have to disagree with this. Elizabeth Taylor couldn't EVER look like a plain Jane in technicolor!

I betta find your Lovin'. I betta find your heart (Drake)

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ijones-9 19 years ago

That moment in the film always bothered me...how could she actually stand there in a straight face and tell Norman that no one had ever told her she was a great singer? On the other hand, there is a little something in her tone when she says that line, like a muffled laugh, that implies sarcasm. but I guess it can be left up to the personal interpretation of the viewer.

reply

[–] GOWINGS18 19 years ago

You have remember that Judy Garland was really suffering from a drug problem during this movie and was almost kicked off it. Your definatly not going to look good when your going through that.

reply

[–] MarieGabrielle 19 years ago

Well if you read Gerold Frank's bio about her- her appearance was shockingly different- I can recall one passage wherein she is married to Sid Luft, and the author mentions her eating "plates of spaghetti" weighing over 250 (height was 5'0" I think)

She also had a very bad bout with hepatitis at the time (just before Star) and became so bloated she had to go to hospital-

I don't condone the drug issue- though she obviously went through living hell, and the studios certainly promoted the drug abuse.

If you haven't read the book, you may want to- there are some good pictures. Still love her- no one has a voice that could compete- wish she did more film.

reply

[–] metalman091 19 years ago

Judy's height was 4'11 so any weight gain would be noticable.

My two cents I think Judy looked adorable in ASIB. It may sound strange to some people but I think Judy was beautiful all the time. Fat, thin or whatever, she was beautiful not just outside but also inside. She was one of the nicest, kindest most graceful woman in show business.

reply

[–] debral888 19 years ago

I saw the restored version last night and I thought Judy Garland looked absolutely real, beautiful, attractive and beyond any conventional measure of beauty. The talent that oozes from every pore of her body in this amazing film puts her in a completely different category. The tawdry discussion of her looks is beyond demeaning, it's an insult to her memory.

reply

[–] jgravely 19 years ago

It's one of my favorite movies. I never noticed that Judy was as awfully turned as some would have you believe. But I guess you see what you want to see. Good or bad. Reading this whole thread was interesting. There are definitely some characters posting about Miss Judy Garland and her appearance in A Star Is Born. Judy4Me I commend you patience. LOL

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catchnandkillnacold 19 years ago

just to point out, or rather to pose the question: was Judy Garland's character SUPPOSED to be glamorous and looking like your typical Hollywood star? Perhaps not. Moreso like a woman who pretty much became an accidental overnight Hollywood success. As far as the Academy Awards scene goes, can you just imagine what Bjork would've looked like on stage had she won for 'Dancer in the Dark'?

reply

[–] Libra27 19 years ago

It was fantastic to watch just how quickly a grown man can become completely unraveled.

reply

[–] AbsolutelyDawn 19 years ago

Wow! I couldn't even finish reading all these. I just want to say that I am about a big a fan of Judy as you can get without getting creepy, I have seen pictures of her from all different times in her life and seen every movie, Star by far is the worst movie ive seen when it comes to judy's health and looks. I always say how much I love the movie, and I just realized last night that I don't know why I say that. I have prob only watched it all the way through 2-3 times (significantly less then other Judy movies)its horrible. There are great, amazing scenes, and I always just skip to those. I watched A Star Is Born last night with a couple friends and I was astonished, (did they film the enitre movie backwards btw) she looks about 50 through most of the first half and then gradually starts looking healthier towards the end, and then in the ending scene she's fat again. (not fat fat, but fat for a lady of what 4 11 who pops diet pills like tic tacs) I know she had an incredibly hard life, but so do a lot of people. I never mean to belittle Judy, Ive read the bio's I apreciate her pain, I understand how hard it is to move on, but really- there comes a time when you make the decision to move on or just die. Judy kept plugging along but I dont think she ever made the decision to just get over it and move on. she looks horrendous through LARGE portions of this movie, very unpro. but She will always be gorgeous to me, its like trying to call your mom ugly even though you know she is. I do really like the peacock dress though. she looks stunning there.

reply

[–] thegr8defender 18 years ago

Frankly, I think it's silly to question her appearance at all given the fact that it's pretty much common knowledge that the woman was going through physical hell - besides the drinking, pills and weight fluctuations she was also under a great deal of psychological strain most of the time, personal demons and what have you. This is going to show itself no matter what is done to cover it up. Of course she looks like hell at times, who wouldn't? Does it make me a tinge sad to see what happened to her? Yes, of course. But it strikes me as being rather petty to pick her apart now, how could she have looked so bad, etc. In the end, who really cares?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pink_pagodas 18 years ago

Thank goodness someone to put it in perspective!
You are quite right. Who really cares if she looked less than her best in A Star is Born and toward's the end of her life? With that talent, that voice and that heart, she didn't need to look good all the time. We all know that there is an endless list of reasons why she didn't age as well as she could have, and more than that, it is not what matters--it didn't then, and it doesn't now. No one cares, because she was simply a genius at what she did.

Believe me, I am not a diehard Judy Garland fan either, just someone who appreciates artistry, and I think that most cinefiles can see that it was Judy's amazing performance that carried this film and made it the classic musical that it is--bad makeup, fluctuating weight, crooked teeth and all.

reply

[–] jg67 18 years ago

"Wow! I couldn't even finish reading all these. I just want to say that I am about a big a fan of Judy as you can get without getting creepy, I have seen pictures of her from all different times in her life and seen every movie, Star by far is the worst movie ive seen when it comes to judy's health and looks. I always say how much I love the movie, and I just realized last night that I don't know why I say that. I have prob only watched it all the way through 2-3 times (significantly less then other Judy movies)its horrible. There are great, amazing scenes, and I always just skip to those. I watched A Star Is Born last night with a couple friends and I was astonished, (did they film the enitre movie backwards btw) she looks about 50 through most of the first half and then gradually starts looking healthier towards the end, and then in the ending scene she's fat again. (not fat fat, but fat for a lady of what 4 11 who pops diet pills like tic tacs) I know she had an incredibly hard life, but so do a lot of people. I never mean to belittle Judy, Ive read the bio's I apreciate her pain, I understand how hard it is to move on, but really- there comes a time when you make the decision to move on or just die. Judy kept plugging along but I dont think she ever made the decision to just get over it and move on. she looks horrendous through LARGE portions of this movie, very unpro. but She will always be gorgeous to me, its like trying to call your mom ugly even though you know she is. I do really like the peacock dress though. she looks stunning there."

Interesting. A Judy "fan" who pens a backhanded hatchet job. And only ever wrote four posts. LOL

"Girl,you betta bash Mister upside the head and think about heaven later!" - Sophia

reply