User Reviews

Fredric March gave a magnificent performance, probably the best of his career, as Norman Maine, the actor whose career is in the descendant as that of his wife, Vikki Lester, is in the ascendant in this, the first 'official' version of "A Star is Born", (the 1932 film "What Price Hollywood" roughly told the same story). March displays just the right degree of brashness, of knowingness, and a combination of ego and a real actor's almost complete lack of ego. It's a miraculous piece of work.

As Lester, Janet Gaynor is touchingly blank but the star quality she is meant to display seems conspicuously absent; (in the 1954 musical remake Judy Garland was almost too much a star). It seems inconceivable that she could eclipse March on screen (even with his drinking). If Lester is a star and possibly a great actress Gaynor keeps the secret to herself.

The script for this version was partly written by Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell and it shows. It's an acerbic and, at times, savage movie about the movies, quite cynical for a major studio picture of it's day. It is very well directed by William Wellman who draws first-rate performances from the supporting cast, in particular Lionel Stander as a heartless, slime-ball studio hack. This remains the best of the three versions to come thus far.

This movie has been done three times: this one in 1937, then in 1954 and finally 1976. I've now seen only this original, and only because I wanted to see a young Janet Gaynor for the first time. Beware, however: a 2012 version is now in pre-production; although, as we all know, it may never be completed – Hollywood being what it is.

Of course, this story – rags to riches in the acting business - was done first by others – principally Katherine Hepburn in Morning Glory (1933) and, oddly enough, again in Stage Door (1937), and again with Katherine Hepburn ably assisted by a host of well-known Hollywood actors, including the tireless Adolphe Menjou who never seemed to mind playing a Hollywood boss, in this and many other similar movies. The difference with Star, of course, is it's maybe the first movie to dig into Hollywood screen acting and make an attempt to lay it bare.

So the story is banal, as most rags to riches fantasies are. Equally, however, it's an exceptionally well-done narrative that strips the gloss off Hollywood – in a genteelly, low-key manner – to show 1937 viewers just what it took to claw your way to the top. And, let's face it: being released in the dog days of the Great Depression and as America geared up for war, audiences of the day lapped it up. Hard times and war drums were on the way again: the people needed to see rags to riches in action, needed to know that hardship and sacrifice were just around the corner. And, failure was not an option.

Today's mainstream audience, on the other hand, would probably laugh at the perceived and implied naivety of the 1930s crowd.

The acting – from Frederic March as Norman Maine (the main actor in the story – such an appropriate name!) who is already on the slippery slopes to alcoholic and acting oblivion just as he meets and falls in love with Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett as the aspiring Hollywood wannabee; and both ably assisted by Adolphe Menjou as Hollywood producer, Oliver Niles – raises it to the level of simplistic melodrama and without descending into bathos, fortunately. And that's largely due to March, who is outstanding – literally and figuratively – as the actor with everything to lose. Menjou does his usual, highly professional turn – and never misses a turn or beat. And Gaynor? Well, I'd say she was perfectly cast as the newcomer who makes good, to a point: her down-to-earth, home-spun, wide-eyed trusting nature is personified with her looks, tone and carriage – almost to the point of outdoing Shirley Temple.

Oddly enough, though, Gaynor made her last movie in 1938 and did not reappear until 1957, with a guest appearance in Bernadine with Pat Boone, whom some would remember.

This production of Star, in color, certainly appeals to the visual senses, displaying the lavishness that beckoned neophytes and to which stars become accustomed, all too easily. In contrast, it also shows – with comedy or gentle satire – the daily grind of making movies and is, perhaps, the genesis of the much over-use of out-takes, bloopers and so on in some of today's productions. Photography, editing and script – particularly the last – are all up to scratch, as you would expect from a Selznick/Wellman venture. Dorothy Parker – who wrote the screenplay and who was one of literature's bete noire of the 1930s set – constructed some of the most memorable lines in Hollywood history, especially those from Menjou. Worth seeing just for that alone, in my opinion.

Interestingly and coincidentally, Nathanael West – one-time Hollywood screen writer – published The Day of The Locust in 1939, a novel that takes the Star story and twists it into a horrific nightmare. Not until 1973, however, did John Schlesinger direct a screen version of the same name that has not been repeated; see that one and find out why. Not to be outdone, David Lynch, film noire auteur extraordinaire, has gone one further with Muholland Drive (2001), arguably the ultimate screen statement to date about the prostitution of screen art in the pursuit of fame and fortune, and one of the grittiest horror stories ever put to film. Considering some of the scenes of both, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Lynch has seen this version of Star.

As a significant piece of Hollywood history, this 1937 version should be seen by all film lovers and the starry-eyed. Highly recommended.

Then, come down to earth with The Day of The Locust and deliver a coup de grace with Mulholland Drive, both of which I've reviewed for this site. Enjoy.

this is the first version of this movie made,and the only version i have seen so far.i liked it.i thought it was touching and ironic,and also tragic.it basically tells what the movie business can do to you,and the sacrifices that are made.it also shows how disposable the industry and the people in it are.as long as you are the flavour of the week,everything seems fine.but when you're no longer useful,reality hits and things can come crashing down.that's what basically happens in this story.it's an indictment(ironically)of the movie industry,however subtle.regardless,i thought it was well done.the acting by the tow leads,Janet Gaynor,and Frederic March,as well as the supporting performances,are terrific.i also thought the writing was very good,and the movie flows very well.for me,A Star is Born gets an 8/10

Janet Gaynor plays Esther Blodgett beautifully, a girl who leaves for Hollywood with dreams of film magazines and the blessing of her granny. Once there she finds it tough-going until meeting Norman Maine (Fredric March) at a party. We've already seen Norman drunk at a theatre but here he charms Esther and actually gets her into the movies before marrying her and watching his own career crumble. March is excellent in this, and the look of the film is surprisingly modern with its lovely technicolor and gadgets (I particularly like the shower in the motor home Esther and Norman take on honeymoon). Esther's move to become star Vicki Lester, Oscar-winning actress, is unbelievable but as her real-life tragedy unfolds, compelling. And who can stay dry-eyed at the end? Remade with music and Judy Garland in 1954 (very well) but this first version is a jewel amongst other 30s classics.

A young country girl named Ester Blodgett (Janet Gaynor) arrives in Hollywood filled with dreams of becoming a famous movie starlet. However, she gets nowhere until she's noticed by famous movie star Norman Maine (Fredric March), a performer on his way down in terms of popular appeal. The two fall in love but just as Ester's star, under the stage name Vicki Lester begins to rise, Maine's begins to fade.

The best thing about this film is the performance given by Fredric March as actor Norman Maine. He nails the inner emotional turmoil going on inside his character and makes him always sympathetic to the viewer even as Maine falls in and out of sobriety. It's Maine's character that proves most interesting to the viewer here as March completely steals the film away from star Janet Gaynor.

Gaynor doesn't prove quite as appealing or convincing in her lead role as Ester Blodgett/Vicki Lester and honestly it's hard to see why the public should favor her so. Maybe this was to symbolize the fickleness of the public in that they should prefer a pretty new face over a talented older one. Who knows? Nevertheless Gaynor just doesn't ever prove as appealing here in her role as she should.

I believe this as one of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen. I enjoyed the story, the dialog and above all I enjoyed the atmosphere and the actors. All of them are great but to me Fredric March is outstanding.

Norman/Alfred is a wonderful character: frail, undignified, touchy, weak and able to love Vicki/Esther so much, with all his heart.

Fredric March brings all of it on the screen, providing one of his best performances here.

If you would like to become an actor, I believe you should watch this movie and Mr. March's way of acting. Pay attention to his eyes, his hands, his face and his moves, especially when he interrupts his wife thanking everybody for the Oscar she got and claims he deserves three statues for the worse performances.

He is overcome by himself and starts dying. I just shivered.

To me, this version can't be compared to its remakes. The allure and the fascination of Hollywood have been perfectly represented here, together with an unpleasant and creepy feeling of emptiness.

I had not watched this movie until today, passing up each opportunity over the years to view it, as I feared it would not live up to the 1954 blockbuster starring Judy Garland and James Mason.

I was right, it does not; it far surpasses the 1954 remake. Judy Garland is my favorite all-round entertainer, favorite singer, and the songs in the 1954 movie are classic treasures, and James Mason never disappoints in any film. However, in the 1937 version the story is told more sensitively, with more shading. Janet Gaynor is perfect as the home-grown farm girl seeking to make her mark in Hollywood, and Fredric March is very convincing as the has-been who cannot cope with his declining value in Hollywood, especially since he caused much of it himself.

I had thought that I might miss the music in this earlier version, but I found after having watched it that I didn't miss it at all. The movie was engrossing from beginning to end and stood on its own merits. I was moved by this film in a way that I never had been by the later remake.

SEE this film if you love a good story; don't put it off for years the way I did. Simply, simply wonderful...

Sorry, but I can't get on the bandwagon here of glowing adjectives to describe A STAR IS BORN with mousy Janet Gaynor in the Esther Blodgett role--a girl swept into big time stardom by a man whose own career is on the descent.

FREDRIC MARCH plays the alcoholic Norman Maine (modeled after someone like John Barrymore) who meets Gaynor at a party, is presumably dazzled by her enough to get her a screen test, and that's how the career of Esther Blodgett starts. This would make sense if Gaynor had the sort of charm and personality suggesting she could be turned into a major star and win an Academy Award. Gaynor's screen persona here is dull and naive. Period.

But somehow, that doesn't matter as much as it should because all the other characters are much better realized. The second half of the movie builds up some dramatic intensity completely missing in the dreary first half. And for some reason, the Technicolor improves as the film goes on. The interior scenes in the first half are darkly lit and look like primitive use of color.

The touching ending is well handled, but I can't believe Janet Gaynor in the role of a girl whose talent is so arresting that she immediately is scooped up into the frenzy of film-making. The role should have been played by a girl in her early twenties who looks the part and has the out-sized talent needed to convince us she could be molded into a star of Vicki Lester proportions.

Summing up: Disappointing, especially when compared to the Garland/Mason version, but worthwhile for Fredric March's performance as Norman Maine.

When you see this masterpiece, remember that more than 65 years have passed since it debuted on the big screen. How many contemporary films will dazzle and delight in 2065?

Sure, we have seen this story before, but this was the first incarnation. Sure all films are in color today, but notice the rich, full-rigged use of color here, only a decade after talkies began. Dialogue sound familiar, well many of the lines originated here (thanks Dorothy Parker).

First caught this in the movie theatre around 1975 as this David O. Selznick production had been out of circulation. Judy Garland's troubled but ultimately engrossing and hugely entertaining remake was already familiar to me. So how does a classic compare to its first version. To me, it is one of the 1930's masterworks.

How perfect to cast Janet Gaynor in the role, an Oscar winner herself at 20 --- that child-like voice unforgettable. Fredric March, like Gaynor already a star and early Oscar recipient, world weary and helpless. The art deco, lavish production, haunting music, and scene after scene of "behind the scenes Hollywood", well they sure worked for me. "Kitsch" an old friend labeled it, but to me, memorable.

I love watching this movie --- hope you enjoy it as well.

The main character, Ester, arrives in Hollywood and can not get a job as an actress. Of course it does not help that she has no acting experience. This aspect of the film made it hard to watch at the beginning, but once she makes it the story gets better.

I liked the loving relationship she has with her husband and the I also enjoyed the location shots. It is interesting to see what Hollywood/Los Angeles looked like in the 1930's.

If you like classic films it is worth renting.

A Star is Born has had two remakes since this 1937 version, but when this film is discussed this is usually the version that stands out.

I guess if the story has a moral to it, it's that for one star in 'shimmering firmament' to be born one has to die. It can be a funny end like what happens to Lina Lamont in Singing in the Rain or it can be a tragic tale as what happens to Norman Maine in this film. But Kathy Selden and Vicki Lester do go on.

Esther Blodgett as played by Janet Gaynor is a symbol for all the young people, women in this case, who dream of seeing themselves on the big screen. Encouraged morally and financially by her grandmother May Robson, Gaynor goes to Hollywood and experiences all the frustrations of a young hopeful. But fate is on her side in the person of leading man Norman Maine, played by Fredric March in one of his best screen performances.

Though Gaynor and March were both nominated for Gaynor the part of Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester was no stretch for her. She'd been doing the part of fresh small town girls for most of her screen career, this being the best of them. For March however, he has to play a weak character, something he had not really tackled before.

I guess Hollywood knows itself better than anyone else and films about the industry can be scathing. The star is a creature with a fragile ego, one moment a whim can move mountains, a slip in public affections and no one wants to know you. March as Maine has been slipping for some time and he catches on, way too late.

But as March is going down, Gaynor is on the up escalator and they meet mid point and fall in love. How they deal with their joint careers or lack thereof in one case is what A Star is Born is all about.

March and Gaynor get good support from Adolphe Menjou as an understanding producer, Andy Devine as Gaynor's fellow boarder at her place of residence and most of all from Lionel Stander as the cynical press agent who inadvertently puts the finish to March's career.

Gaynor's final moment on the screen is one of the great classic events as she proclaims to the world she's Mrs. Norman Maine. And why March does what he does is will start an endless discussion of speculation. Watch this film and come to your own conclusion.

Is this the best version of the oft-filmed "A Star Is Born"? It's certainly the best-looking take on the popular show business love story, shot in luscious 3-strip Technicolor. Although "A Star Is Born" is certainly not profound, this tale of romance, fame and self-destruction is an entertaining one, with a loving Hollywood couple at cross-purposes in their careers: her popularity is on the rise while his is sinking fast in a glass of booze. Directly swiftly and efficiently by William A. Wellman (with uncredited help from both Jack Conway and Victor Fleming), "A Star Is Born" makes a direct connection with the audience based on empathy for its characters, not songs or razzle-dazzle. Janet Gaynor, though a very big star in the 1930s, hasn't attained the kind of present-day following that several of her contemporaries have; this is likely due to the very reason she became a star attraction initially: her giving, unselfish nature makes her a prime victim for heartache--and one does long for her Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester to mature on-screen. However, the set-up for Gaynor's collapsible union with fading actor Fredric March does eventually allow for grown-up emotions, and Gaynor isn't always the noble doormat. If you can get passed the tearjerker angle (which has a masochistic tone, and also permeated the remakes), this look at early Hollywood is surprisingly canny and sharp, and W. Howard Greene's rich cinematography makes it a marvel to look at. William A. Wellman and Robert Carson won the film's only Oscar for Original Story, though their scenario had been lifted from 1932's "What Price Hollywood?"; Carson, Dorothy Parker and Alan Campbell are credited with the screenplay, though scores of others were said to have worked on it without credit. Greene was given an Honorary Award by the Academy for his color photography. This was also the first all-color film nominated for Best Picture. *** from ****

It took me a long time to get round to seeing this classic and perhaps my expectations were a little unrealistic but I struggled through this film. May Robson plays the role of grandma admirably enough, but the beginning was unbelievably corny and the dialogue throughout the film is not particularly sophisticated apart from a retort or two from Fredric March. Without March, I don't think I could have made it through to the end of the film. And I'm prepared to accept that Janet Gaynor is a great actress but she's so underwhelming as Vicki Lester. Judy Garland might not have been a stunner but as soon as she opened her voice to sing, all was forgiven. And I think Gaynor's casting makes the whole film's premise extremely difficult to believe. I remember reading more than once that this film is still one of the most accurate portrayals of Hollywood at the time and it definitely touches on the cruelty of the star system which sees one actor catapulted into the stratosphere while another falls from great heights into the gutter. However, I think there's a more cynical side to this movie's message. And that was to keep feeding the audience with the mantra that anyone can make it in movies, however "average" your looks or talent.

Those directly or indirectly involved in the entertainment field, will find 1937's "A Star Is Born" somewhat laughable and hard to swallow. Mired in cliches, this version is a couple of notches below the superior Judy Garland/James Mason 1954 remake and a couple of notches above the Barbra Streisand/Kris Kristofferson second remake (1976). Well respected upon its initial release, it was a major Oscar nomination grabber come awards time. In fact, the movie's dramatic script, probably the film's weakest link, went on and won an Oscar nevertheless.

On the plus side are the lead performances. Janet Gaynor plays a verrrrrry naive but determined mid-western country lass, Esther Blodgett, who defies small town mores and a typically narrow-minded family to seek fame and fortune in Tinseltown. With apparently no acting experience whatsoever, our heroine struggles valiantly for at least a few months (with granny's help -- the family's sole supporter) before happening upon Frederic March's Norman Maine, a former matinee film idol on the decline. Maine meets Blodgett at a Hollywood party (she's actually the hired help) and takes an immediate romantic interest in the starry-eyed girl, so much so that he winds up getting her a studio contract on her sweet, winsome looks alone -- experience be damned! If stardom were only that easy. Ah well, if Lana Turner can be discovered sipping a soda at a malt shop (or so they say), why not this?

Anyway, while Gaynor as Esther Blodgett-turned-Vicki Lester is quite winning, she has a full-time job overcoming the triteness of this obvious rags-to-riches story and narrowly succeeds by the skin of her teeth. Unlike Garland's Vicki, we never truly get to witness the genius of this supposedly innate, Oscar-winning talent Gaynor's Vicki has, save for a small stale bit with Maine at their film premiere. March (whose looks and voice is startlingly reminiscent of Gene Kelly here) comes off much better as the dipsomaniac star who has seen better days, although James Mason gave a far more trenchant and terrifying portrait of self-destruction in the Garland remake.

Adolphe Menjou who created the Charles Bickford studio executive part and, especially, Lionel Stander as the publicity agent later played by Jack Carson, shine in their subordinate but finely tuned roles, helping to counter-balance the banal tendencies of the script, while May Robson's spiky but wise, benevolent granny, Clara (Auntie Em) Blandick's acidulous aunt, Elizabeth Jenns' actress paramour, Andy Devine's true-blue friend, and Edgar Kennedy's pop get caught up soundly in the film's cliches.

Hollywood 'realism' has never been more obvious or watered down than here, yet the film still manages to give off a quaint charm and appeal that makes it bearable today. The first half of the movie is especially hard to take, but as the dramatic unfoldings take place, you'll find yourself caught up.

It's worth a look just for comparison's sake.

'' Grandmother Lettie: Esther, everyone in this world who has ever dreamed about better things has been laughed at, don't you know that? But there's a difference between dreaming and doing. The dreamers just sit around and moon about how wonderful it would be if only things were different. And the years roll on and by and by they grow and they forget everything, even about their dreams. Oh yes, you want to be somebody, but you want it to be easy. Oh you modern girls give me a pain! ''

These lines say it all. This story is about our struggle to fulfill our dreams and the sacrifices we have to make for them. This is about how we can reach the unreachable by fighting for it, not by sitting on the sidelines watching it all fade away in oblivion. This is about the cruelty of love, making us vulnerable and weak. Great themes that'll never get old. Of course other flicks had the same themes, but this one really shows the pain and the effort that has to be put in it to fulfill any dream.

I really liked this movie for its ironic vision on fame and how it alters the personality of the stars in a negative way. We see a man getting pushed aside because of his own destructive behavior and attitude. Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan,Amy Whinehouse, they weren't the first stars that went down in oblivion and they most certainly won't be the last ones. Those who want to survive in the cruel world of the showbiz must fight and stay clean from booze and other addictions. Only the strong survive! ( and that most certainly also applies for mere mortals as ourselves! )

One can tell David O. Selznick had too much control over this, the first "A Star Is Born," but which is otherwise a loose reworking of an earlier film produced by him, "What Price Hollywood?" (1932), and which itself has since been remade thrice over by Hollywood in 1954, 1976 and 2018. These meta narratives about show business seem most fascinating to me as reflections of the dominant talents involved in them. Two were directed by George Cukor, who as a gay filmmaker had an intimate understanding of the industry's double standards and was renowned for coaxing superior performances from female leads, which was surely vital when he directed Judy Garland, along with the baggage her star image brought, in the 1954 version. Likewise, Barbra Streisand's star dominated the 1976 production, while star-director Bradley Cooper and pop-star Lady Gaga competed with each other in the most-recent iteration. This 1937 one, however, is the producer's film.

Director William A. Wellman, apparently better suited for more masculine-gendered genres--such as war ("Wings" (1927)), gangster ("The Public Enemy" (1931)) and Westerns ("The Ox-Bow Incident" (1943))--doesn't have the same personal imprint as director of the likes of Cukor, despite sometimes-domineering producers and studio bosses (although, reportedly, Wellman's past drinking was the inspiration for the night court scene). While the picture begins and ends with the first and last pages of its own screenplay (an admittedly brilliant self-reflexive addition), a host of writers--some credited and others not--worked on this script, and it's not clear how much Dorothy Parker added to it, or whether any of the others lent a stronger voice than another. Plus, the scenario arguably cribs much from "What Price Hollywood?" The actors are decent-enough studio cogs, but don't lend anything especially meaningful, with one or two caveats that I'll get to later, to the proceedings with their star images. The early use here of three-strip Technicolor throughout a live-action feature was something of a novelty, though; indeed, it was honored with a Special Academy Award for the color photography. Two years later, with "Gone with the Wind" (1939), Selznick would further demonstrate his lack of dependence upon great directors--by going through three of them--nor, for that matter, writers or cinematographers. Lacking from "A Star Is Born" in visual spectacle is an overriding production design to put it all together, which is what Selznick got in William Cameron Menzies on "Gone with the Wind."

The results of Technicolor here, however, are as often a hindrance as they are a benefit. Although we get Gaynor's red hair, the lighting also tends to be flat, and while color may improve, say, a view of a beach skyline, the technology also comes off as dated and distracting in other places. Overall, this "A Star Is Born" doesn't deliver the sort of spectacle in visual compositions that the newfangled color demands; besides "Gone with the Wind," other films to shortly follow also better exploited Technicolor, including "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937), "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938) and, of course, "The Wizard of Oz" (1939).

As for the narrative, the protagonist, an ingénue aspiring to Hollywood stardom, is beset on all sides--discouragement from her auntie, condescension from her landlord, humiliation and heartbreak from her drunkard husband, hounded by the press and abused by her fans--she is beset on all sides but for a couple: there's her kindly grandmother back home who provides the funds for her travel to Hollywood, her neighbor who works on and off as an assistant director and who gets her a job waitressing and, then, there's the most important of them all, the producer. And they got one of Hollywood's most urbane types to play the part, Adolphe Menjou. My only wonder is how much of this was Selznick's own ego and how much of it was that of others trying to flatter him. Regardless, it plays into the myth of the fatherly studio head innocent of the blatant wreckage wrought on some of the people working under them in Tinseltown. This may even be more egregious in the 1954 version when contrasting the fictional depiction with the biography of its star, Judy.

Gaynor and March don't have the same iconic or tragic status of Garland. March's star image doesn't lend much here except that maybe he'd already played some parts related to John Barrymore, one of the real-life star alcoholics these show-business movies may be inspired by. His first Oscar-nominated role came from, to an extent, playing Barrymore in "The Royal Family of Broadway" (1930), and his first win was in reprising "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1931), which Barrymore had starred in one of the 1920 iterations. Both actresses, however, Garland and Gaynor, were experiencing career declines, albeit in different ways, when they made their respective versions of "A Star Is Born." Both were mature by Hollywood standards of the day to be playing the part of the ingénue. This plays well, especially with Cukor behind the camera, into Judy's camp appeal, and her added singing provides a natural means for her star to be discovered in the story. In this 1937 version, however, I guess it's just because Gaynor is pretty, as her character has no acting experience and never sings. I can only speculate what Cukor could've done to hint at Gaynor's rumored bisexuality or homosexuality.

The more intriguing part of Gaynor here, though, is the role of the Academy Awards. At this point, the Academy was only a decade old, and the Awards weren't the extravaganza they are now. There's no film or audio of Gaynor accepting the first Best Actress Oscar--before it was even called an "Oscar"--back in 1929. Besides, the awards were merely a side spectacle to the Academy's main business of thwarting unions on behalf of studio bosses like Louis B. Mayer. No wonder, then, that in a film already idealizing the production heads, it would also be the version of "A Star Is Born" to most frequently show Oscar (granted, the last two were set in the pop-music scene instead of Hollywood). It even casts the first star (besides that would-be Nazi Emil Jannings) to win an Oscar in real life--a star who, at the time of winning, was very much the ingénue she plays here, as Vicki Lester. Heck, March's character even relinquishes his contract with the studio once his movies cease being profitable. Meanwhile, actresses back then could be expected to--that is, they often did--retire at some point to become Mrs. such and such her husband's name. Indeed, Gaynor retired shortly after her resurgence from this picture. There's a dark underbelly of Hollywood exposed in "A Star Is Born," but it's not entirely the one that Selznick and his ilk wanted us to see.

A very touching story and should be watched by everybody. The best part of it is you can value a person's love which is very precious and should not be wasted. The moral of the story, don't be too enjoyed with your victory or popularity and you may forget about who you are, originally. Once you are married, try to balance it with your career and your personal life.

A rising young Hollywood actress marries a washed-up alcoholic star in the original version of the story that was remade twice. While March is fine as usual as the actor whose boozing ruins his career, Gaynor seems all wrong in the role that Judy Garland made her own. Gaynor has neither the looks nor the charisma needed to make it believable that a movie star would fall flat for her or that the movie-going public would make her an overnight sensation. Menjou heads a good supporting cast that includes veteran character actors Stander and Devine in early roles. The cast also includes Robson, who was born thirty years before Hollywood was founded!

This said though, the 1954 Judy Garland film is still a fine film with timeless songs and Garland's best ever performance. Both are streets ahead of the 1976 Barbra Streisand version where the only outstanding things are three of her songs and her singing, the rest is an example of a film with a couple of other small pluses and too many big minuses. This version from 1937 is wonderful, it is too short and it is a case of the second half is better than the first half(though this is more an even better rather than a significantly better) but there's still plenty to love. The early strip Technicolor is ravishing, and the film looks just as lavish as the 1954 film with a real Hollywood behind-the-scenes feel. It's beautifully scored too, you don't have those truly great songs from the 1954 which is a pity in a way but when everything is done as well as it is you don't miss them either. The screenplay has since become classic status, and with dialogue that is vibrant, witty, heart-breaking and caustic along with one of the greatest ever last lines it is very easy to see why. It is the story mainly where this scores a little over 1954(very close together these two are), the pacing is more fluid, the storytelling is perhaps more sensitive and I found myself moved more, the ending is genuinely poignant. The drama is hugely compelling in the second half, aided by William A Wellman's intelligent direction, the first half is not quite so much but unlike the 1976 film hardly is it a slog either. The performances are top-notch, Adolphe Menjou and Lionel Stander coming off the best in supporting roles, of the three films it's this version with the most well-fleshed-out characters in my opinion. Janet Gaynor is eclipsed by Judy Garland, but does wonderfully in her own way, her character is the kind that goes on a journey(literally and in character) and Gaynor captures that youthful naivety developing into maturity very well. Best of all is Fredric March in one of his finest performances, a more meaty role than Gaynor's but one done with great theatrical command and touching nuance. One of the best things about this film absolutely. The two do have good chemistry and you do at least believe what the two characters individually and together are going through, it's done a little better in the 1954 film but you don't get any of this at all in the one from 1976. To conclude, poignant, lavish, beautifully performed and superbly written, a great film and the best version. 9/10 Bethany Cox

A Contrast in Styles tend to make this Overrated Film feel Uneasy and not Quite the Success that its Reputation would Imply. That is the Almost Slapstick Humor like the Screen Test and the Makeup Scenes and the Downer Side to the Story, that of a Fallen Star. It is Careers in Contrast and the Collision and the Result is an Uneven Mix of Satire and Melodrama.

Fredrich March is by Far the Best Performance while Janet Garynor is Consistently Unconvincing both as a Starry Eyed Starlet and a Bonafide Star. She sounds like Minnie Mouse and Broods a lot.

It is Heavy Handed, Dated Stuff and even in its Day was Probably as Over Praised as it is Today. Sure it was the First Version of this Thrice Filmed Tale and it is in Early Thirties Technicolor (very rare), but the Conflicting On Screen Styles of Humor and Tragedy are Over Baked and don't Blend Well in most Respects. The Side Characters, except for Adolphe Menjou as the Producer are Obnoxious, Cartoonish and Loud.

Worth a Watch for its Place in Film History, the Classic Story, the Technicolor, the Awards, the Accolades, and Friedrich March's Restrained Role.

Fredric March and Janet Gaynor co-star in this early 30's Technicolour film. It is one of the best of it's era, and was justifiably nominated for a swag of Academy Awards.

Gaynor portrays small-town dreamer Esther Blodgett, who comes to Hollywood courtesy of assistance from her sympathetic, determined grandmother. Trying to break into the movies, she gets a job waiting at an A-lister party, where she happens to meet alcoholic matinée idol Norman Maine (March). Despite his drunken, foolish state he finds her inherently appealing in a sweet, attractive manner, and arranges for her to get a screen test. After a name change (hello, Vicki Lester), make-over and acting lessons she is soon starring with Maine in his latest picture, and garners enormous public and critical praise. Inevitably, as these films go, Esther and Norman fall in love and marry. However, as Norman starts to achieve great personal happiness his career goes down the plughole, and even Esther/Vicki is powerless to stop his decline.

March is terrific in a challenging role. He handles Norman's decline brilliantly; March was always terrific at accurately capturing a character's emotional state. It is one of the best portrayals of an alcoholic that I have seen, because March focuses on the pain, the resentment, that causes him to drink, rather than just the ugly aftermath that a binge leaves in it's path. He makes Norman more than a superficial Hollywood star- he makes him REAL. There's no Method applied to his work, it's just darn good skill at characterization. March could play comedy equally well as drama, so Norman is not a one-dimensional, tragic star in March's hands. Rather he is a multi-dimensional, charismatic, lovable yet ultimately flawed individual caught up in the money-hungry giant that is Hollywood.

One is reminded of John Barrymore in the character of Norman Maine. Barrymore was also a big-shot whose career declined heavily in the 30's because of his alcoholism. It was no secret in Hollwyood as to what he was. March, a smart actor, would have drawn on this in his portrayal.

Ganyor, the winner of the first Best Actress award, is also very good as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester. Her natural sweetness and quite nature give Esther a unique spirit. Esther is not just a wishy-washy, typically 'nice' girl- she is strong and willing to stick by Norman because of her faith and her faith in their love. Gaynor also does rather funny impersonations of Garbo, Hepburn and West at a Hollywood party that reveal a knack for comedy. Yet, it is almost impossible to see Esther/Vick's 'star' qualities in this film. Gaynor certainly keeps them under wraps, and one has to stretch the imagination to imagine that Gaynor, as capable an actress as she was, could possibly out act the great March.

Nice supporting work from Adolphe Menjou as a Hollywood producer, and Lionel Stander is just poisonous as the vile Libby, who, while justifiably fed up with March and his chronic drinking and star tantrums, has not a sympathetic bone in his body. May Robson as the Grandma is good also, but a little tiresome after a while (I think it's more how her character was written than her acting abilities). A nice bit of trivia- she was a native Australian! The early Technicolour looks quite good, but it is slightly primitive, so one must overlook this fact to appreciate the film properly. There are some wonderful sequences here- March's outburst at the Academy Awards, Esther and Norma's first meeting, March's final scene. The film loses a bit of class in the parts March is not present. This is understandable, as he was such a dominant presence and magnificent actor. Gaynor perhaps couldn't carry a film by itself at this stage in her career, which is ironic as her star was actually sliding in real life, not March's. He was enjoying the best success of his career; she would only make a few more motion pictures before retirement from the screen.

A satire on the entertainment industry and also a heartbreaking character study of a marriage ravaged by the effects of alcohol and one partner's growing dissatisfaction with life.

I've seen this flick probably 6-8 times; Gaynor, Streisand and of course Garland; not a contest; Garland kicks butt!!; I love this story; but, it should have been done once; maybe with March and Garland if possible. but, Judy shines and this movie forever made her a star; Lawford is weak in the Garland version; Gaynor is fine; Streisand embarrasses; and the performance of the year, Garland. Too bad, we couldn't have a Judy, Frederic et all.; The perfect American Movie; Why must Lawford be given any laurels for this? I was embarrassed for him; Was he drunk? :) Too much Rat Pack perhaps; anyway, Judy lives forever in my Gay heart and this made her a star;

(Correction; For all of you who realized that Mason not Lawford played Judy's husband Norman Maine; I apologize; sorry; and, Good Catch. :)

It's ironic that of the four versions of A Star Is Born, the original is my least favorite. Of course, I'm sure that ranking will be transferred to the newest remake when I actually bite the bullet and rent it. When you think about it, it's a very simple story, but because Hollywood keeps remaking it, it's one that resonates. In essence, a washed up star falls in love with his protégé, and her career skyrockets.

Fredric March played the original Norman Maine, and while he did give a very good performance, it's a character he frequently played in the 1930s, so if you don't feel like renting this one, you can check out Merrily We Go To Hell or My Sin instead. The Artist was a very thinly-veiled remake of A Star Is Born, and it's very clear that Jean Dujardin patterned his performance after Fredric March's in the 1937 classic. Freddie was a wonderful actor, and he was able to project bundles of energy into a performance of desperation.

Janet Gaynor played the discovered talent. There was nothing wrong with her performance, but in the three remakes, major stars-Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand, and Lady Gaga-were cast, to help the audience see what Norman Maine sees: a superstar who will blow audiences away. Janet was pretty and an adequate actress, but didn't possess that "star quality" that's necessary for the part. Maybe that's the reason Hollywood can justify so many remakes!

If you like this franchise, it's probably a good idea to pay homage to the original, especially if you're planning on going to see the new one in the fall. This version isn't bad at all, but compared to the middle two, it does fall short a little, so just be prepared. I'd recommend watching the 1954 version first.