Dune: 1984 vs. 2021. An Early Comparison

DUNE: 1984 VS. 2021

It might be unfair to compare the David Lynch version of Frank Herbert's science fiction epic Dune to the Denis Villeneuve version insofar as Villeneuve will have a sequel attached to his while Lynch was forced to collapse the massive novel into one film. Despite the impending arrival of Dune: Part Two, I think we can work at having an early look at these two adaptations and draw some thoughts on how they stack up against one another.

For better or worse the Lynch version will always pale to the Villeneuve version. After all, the 1984 version didn't receive any Academy Award nominations, let alone the strong ten nods the 2021 version did. That the 2021 version is a serious albeit highly unlikely contender for Best Picture is a credit to how well-crafted the Villeneuve version is. 

I also understand that many fans of Dune dislike Lynch's version for a variety of reasons. It collapsed so much into one film that it made the final product almost unintelligible. It had an excessive amount of voiceover that became farcical. Characters came and went so quickly they had no chance to play a real role in the story. This is not an issue with the Villeneuve version, especially since he gets to make two films.

Still, I think the Lynch version has its own virtues. Yes, it may be rushed and at times nonsensical, but it is weirdly hypnotic, bizarrely fascinating. While it really is too soon to make a definite comparison, let us begin nonetheless.

BEST BARON HARKONNEN

Kenneth McMillan

Stellan Skarsgard 

Perhaps the dueling Barons can show why the 1984 version is such a bizarre enterprise while the 2021 version is a Best Picture contender. McMillian's Baron is an unhinged loon, one that is ripe for parody. Whether it is literally spitting out his dialogue or being comically evil, you cannot take him seriously as an antagonist. How else to react when he's referred to as "that floating fat man". McMillan seems to devour the scenery, his fellow actors, and even the camera whenever he's on screen.

Skarsgard has limited screentime as the Baron, but he was menacing, dark and unrepentantly evil. I think his longest scene was when he gloated over his archnemesis Duke Leto. Skarsgard's excellence in the role comes from how he uses his voice, the growl and brief statements displaying the darkness and lust for power. I understand Skarsgard and Villenueve drew heavily from Marlon Brando's performance in Apocalypse Now, and I can see that. 

Skarsgard's Baron is a menacing monster. McMillan's Baron is a loon. An entertaining loon, but a loon nonetheless.

It is interesting that the element that made McMillan so comical (the floating) works with Skarsgard.

BEST DUNCAN IDAHO

Richard Jordan

Jason Momoa

As much as the name "Duncan Idaho" is mocked, it is a credit to Jason Momoa that he makes Duncan a strong, heroic, intelligent warrior. It is no slam on Jordan, but Jordan was frankly too posh and elegant to be seen as a fierce soldier. Jordan's Duncan comes across as more a courtier than a fighter. As I think on Jordan, I do not remember seeing him leading armies in major combat, let alone participating in them.  

I am reluctant to say Momoa is an actual actor versus an action star. However, that is what the role of Duncan Idaho called for, so this was right up his street. His imposing physicality and intense manner all shaped to make Momoa an ideal warrior. He also had a noble end, a true warrior to the end. Momoa also manages to bring in what little levity the 2021 Dune has, so that gives him an added plus.

BEST REVEREND MOTHER MOHIAM

Sian Phillips

Charlotte Rampling

Rampling is hampered by the fact that her role as the villainous Bene Gesserit mother is small, though I imagine Dune: Part II will give her a more prominent role. Rampling is an exceptional actress and I hope she does more. However, Phillips is also a strong actress, and there is something vaguely wild to almost camp about her take on the role. She made Reverend Mother Gaius Mother more theatrical, grand, almost crazed.

Rampling was not allowed to be large and operatic unlike Phillips. She tore into the role with almost crazed abandon, but unlike McMillan never went full-on bonkers. Phillips also gets points for her "GET OUT OF MY MIND!", and as much as Rampling may be required to say that I doubt she would top Phillips' take. Given how intertwined the line and Phillips are, I think Dune: Part II will either avoid the line altogether or require a different line reading.  

BEST CHANI

Sean Young

Zendaya

Here, I am waiting for the final product, though I am giving the slight edge to Emmy-winner Zendaya. Young is hampered by a major flaw in the 1984 version: the rushed manner to it. Young, like many actors in Lynch's Dune, was simply not given enough material or time to make a major impact.

Curiously, this hampers Zendaya's role in Villeneuve's Dune also. Like in 1984, 2021's Chani is a bit of a shadow, a mystery, a literal dream girl. However, even in her limited time Zendaya was a more proactive figure, a warrior princess more than the mere love interest that Young had to play. I confess to not being yet won over by Zendaya as an actress, though perhaps I am a bit unfair given that my main if not sole exposure to her has been through the MCU Spider-Man films. 

I think that she will play a larger role in Dune: Part II, but right now I do not see Young overtaking Zendaya in the role. 

BEST GURNEY HALLECK

Patrick Stewart

Josh Brolin

As with Jordan, Patrick Stewart came across as more a member of the Duke's Court than a soldier and military advisor. Brolin's Gurney, on the other hand, was all business, stern and strict. There was little to no levity or humor in Dune 2021, but even by that standard Brolin was the least jocular. I think that fit the role, so I think Brolin did the part right.

As much as Brolin's version towers over Stewart's version, there is something sweetly endearing in Stewart's take. I cannot help thinking that there's something both sweet and crazed about Gurney holding a pug while screaming "FOR DUKE LETO!" as he leads men into battle. I cannot for the life of me picture Josh Brolin's Gurney doing anything so flat-out bonkers. That Stewart did so and did it with a straight face earns mad props from me.   

BEST LADY JESSICA

Francesca Annis

Rebecca Ferguson

I think Annis was like so many in the Lynch version put in an impossible position: act with little to nothing to work with. Her Lady Jessica suffered greatly in that she was quite weak to where she made concubines look almost useless. It is curious that I think once she gave birth to Paul's sister, I cannot remember Annis in the film at all.

Ferguson however was given not just more to do but was also a more capable woman, strong, intelligent and a mistress in the arts of her former order, the Bene Gesserit. That she had an outside chance for a Supporting Actress nomination shows how strong an impression Ferguson left. She may still earn that nod for the sequel.

BEST DUKE LETO ATREIDES

Jurgen Prochnow

Oscar Isaac

Outside of a dream/fantasy sequence we have sadly seen the last of Duke Leto Atreides. Therefore, here we can declare an outright winner: Oscar Isaac. 

It's a curious thing that an aspect that holds Prochnow down is of all things the look of Lynch's Dune. I will get back to this in a bit, but Prochnow does not appear to live in a real world. Rather, his stiff and formal manner make him appear artificial. Isaac, conversely, not only gives us the elegant and noble (in every meaning of the word) figure. He also shows the loving father behind the pomp and ceremony.

When Duke Leto is betrayed in the 1984 version, it comes across as slightly blank. In the 2021 version, there is genuine sadness and horror to the apparent fall of House Atreides. The differences between Prochnow and Isaac are best exemplified in Duke Leto's end. Isaac made his effort to destroy Baron Harkonnen a defiant act. I figure the same thing happened with Prochnow, but I cannot remember it at all. 

BEST PAUL ATREIDES

Kyle MacLachlan

Timothee Chalamet

Surprisingly, Chalamet is one year OLDER than MacLachlan was when the latter played Paul Atreides. However, Chalamet still looks a decade younger than his twenty-six years versus MacLachlan, who looks a decade older than his then-twenty-five years when he debuted in Dune 1984.

I think Chalamet's youthful looks help in his performance as the young man who has destiny thrust upon him. There is a greater hesitancy, a greater uncertainty to how Chalamet plays him than in how MacLachlan does. The doubt, the rage, the loss Paul feels seems deeper with Chalamet. MacLachlan seems almost too strong (and curiously too old) when he is Paul.

However, I think in the back of our minds we have to remember that MacLachlan was making his screen debut in Dune, while Chalamet had a large body of work by the time he was in Dune. Chalamet had already even received a Best Actor nomination before he took on the role. That is not to say MacLachlan is a bad actor or did not do a good job. It just means Chalamet had more experience than MacLachlan, only one factor as to why he did a better job.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

1984

2021

It is a terrible misfortune that Lynch's version looks at times creaky. I think the visual effects at times were not only weak but comical. I remember when Dune 1984 first showed us the members of the Guild. My late friend Fidel Gomez, Jr., who was fond of Dune, referred to them as looking like "talking penises". There is no improvement as Dune 1984 keeps going.

The 1984 sandworms look mechanical to farcical, reflective of the film overall. The 2021 sandworms were conversely more authentic looking, as if they were real. That is the hallmark of true special effects: if it can suspend disbelief long enough for you to accept the clearly fictional world you are seeing.

A better example of how poorly the 1984 visual effects came across are in how the House Atreides army looks in their protective gear. They look like big boxes. Compare those to the smoother electric gear the 2021 version gave them. They are realistic for the film's setting, organic versus obvious.

There were also no talking penises in Villeneuve's Dune, so there's that too. 

BEST ART DIRECTION

1984

2021

One big point that separates the Lynch and Villeneuve versions is that the former could never get away from having Dune look like a series of sets, while the latter made Dune look like a real universe. Lynch's Dune was dominated by blacks and an almost industrial look where there was little to no difference between the planets Caladan and Giede Prime.

Villeneuve's Dune conversely made every world, every location look simultaneously ancient and futuristic. These worlds looked lived in, real, places you could go to. There is a wide difference between the lush water-filled Caladan, the dry Arrakis and the darkness of Giede Prime. Each set looks lived in, authentic. 

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

1984

2021

The 1984 Dune did not delve deep into the various worlds either in their set design or their costuming. As such, at times the actors looked like they were acting in plastic trash bags (Sting a very notable exception). There was a certain blandness, a certain sameness, to the 1984 version that pushed the production more.

2021 however, went the opposite route. Here, each world was showcased in various threads: the elegant, regal robes of House Atreides, the sinister dark wardrobe of House Harkonnen, the sensible desert gear of the Fremen on Arrakis, the grand nun-like ensemble of the Bene Gesserit. Even those who played small roles were fitted out in wardrobe that, again like the art direction, looked authentic to each world while still having an otherworldly look. 

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

1984

2021

The vistas for the 2021 version are spectacular, matching the epic nature of the film. The viewer is given a massive canvas to observe, swept into other worlds. 2021 understands that it is a large story, one that needs a large scope cinematically.

1984 simply cannot even begin to compete here.

BEST SCORE

Toto

Hans Zimmer

While I think Zimmer's score is brilliant (the various remixes to the Sardukar chant are fantastic), the Toto score for Lynch's version is still to my mind more haunting and otherworldly. It does what most if not all of Lynch's version failed to do: make Dune epic. Whatever the flaws Lynch's version has, I found the music thrilling and still memorable. It is one of the few highlights of the 1984 version.

Hans Zimmer, in my view, has a strong chance of winning Best Original Score. I loved the way he too created vast universes with his music (and bonus points for including both Mongolian throat singing AND bagpipes in this space epic). However, I simply have too strong an attachment for Toto's Dune score, with the Brian Eno-composed Prophesy Theme giving it that Music from the Hearts of Space feel. 

BEST DIRECTOR

David Lynch

Denis Villeneuve

I think at heart Dune was not the right fit for someone as surreal as David Lynch. I think David Lynch is one of the true cinematic geniuses, a genuine craftsman and auteur extraordinaire. Having said that, Dune is outside his own considerable forte. I don't think his heart was in Dune: the space adventures, the complex and dense plot, the floating fat man, the talking penises. That is not to say he did not work hard to make as good a film as he could. It just means that asking David Lynch to make Dune is like asking Federico Fellini to make Schindler's List: the genre and the filmmaker simply not working well together.

Villeneuve is an old hand at science fiction having made both Arrival and Blade Runner 2049. I confess to not liking Blade Runner 2049, but I grudgingly give credit for Villeneuve making his own mark on a world already visited. He is well versed in world building, and also made sure that the acting never veered into camp or odd moments. The "floating fat man" in his Dune was menacing, in Lynch's Dune hilarious. 

Villeneuve did such a masterful job as director that his omission from Best Director was not only seen as a snub but almost a scandal. Most people had him as a certain lock for a nomination, though not a win. To think something as epic and grand as Dune could be thought of as almost "director-less" seems ludicrous. I do not know if Dune: Part II will get him the nomination I (and I think many others) think he was robbed of this year, but here's hoping.

BEST VERSION

1984

2021

On the whole, the 2021 version is if not the definite version of Dune at least a marked triumph that towers over its poorer predecessor. Massive, epic, it overwhelms viewers. I have been accused of becoming obsessed with Dune, and I think this is veering towards the truth. Dune is the only film I have seen more than once in theaters, and I might see it a third time.

I think a major reason for Dune 2021's success is that it takes the material seriously. The 1984 version could not help slipping into camp (talking penises! men leading armies while holding pugs! floating fat men!). However, it was seriously damaged by its screenplay, attempting to collapse a massive tome into one film. So much was lost, rushed through or inexplicable that it ended up being a mess. 

I remember watching an expanded opening where the filmmakers attempted to explain things. However, with the massive backstory taking up about ten to fifteen minutes, it became near-impossible to keep track of the various guilds and houses. Instead of making things clearer, this expanded opening ended up making things more confusing.

Dune 1984 attempted to fill in gaps with voiceover. While Virginia Madsen's efforts made some sense (even if her character served no purpose apart from being the de facto narrator), the endless voiceovers became so nutty it soon did not seem worth trying to sort out the plot. 

Dune 2021 however streamlined as much as it could. It is still massive, but at least it had enough sense to split the story into two films versus trying to ram everything into one. It perhaps was a bit too serious in tone, but it was not a major issue, at least for me.

As such, with a few exceptions, Dune 2021 towers over its predecessor. It will be seen for the grand epic it is. Dune 1984 will be seen more as a curiosity, odd, sometimes bonkers but still weirdly entertaining. 

Little Women Retrospective: The Conclusions

LITTLE WOMEN RETROSPECTIVE: 

THE CONCLUSIONS

I have never read Little Women, partially because it is still primarily marketed as the female equivalent of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and/or Huckleberry Finn, something "for girls" in the same way Tom & Huck are "for boys". In a world where men and women appear to be now at constant loggerheads, Little Women, in particular the 2019 adaptation, finds itself in the midst of yet another culture war when to my knowledge the 1933, 1949, even the 1994 versions were not. Men are berated for not rushing to see the film and/or for not nominating it for major awards, yet simultaneously berated for seeing the film and not loving it as the second coming.

This war, with social justice warriors taking arms against those who have little to no interest in the various adventures of the March sisters, really to my mind is a disservice to the exceptional series of films and television adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's novel.

It all seems so strange to me, this constant battle of the sexes. In a time where the role of women in front and behind the camera has taken on new urgency Little Women 2019 has become a focal point of this war, as if the (male) viewer must prefer it over say a more male-centric film like Ford v Ferrari to justify his very existence. Women are free to like or even love Ford v Ferrari and men are free to like or even love Little Women, but I do not believe not liking or loving either reflects misandry or misogyny on a viewer's part. It simply means, to me, that men and women are different, enjoy different things and have different tastes. Not better, but different.

Most, but not all, women enjoy shopping. Most, but not all, men do not. Most, but not all, women could spend hours browsing through items without buying anything. Most, but not all, men would go to a store, pick out what they need, and then get out. Men and women are equal, but we are not the same. To say otherwise seems to me absurd. This applies to Little Women.

I have yet to see a bad adaptation of Alcott's novel. However, to say that I enjoyed Ford v Ferrari more than Little Women does not make me a male chauvinist pig.

It distresses me that this newest fight in gender has clouded both Little Women 2019 and Little Women in general. As I wrap up my Little Women Retrospective, I find that this story of the bonds of sisters through the triumphs and tragedies of life still holds up, still says something about the importance of family and being true to yourself. Jo March is a heroine for the ages, and there is a reason why filmmakers keep revisiting this story.

It is because it still holds up. Little Women, at least based on the adaptations, is a deceptively simple story about the lives of women with few if any men. I have liked each of the five adaptations I have seen: the 1933 George Cukor film, the 1949 Mervyn LeRoy remake, the 1978 miniseries, the 1994 Gillian Anderson version and the 2019 Greta Gerwig version. Not liking any or all does not make one a sexist, but refusing to watch any or all because it is about women in Civil War-era costumes does make me wonder why one would object. This person would really lose out on some wonderful films.

And now, it is time for comparisons and conclusions.

BEST PROFESSOR BHAER

Paul Lukas (1933)
Gabriel Byrnes (1994)
Rossano Brazzi (1949)
Louis Garrel (2019)
William Shatner (1978)

I understand many people have a dislike for Professor Bhaer. Alcott had to create him in Part II of Little Women because so many readers wanted Jo to marry, preferably Laurie, but Alcott wanted Jo to remain unmarried as she herself had. Giving in to pressure, she created this older German intellectual to placate her "backward" readers.

As a side note, it's curious that in every version I have seen, Bhaer is played by non-Americans: Hungarian (Lukas), Italian (Brazzi), Canadian (Shatner), Irish (Byrne) and French (Garrel). It seems proper to cast a non-American for the most non-American character in this all-American story.

As disliked as Bhaer may have been, even by Alcott herself, Lukas' version is probably the best because it is the most believable. Lukas makes Bhaer a perfect mix of shy, almost bumbling but strong intellectual. While Alcott and some Little Women fans may have a dislike for Bhaer, I think perhaps subconsciously realized that if Jo was to marry, she would marry someone who stimulated her mind more than her body. Lukas' Bhaer was that: an intellectual equal whom she could share great thoughts and ideas with. Lukas has a sweet manner to his Bhaer but also has the intellectual prowess to keep Jo's attention. Their 13-year-age difference does not make their romance that implausible.

Byrne comes closest to Lukas in being Jo's equal, able to discuss transcendentalism and suffrage on equal terms. One could see Byrnes' Bhaer being that intellectual whom Jo can not only match wits with but probably best. Their twenty-one-year age gap, however, does look more curious to say the least; then there's the Dracula-by-way-of-Ireland accent Bhaer adopts. He sounds funny, especially compared to Lukas' natural accent. Byrnes' first language is English, Lukas' wasn't. Therefore, Lukas sounds more natural as a foreigner than Byrnes does.

Brazzi and Garrel are hampered by a variety of factors. Both are frankly too pretty to be believed as somewhat serious, almost dour intellectuals. Moreover, the age and language factors also downgrade them. Brazzi is far too young to be thought of as "the older man": in fact, he was actually a year younger than June Allyson (1949's Jo). He's also quite Italian, so seeing him as this German is bizarre.

While Garrel is eleven years older than Saoirse Ronan (2019's Jo), they don't look as if they are that separate. Garrel is also quite gorgeous, so seeing him as the somber intellectual forever hunched over a tome seems a stretch too. Garrel is lower than Brazzi though in that he plays virtually no part in Gerwig's adaptation. He's almost an afterthought, and taken as something of a joke. That might be how Alcott and Gerwig see him, but it does the adaptation no favors.

Shatner was the worst because his "German" accent was just terrible. He seemed less absent-minded and more incoherent. It was probably the worst performance in the entire Retrospective, and certainly in the 1978 miniseries.

BEST LAURIE

Peter Lawford (1949)
Christian Bale (1994)
Richard Gilliland (1978)
Timothee Chalamet (2019)
Douglas Montgomery (1933)

It surprises me to find Peter Lawford as the best anything given that I find him to be a weak actor, more famous for being connected to the Kennedys and the Rat Pack than for any great cinematic performance. That being said, he barely edges out Christian Bale because his Laurie seemed to be genuinely in love with Jo and moreover made his romance with Amy plausible.

Perhaps Alcott does make Laurie a wastrel when he re-encounters Amy in Europe, boozing and broading his way across the Continent to forget Jo. That is how Bale and Chalamet play him, but I prefer Laurie to be a generally sweet boy. Here is where Lawford excels, as someone who is genuine pals with Jo, not hostile to her aspirations but still not part of them.

The "I'm the sad drunk" bit pushes Bale down slightly, but his Laurie was actually quite endearing, showing a kinder, gentler side to our sometimes intense actor. It's a shame Richard Gilliland did not become a major star, for his Laurie was quite nice and well-acted. He had the benefit of beautiful, intense blue eyes, but I found his performance quite charming.

Chalamet has a few strikes against him. One: he's still quite pretty, almost too pretty to think of himself as this somewhat lonely young man. Two: his version is too contemporary, as if he is playing a 2019 person versus an 1860 person. By that I mean his Laurie does not strike me as a man of his time but of our time, and thus I could not really accept him as a Civil War-era young man. His and Jo's "dance" in particular strikes me as something today's youth would do, not the youth of the story's time period. Of course, the young are always young no matter when they live in history, but still something about Chalamet's performance still makes me think he did not become Laurie but an impostor. Three: his was a weak performance overall. I never believed he was in love with Jo and to be frank, he seemed more in love with Amy from the get-go than anything else. His ability to float freely from one March sister to another was downright creepy: at one point he seemed to flirt with Meg!

Douglas was such a wet blanket I just pretty much forgot about him.

BEST AUNT MARCH

Greer Garson (1978)
Edna May Oliver (1933)
Meryl Streep (2019)
Lucille Watson (1949)
Mary Wickes (1994)

In a surprise upset the best imperious Aunt March goes to the 1978 television miniseries in Greer Garson's penultimate appearance. I put her as the best because while Aunt March can be difficult, cantankerous and most definitely unpleasant, Garson also gave her both a touch of class and even grace.

She could be rude and difficult, but she also showed a genuine heart and logic in her manner. In the miniseries, Meg's wedding takes place on the same day the family learns the Civil War is over. Here, this grande dame of the March family makes a toast not just to the happy couple but to the peace that will finally come to the weary nation. It's a beautiful moment and a fine piece of acting.

Oliver and Streep are really interchangeable, but I put Oliver slightly ahead because she seems more frightening and less actory than Streep, who dives into her imperious Aunt March with gusto. It's almost as if Oliver was Aunt March and Streep was acting as Aunt March, a major difference.

Watson and Wickes struck me as more comical than cantankerous in their Aunt March. Wickes however had the negative of being almost too nice in her interpretation. She never struck me as being the at times horrid figure Aunt March should have been. I think Wickes was a fine actress and she wasn't bad in Little Women. She was just too pleasant to be thought of as Jo's minor antagonist.

BEST MARMEE

Susan Sarandon (1994)
Mary Astor (1949)
Laura Dern (2019)
Dorothy Maguire (1978)
Spring Byington (1933)

Out of all the embodiments of Mrs. March, loving and wise matriarch of the March family, I do not think we will ever have a better or more definitive interpretation than that of Susan Sarandon as the beloved Marmee. What makes Sarandon's version so brilliant is that she perfectly balanced the loving aspect of Marmee with what can be called the woke mind of Marmee. Sarandon's Marmee was tender, caring, and yes, motherly: protective of her daughters and family, dispensing wisdom and love.

However, unlike previous Marmees and 2019's more openly feminist version, Sarandon's Marmee was also very progressive and quite forward thinking. She expressed the-then shocking view that women and men were equal in all things, something that none of the other versions ever did. However, there was never a sense of scolding, lecturing or moral superiority in her thinking. Sarandon's Marmee just believed it because it was true, not passing judgment on anyone but knowing that her daughters were just as worthy of pursuing their own ideas as the boys they encountered.

In short, Susan Sarandon's Marmee balanced femininity with feminism, simultaneously strong and non-threatening. I think it a beautiful balance and a pitch-perfect performance.

Astor has the benefit of having a long career playing "the perfect mother" (salacious sex scandal notwithstanding). She has that traditional portrayal of Marmee as loving and protective, so she gets a slight edge over Dern. Dern's version has that loving and protective element while also being more progressive that Sarandon has, but sometimes I could not shake the idea that this Marmee was angrier, more hostile towards the world. Perhaps that is how the book is, but by now I think we've grown so accustomed to Marmee as a warm, loving figure that seeing her rage against the United States seems almost un-American.

Maguire has the disadvantage of being little remembered, though from what I do remember it was not a bad take on it. Byington sadly seemed to be lost in the shuffle and to my seemed to have little to do with Little Women.

BEST BETH MARCH

Margaret O'Brien (1949)
Clare Danes (1994)
Eve Plumb (1978)
Jean Parker (1933)
Eliza Scanlen (2019)

I confess to sometimes not remembering the birth order of the March sisters, so forgive me if I have this wrong, but I think it's from youngest to oldest Beth, Meg, Amy and Jo. Beth, the youngest, is the one doomed to die. Out of all the versions, no one will ever top dear little Margaret O'Brien.

O'Brien is perhaps the best child actress to ever cry on film. She made weeping so believable and heartbreaking. Her last scene with June Allyson as Beth comforts Jo rather than vice versa is not just a beautiful piece of acting but just so heartbreaking and moving. You'd have to be inhuman not to be moved by O'Brien's performance.

I doubt anyone could come close to Margaret O'Brien in terms of acting, especially given that she is the youngest actor in the entire Little Women repertoire. However, I'm going to give the slight edge to Danes in that she is better-remembered than the others save O'Brien. Moreover, Danes' performance is also quite moving and she has the "plus" of being the first to die on-screen. Plumb, for all the mockery her "Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!" has endured, showed that she had genuine acting abilities as Beth. It's just a shame her Brady Bunch work overtook her skills.

I found Parker quite gentle and moving, though sadly overshadowed by both other Beths and her other costars. I really do not remember Scanlen in Little Women, and the non-linear take did not help make that connection.

BEST MEG MARCH

Janet Leigh (1949)
Emma Watson (2019)
Trini Alvarado (1994)
Meredith Baxter-Birney (1978)
Frances Dee (1933)

Another surprise. I don't think most people remember Janet Leigh was in Little Women, but out of all the Meg Marches, I think she is the one that won me over the most. Her romance with Laurie's tutor Mr. Brook seemed to me the most realistic and well-acted, and she played the most sensible March sister quite well.

Watson and Alvarado were neck and neck, but I'm giving edge to Watson due to a variety of factors. First, she had to adopt an American accent versus the American Alvarado. Two, Watson to my mind had more to do in Little Women than Alvarado. It's almost as if the non-linear structure helped her performance. Alvarado gave a fine performance and should be complimented, but Watson won me over.

Baxter-Birney did quite well too, but she didn't do as well as Watson or Alvarado. As for Dee, while I think she did well she pales compared to the others.

BEST AMY MARCH

Elizabeth Taylor (1949)
Florence Pugh (2019)
Joan Bennett (1933)
Kirsten Dunst & Samantha Mathis (1994)
Ann Dusenberry (1978)

Amy March, our spoiled yet endearing March sister, has had a good number of good actresses play her. Out of all of them though, I found one that simply towered over the others.

Little Women proved plainly and clearly that Elizabeth Taylor could play comedy and play it quite well. In her performance, she was charming and sweet, endearing especially when attempting to play a sophisticated lady. In her sweet selfishness, in her malapropisms and manner, Taylor made Amy a comical yet also fiercely loving and protective sister. While mostly played for laughs, Taylor could also move you.

Pugh has a more central role in her version of Little Women to where it's almost Amy's story versus Jo's. She really does an exceptional job as this woman who sees her limitations due to both her talent (or lack thereof) and her gender. She does what few versions have been able to do: make the Amy/Laurie romance real.

Bennett has the benefit of out-acting Dunst and Mathis, who had to essentially tag-team their adaption. The 1994 version is the only version to have two actresses play one character in different ages, and I can't shake the idea that this was a mistake. It's not that Dunst and/or Mathis gave bad performances: they didn't. It's just that they essentially split the baby and thus makes it hard to judge against the others.

Dusenberry is completely forgettable. I can't even remember what she looks like.

BEST JO MARCH

Katharine Hepburn (1933)
Wynona Ryder (1994)
Saoirse Ronan (2019)
June Allyson (1949)
Susan Dey (1978)

This really is an embarrassment of riches, as some really fine actresses have played one of the greatest female characters in literature. How to choose among the wide variety of Jo Marches? It really is a tough decision, at least for the top three contenders, each of which alone is really a remarkable, rich performance worthy of praise and respect.

After some thought, my mind goes to Katharine Hepburn as the definitive Jo. Hepburn seems tailor-made for this tomboy, feisty, independent woman with literary aspirations. Hepburn comes alive as Jo: her ambitions, her love for her sisters, her desires to be free and live her life. I think Katharine Hepburn's performance in Little Women is one of the finest of her career.

Ryder comes so achingly close to Hepburn, no easy feat. She makes Jo a true heroine for all seasons, bringing that intellectual pursuit and thirst more to the forefront than all the others save probably Hepburn. She is a true creative force and really one of my favorite Ryder performances.

Ronan is in the middle only due to what I consider the superiority of both Hepburn and Ryder in the role. Also, they have the benefit of time where both of them have been seen as the definitive Jo March. Perhaps in the course of time Ronan too will be held as a definitive Jo March, but right now it is too soon.

Allyson is to my mind the worst Jo March in a film adaptation. She does not have the spark of that tomboy or that intellectual. Moreover, her foghorn voice and the fact that she was 33 trying to pass herself off as maybe 16 push her down. Even so, Allyson is better than Dey, who is the worst Jo March ever. Dey's Jo is so blank in the role. Also, she struck me as miscast, almost too beautiful to be this rambunctious tomboy and writer. A writer can be beautiful, but Dey seemed so removed from the role.

BEST VERSION

1933
1994
1949
2019
1978

As I look at the wide variety of Little Women adaptations, I see that there really isn't a bad adaptation. However, to my mind, one really dominates all the others.

The 1933 adaptation is lifted immensely by two factors: Katharine Hepburn and director George Cukor. As I look at my Retrospective, I find that the 1949 version is probably the best acted save for the roles of Jo, Marmee and Aunt March. However, because Hepburn's version is so strong compared to the others and because Cukor's direction is so strong, it gets my vote for the Best Little Women adaptation.

Coming right on its heels is the 1994 Gillian Anderson version, the first directed, written and produced by women. The 1994 version is so well-crafted, simultaneously updating the story to reflect the feminist overtones in the story while still having the more traditional, dare I say wholesome aspects that generations of readers and viewers have grown accustomed to. With the to my mind definitive Marmee and the closest rival to Hepburn in terms of Jo in Winona Ryder's performance, the 1994 Little Women is both conservative and progressive.

The 1949 version overtakes the 2019 version for two reasons. One: it has better performances in what I think are the best Amy, Meg, Beth and Laurie of all the versions. Two, it is older and thus has the benefit of time. It is still too early to declare the 2019 Little Women the best version, let alone the definitive one.

I also was highly troubled by the non-linear structure of the 2019 version. Perhaps those who have never seen any of the versions would not find it a bridge too far, though given the cultural hold the 1994 version has it boggles the mind that those who went to see the 2019 adaptation knew nothing of the story, let alone the 1994 version that stayed within the structure of its predecessors. 

1978, while having good elements and the best Aunt March in Greer Garson, is probably the "worst" due to having the weakest Jo March and Professor Bhaer. The former at times looks catatonic and the latter mostly overacts to embarrassing levels.

I think the chances of getting another adaptation of Little Women within my lifetime are high. I wish whoever makes it success, but he or she should know they have a lot of competition and history to go up against.

Pygmalion (1938) vs. My Fair Lady (1964): A Comparison

PYGMALION VS. MY FAIR LADY

The George Bernard Shaw play Pygmalion was a wild success. After several attempts at adapting Pygmalion to the musical stage the team of Alan Jay Lerner & Frederick Lowe managed to with My Fair Lady.

Both works remain popular today as do the film versions of both Pygmalion and My Fair Lady. Today, I will look at both of them briefly and then compare the two.

First, the plot.

Haughty phonetics Professor Henry Higgins makes a wager with the nearest thing he has to an equal, Colonel Pickering, that he can turn Cockney flower-girl Eliza Doolittle into an elegant lady. Eliza sees this passing comment as a serious offer and goes to Higgins for elocution lessons. She suffers endlessly through the rigors Higgins puts her through and endures the misadventures of her lackadaisical father Alfred, but ends up indeed an elegant lady. Wealthy dilettante Freddy Eynsford-Hill becomes besotted with Eliza but she isn't interested.

Whether Professor Higgins, who has contempt for everything and everyone who is not Professor Higgins, has actually fallen in love with Eliza is left forever ambiguous.

As a side note, I say he did, but that's just me.

Now, on to the comparisons.

BEST HENRY HIGGINS

Leslie Howard
Rex Harrison

I am not a fan of Rex Harrison or his Henry Higgins. To be fair, the role required him to be haughty, arrogant and thoroughly unlikable, which Harrison's version was. I dislike his 'talking on pitch'. I intensely dislike that he won the Best Actor Oscar for perhaps the worst performance of the five nominated that year.

The mind boggles that Harrison's non-singing Higgins beat out Anthony Quinn and Peter Sellers in two of their most iconic performances (Zorba the Greek and Doctor Strangelove respective). The mind boggles that Harrison's non-singing Higgins beat out both Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole in Becket, where they too gave masterful performances. The fact that Sellers, Burton and O'Toole would never win Oscars while Harrison holds what should have been any of theirs is downright scandalous.

However, he was much better than Howard, who was to my mind too theatrical in Pygmalion. A lot of time Howard seemed to make gestures and faces that bordered on the laughable. Harrison, for whatever faults he may have in My Fair Lady, did not hit a wrong note acting-wise (pun unintended). He was perfectly crabby and cantankerous as Higgins, where his cluelessness about his cruelty came across as genuine versus affected.

BEST ELIZA DOOLITTLE

Wendy Hiller
Audrey Hepburn

The fact that Audrey Hepburn did not sing in no way affects my selection. No one, for example, goes on about how Deborah Kerr didn't belt out any numbers herself in The King & I. Why Hepburn has been raked over the coals for something out of her control is a perpetual mystery.

I think Hepburn did a pretty solid job as Eliza Doolittle. My issues with Hepburn however in retrospect is that she comes across as frankly too posh and elegant to be this simple Cockney girl. Once she is the refined Eliza then Hepburn is spot-on, but sometimes as the guttersnipe Hepburn seems absurd. It reminds me of a line from Victor/Victoria when Victoria suggests that with a little practice she can refine her operatic tones to a cabaret style.

"That is like saying that with a little practice a nun can become a streetwalker" is the sarcastic reply.

The dubbing also hurts Hepburn, but not in the way one might think. Marni Nixon dubbed Hepburn in My Fair Lady in the same way Nixon dubbed Kerr in The King & I and dubbed Natalie Wood in West Side Story. Nixon had a very posh, polish and refined tone. In a case of 'with a little practice', Nixon's clear, crisp voice was laughable as the Cockney. It was too perfect, too refined, too elegant to be believable.

Hiller, however, was perfectly believable as Eliza. She keeps that balance between class and trash, between a lowly girl and the educated woman. She had a natural way with both the comedy and the drama of the role, a very difficult thing to do. Hiller is so good as Eliza that you believe the transformation versus Hepburn, who despite her considerable talent was always a bit too posh throughout.

BEST COLONEL PICKERING

Scott Sunderland
Wilfrid Hyde-White

I think one can make a safe bet that Sunderland did not leave much of an impression. He was proper and polite in the role, but Hyde-White added an element of perpetual befuddlement. Hyde-White is forever bumbling and tut-tutting about, constantly shocked at the goings-on about him. He seems to be almost deliberately doing a caricature of the veddy proper Englishman.

To be fair Sunderland's version seems to have some sense in him while Hyde-White's version does not. However, Hyde-White's constantly "REALLY, Higgins!" manner made for quite entertaining viewing.

BEST FREDDY EYNSFORD-HILL

David Tree
Jeremy Brett

I confess that my eternal love for Brett as the definitive Sherlock Holmes may play a part in my selection. This is especially true given that Tree was quite good as Freddy, who was probably more insipid and besotted than Brett's version.

However, Brett has some qualities that push him over the goalpost. For example, he has On the Street Where You Live, a non-love song that is part of an extraordinary songbook (even if he too was dubbed). I think that Brett's Freddy was not brain-dead just in love elevates him too. Brett brings intelligence to the role and makes Freddy not an absolute idiot that Tree made him. Instead, Brett makes him just a young foolish man in love.

BEST ALFRED DOOLITTLE

Wilfrid Lawson
Stanley Holloway

Lawson has a distinct disadvantage in that his Alfred Doolittle was on the screen extremely briefly while Holloway had a larger and more dominant role. Like Brett, Holloway has the benefit of some wonderful songs to perform: With A Little Bit of Luck and Get Me to the Church on Time, perhaps two of the best songs in My Fair Lady. Unlike Brett, Holloway had the advantage of singing his numbers, having originated the role on the stage and recreating it for the film version.

Lawson also had a drawback in that his Alfred Doolittle was pretty much a nonentity. He just appeared and disappeared. Holloway on the other hand gave Alfred a personality: a charming rogue whom we shouldn't like but end up quite fond of. He's a tramp, but we love him.

BEST WRITING

Pygmalion
My Fair Lady

Perhaps here too the fact that Pygmalion was co-written by George Bernard Shaw (and won an Oscar for it) plays a part in selecting it over the nominated My Fair Lady. However, I think that Pygmalion is better written is that it tells its story simply.

There does not seem to be any fat in Pygmalion. There is no superfluous aspect in Pygmalion, which is something I cannot say with My Fair Lady. Some of the songs felt as if the movie was stretched with Just You Wait in particular coming to mind. To be fair, musical adaptations will almost always be longer than their original stage/film productions because singing takes longer than talking. However, My Fair Lady just feels longer, feels stretched out.

BEST DIRECTION

Anthony Asquith & Leslie Howard (Pygmalion)
George Cukor (My Fair Lady)

As I look at the directing I go back to Cukor and how well he handled the massive scope of My Fair Lady's production. It is not theatrical as Pygmalion was, and in perhaps the moments that it was theatrical such as the Ascot Gavotte it is meant to be theatrical. Asquith and Howard, sharing directing credit, did not balance things as well as Cukor. In particular I return to Howard's performance, which I figure was directed by Asquith. If so, he could not get Howard to tone it done. If Howard directed himself, he let his ego run away with him.

Looking back at the performances, all from Pygmalion have faded from the general public's mind save for Hiller. Sadly, if Hepburn's performance is remembered, it is in part because of the faux-scandal with regards to her lack of singing. Acting-wise, I think My Fair Lady is better.

Cukor also has the benefit of that vast canvas to paint with. He could have big dance numbers, elegant costumes and sets and visual flairs Pygmalion could not afford. To its credit My Fair Lady does not feel like a big lumbering thing in the way something like Doctor Doolittle does.

Finally, while not strictly related as to why I chose Cuckor over Asquith & Howard, I think he won because despite making an extraordinary body of work: Little Women, The Philadelphia Story, Dinner at Eight, The Women, Adam's Rib, 1954's A Star is Born), he had never won. Whether it was a de facto Lifetime Achievement win or for the specific film I don't know but it is surprising to think My Fair Lady is Cukor's only Best Director win.

BEST VERSION

Pygmalion
My Fair Lady

By a vote of 5 to 2 My Fair Lady comes out on top.  Truth be told I found both of them very good films and even gave them the exact same score of B-. However, I think My Fair Lady has held up longer, probably due in no small part because of the songbook. The songs in My Fair Lady are so wrapped in our lexicon that you don't even have to sing them but speak them.

"The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain", "I could have danced all night", "I've grown accustomed to your face", "Get me to the church on time". Those could be songs or phrases. My Fair Lady has a bigger cultural impact than Pygmalion. It's more likely one has seen My Fair Lady performed in high schools and community or regional theater than Pygmalion.

Except in the world of Love, Simon, where high schools perform Cabaret instead, but I digress.

Apart from that, I cannot help falling for My Fair Lady's charms over Pygmalion's. The latter is by absolutely no means bad, but my goodness the former is simply too charming to forget.

I think both films are equally good, but I think that My Fair Lady is the better version.

Overboard: 1987 Vs. 2018

OVERBOARD 1987 VS. 2018

Of the many films in existence, I would not have thought something as fluffy as Overboard would have received a remake, but a remake we got. The 2018 version keeps the basic structure of the 1987 original, down to keeping some of the exact same dialogue. The 2018 version also does a gender-swap with an ethnic twist.

Whether that helped or hurt the 2018 version remains to be seen.

In a nutshell, Overboard is the story of a wealthy (woman/man) who after having a job done on their yacht by a poor (man/woman), literally throws the poor person off the ship. Shortly after, the wealthy person her/himself falls off the yacht and suffers amnesia. The poor person, learning this, hoodwinks the wealthy person that they are the missing spouse. Hilarity and romance ensue.

2018 is not an exact copy of 1987 because it changes some key plot points. In 1987, Joanna Strayton (Goldie Hawn) was married to Grant (Edward Herrman), who promptly abandons Joanna in the psych ward to go off, as he puts it, 'whacking the donkey with painted ladies'. In 2018, Leonardo Montenegro (Eugenio Derbez) is a billionaire playboy (hence, no wife), who is abandoned in the psych ward by his sister Magdalena (Cecilia Suarez) so she, rather than the male heir, can run the company.

2018 also has a greater focus on the wealthy person's work life. In 1987, "Annie" was essentially a stay-at-home mom. In 2018, "Leo" was put to work on a construction site. While both were de facto slaves put in their positions to pay off their debt to their 'spouse', 2018 essentially gave the wealthy person double-duty: pulling a paycheck and doing domestic duties.

This leads to a reason why 1987 is better than 2018. As "Annie" is essentially secluded, no one has to ask questions and there's a lesser chance her true identity will be revealed. By keeping this in a tight-knit group, the duplicity can go unremarked. 2018 opted to put "Leo" among more people, thus running the risk of the deception being exposed. How no one: not his fellow day-laborers, the local community or even the wealthy people "Leo" was working for failed to recognize the son of the third-wealthiest man on Earth is a question that the film never answers.

It is within the realm of possibility that "Annie" could have remained hidden. It is beyond the realm of possibility that "Leo" could have remained hidden. Also, why did they not opt to change his name?

2018 goes all-in on the gender-reversals. The gender-swap did not improve matters. Overboard 2018 may be remembered for a cinematic trend of its era. The 1980's were filled with various films where parents, usually fathers, switched bodies with their children, usually sons (Like Father, Like Son, Vice Versa, 18 Again!). Nowadays, we have remakes or films where its the genders that are swapped: the Ghostbusters reboot, What Men Want, Ocean's 8, Doctor Who, a planned Splash remake with a merman, a planned Greatest American Hero remake with a Heroine, even a remake of Lord of the Flies with an all-female cast. That last one was one too many, the backlash so strong it died almost instantly. Overboard is there among them.

1987 was testosterone-driven: Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) had four boys. 2018's Kate Sullivan (Anna Faris) had three daughters. The gender-swap is a stab at equality, but it leads to some very uncomfortable premises. A subplot in 2018 is Kate's fears of leaving her three daughters alone with their "father", a natural fear given "Leo" was a stranger to them. However, it does make one wonder why she would A) put her daughters in such 'danger' and B) why she would think a man bamboozled into thinking he was their "father" would commit unspeakable acts.

This fear does not exist in 1987. As "Annie's" interactions with the boys are purely on a motherly level, there's no suggestion at all that Dean would think she would be whacking their donkeys. Truth be told I didn't think 2018 would do so either, save for the fact that Kate keeps insisting her oldest teenage daughter stay at home rather than go to the local pool precisely because she is so afraid of what their "father" might do. This is brought up more than once, which ends up leaving a bizarre sense of indecency for what is supposed to be a romantic comedy.

Filmmakers today do not seem to understand that you just cannot change the gender of characters and get the exact same results. Men and women are different. As such, they would generally react differently to the same circumstances, not always but more often than not.

2018 fails where 1987 for a variety of reasons. At the top of them is that 2018 is almost terrified to be even remotely nasty with its characters. Both Leonardo and Kate are essentially 'too nice' for the premise. 1987 set up the conflicting natures of Joanna and Dean: she was haughty, arrogant, condescending, snobbish and thoughtless. She did not so much go out of her way to be nasty as she was nasty to everyone. Her nasty manner is still evident when she's at the hospital, so much so that the long-suffering staff gives her a 'private room': the psychiatric ward.


As 1987 progresses, we see her slowly shifting into a nicer person who ends up embracing her 'old' life. She is adrift in this horrible world and much put-upon until one moment when she metaphorically strikes back. Once she stands up for herself, albeit in a mild way, she earns the respect of the others. That in turn allows for a balancing of power and for her to take command of her circumstances.

2018 on the other hand seems determined to make Leonardo into almost a pussycat. He's shown as cavorting with a bevy of beauties but that essentially is his only flaw. He is never overtly arrogant or vicious to his ship steward Colin (John Hannah) or to the Birthday Present crew. His reactions at the hospital are actually more sensible than 1987's: while her reactions are from the point of elitism and arrogance, his are more from frustration and confusion about not knowing who he was.

There's never a shifting of power because essentially he falls into line rather quickly. Moreover, Kate is almost too pleasant with "Leo". Unlike 1987, she never regales him with horror stories about his 'early' life. The worst thing 2018 does is make him sleep in a shed. 

2018, curious, did not make Kate the mild antagonist that 1987 was. Dean was the brains of the operation to where his best friend Billy (Michael Haggerty) was the one who told him Dean was bonkers for doing it before slowly going along with it. 2018 has the agency come from Kate's best friend Theresa (Eva Longoria). Kate essentially has to be pushed into this shady act.

By doing that, perhaps 2018 thought they were making her more sympathetic. What they ended up with was making her weaker. We can empathize with Dean because we have seen how nasty Joanna was to him, so we can see his plan as taking charge and getting revenge. We cannot empathize with Kate because it was not her idea. Also, again Leonardo was nowhere near as nasty to Kate as Joanna was with everyone.

Another way 2018 goes wrong is in the love story. We get brief moments where Grant is shown as indulging himself away from his shrewish wife, making its case that Joanna, for all her faults, would be better off with Dean than with Grant. Whenever we see Grant "whacking the donkey with painted ladies", we see that he does not care for or about her, let alone love her. Dean, on the other hand, sees that "Annie" is becoming a better, kinder person who genuinely loves his kids and eventually him.

By making 2018 into a billionaire playboy, there is no actual antagonist for Kate to be going up against. There's no one to love Leo back on his yacht or his family, so the romance angle seems a bit askew. Far from taking Leonardo away from a bad situation, Kate seems to be helping Magdalena in her quest for control of the family business, albeit inadvertently.

This romantic angle also causes one of the biggest changes story-wise. In 1987, Dean thinks Joanna is giving up all her fortune for him only to learn the money is really hers, not Grant's. That gives us a nice twist and a genuinely happy ending: they both are in this out of true love. In 2018, a threat from his father makes Leonardo reconsider swimming back to the yacht. He does give up the family fortune, but then we get a second twist when we learn that the Birthday Present yacht was literally a birthday present and as such Leonardo's personal property. He gets a fortune anyway, and to me that strips 2018 of a sense of true sacrifice for love.

Curiously, while 1987's Joanna gleefully threw herself off the yacht to go to Dean (apparently giving up her fortune), Leonardo was actually hesitant to give up his fortune for the woman he supposedly loved. It might be because, again, men and women do think differently in similar circumstances. It might also be because 2018 wanted to change that aspect of the story, but then the tacked-on 'happy ending' of the yacht being his personal property versus his father's seems unnatural.

Also, it seems strange that 2018 opted not to have Leonardo change all that much. A point in 1987 is that Joanna had changed to be a more thoughtful, caring and compassionate person. She for example opted not to return to smoking after not having done so when she was "Annie". Leonardo, on the other hand, goes back to drinking after he recovers his memory when before, he had been convinced by Kate that he was an alcoholic. He even attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting after a fight with Kate, a sign that Leonardo was becoming a better man.

They opted to cut this character development quickly. If 2018 had opted to keep him as sober, you would have seen his character become a man worthy of love and of loving. Instead, they went for a cheap laugh that didn't pay off.

I think finally on the romance angle, it helps that we the audience know that Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn have been in a long-term relationship, almost an in-joke we can participate in. There was no connection between Faris and Derbez. They often looked as if they weren't even in the same scene together, and truth be told I found the scenes where they were apart funnier than those when they were together. The fact that Derbez is 15 years older than Faris does not help.

Overboard 1987 is a frothy little film with a good heart and message: love is what makes you wealthy.  Overboard 2018 is just a waste of time.

Normally in these Comparisons, I match the characters up to see who would come out on top, but here I'm not going to bother. In every element the 1987 Overboard trumps the 2018 Overboard. I don't say either is great cinema, but the 1987 version is more enjoyable because it basically is in on the joke. The 2018 version does not know any.

A Star Is Born Retrospective: The Conclusions

There are as of now four versions of A Star Is Born: the 1937 original film and three remakes from 1954, 1976 and 2018. Each is a reflection of its time and place. They also have their merits and drawbacks.

I cannot think of another story that has been remade as often as A Star Is Born that was not based of off literature. Now, with the most recent version upon us, I think we can pause briefly to look back at each of them and come to some conclusions. First, a recap of the four versions, then a ranking of each of them in specific categories.

A STAR IS BORN (1937)

Esther Blogett (Janet Gaynor), North Dakota farmgirl, comes to Hollywood to follow her dreams of acting, to 'be somebody'. She struggles to find even bit parts and extra work, but a fortuitous encounter with established star Norman Maine (Fredric March) helps launch her into stardom as 'Vicki Lester'. Vicki and Norman fall in love and marry, but his career is going down as hers is rising. Norman crashes her Academy Award speech to demand an award for 'the worst performance of the year'. She decides to give up her career to help her boozing husband, but he kills himself to stop her giving up her career. After contemplating permanent retirement, she returns and introduces herself as "Mrs. Norman Maine".

Running Time: 1 Hour, 51 minutes

A STAR IS BORN (1954)

Singer Esther Blogett (Judy Garland) is shuffling along in her little career when film superstar Norman Maine (James Mason) crashes her stint at a benefit. The totally bombed-out Norman is close to humiliating himself and her but Esther quickly improvises, making it appear as if all this is all part of the act. Norman hears Esther belt out The Man That Got Away and is convinced she can be a superstar. The lush, however, struggles to remember her after leaving for location filming, forcing Esther to struggle more. Eventually, he helps her become 'Vicki Lester'. They fall in love and marry but Norman still struggles with alcoholism and a fading career. Norman crashes her Academy Award speech to beg for a job. She decides to give up her career to help her boozing husband, but he kills himself to stop her giving up her career. After contemplating permanent retirement, she returns and introduces herself as "Mrs. Norman Maine".

Running Time: 3 Hours, 2 Minutes (Original Release), 2 Hours, 34 Minutes (General Release), 2 Hours, 56 Minutes (Restored Version)

A STAR IS BORN (1976)

Singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) is doing well in her singing career with her group, the unfortunately-named The Oreos, when in stumbles drunk rock god John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson). He quickly takes her as both his newest gal-pal and as an extraordinary talent to be mentored. She quickly rises to stardom herself, falls in love and marries John. She seems content to balance a career and a home with John, even dueting with him on Evergreen. However, he just can't let go of the booze and drugs. When Esther wins the Grammy for Best Female Performance, John drunkenly crashes her moment, though I can't remember what his reasoning is or if he ends up whacking her. His career continues to falter and she opts not to go on tour to be with him. John dies listening to her singing in a car crash, though whether it was an accident or deliberate is unclear. After a period of mourning, she returns as Esther Hoffman Howard.

Running Time: 2 Hours, 20 Minutes

A STAR IS BORN (2018)

Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper) is a country/rock god who is also highly troubled both emotionally and with his addiction to booze and drugs. He stumbles upon Ally (Lady Gaga) at a drag bar and is instantly smitten with her unconventional beauty and talent. Quickly spiriting her into his world, she becomes a sensation after performing a duet with Maine, Shallow, which quickly goes viral. As Ally is molded to pop stardom, Jackson continues loving her and eventually they marry. Her star continues to climb but Jackson is done in more by his boozing than by actually falling to her stardom. When Ally wins the Best New Artist Grammy, he joins her on stage and drunkenly falls over, humiliating himself more than her. A stint in rehab appears to help but despite this Jackson is warned off by Ally's record producer Rez to stay away from her. He hangs himself and a devastated Ally, after taking time to mourn him, returns as Ally Maine.

Running Time: 2 Hours, 15 Minutes.

Why we didn't get A Star Is Born in the 1990's so as to keep with having a new version every twenty years I cannot say. My only guess is that Lady Gaga, born in 1986, would have been too young to be our ingenue elevated to stardom by her older mentor.

Now that we've covered very briefly each version, we can see how each of them really was shaped by the times in which it is set.

The 1937 version has Esther as more naive, coming to Hollywood with nothing but hope. In 1954, Esther has worked hard to get where she is at, but her ambitions are not actual stardom but just a chance to perform. The 1976 version has Esther in full control, burning with ambition and not one to take things lying down. In 2018, Ally has dreams but her own insecurities hold her back and yet achieving fame the way many do now: by going viral.

Interestingly, the 2018 version seems to be the one that has the Female as the most self-doubting. 1937 charges ahead with no known talent but just with aspirations. 1954 knows she can sing but she isn't burning for a major career. 1976 had much chutzpah but no real entry into the industry.

Each version tailors itself to the talents of its leads. 1937 has Esther as an actress, which Gaynor was as the first woman to win Best Actress for three roles. 1954 is a musical, giving Garland a chance to perform with her powerful voice. 1976 also had musical numbers, but more in a concert style that suited Streisand. 2018 followed closely to 1976, especially since unlike Garland or Streisand, Gaga does not have much acting experience.

Now, I will dive into the deep end so to speak and look at which aspects of all four films I think are the best, ranking them in order and giving some thoughts. 

BEST MALE LEAD

James Mason (1954)
Fredric March (1937)
Bradley Cooper (2018)
Kris Kristofferson (1976)

It's only by the thinnest of margins that I pick Mason over March for the best male lead (Norman Maine, John Norman Howard, Jackson Maine). Out of the four actors, Mason at 45 was the oldest of the male leads when the film was made (Cooper was 43, March and Kristofferson both a mere 40 even if the latter looked much older and the former much younger). Mason, however, looked older and more worn-down, making it plausible that he had a long career coming to its end before totally falling apart when he meets Esther.

March, while good, came across as doomed not by alcoholism but by changing public tastes. He also seemed less angry and more like a little boy, eager to please his friends and bosses than the self-destructive fading movie star Norman was supposed to be. Even when drunk, March's Maine seemed more clumsy and affable than terrible.

Kristofferson's John just seemed like an ass: self-absorbed and with an appetite for destruction. Cooper seemed determined to be the most sympathetic of the bunch, unwilling to be dark, his adoring looks towards Ally more reflective of a mentor proud of his pupil than a man who is seeing his career fade while his wife is climbing.

Mason, however, was not afraid to show us the unpleasant aspects of Norman Maine. We get this straight at the beginning when he shows up drunk at the benefit he's supposed to be the main attraction for. He is a goofy drunk but also an angry one, at one point belting his long-suffering press agent. Yet, unlike Cooper, who whacks his (much) older brother because he somehow desecrated their father's memory, Mason does horrors to himself and others because he is a barely-functioning alcoholic.

Cooper was apparently dead-set on making Jackson a wounded soul, truly gentle and not in the slightest unpleasant. This is especially true given how much A Star Is Born is more focused on his character than hers. His worship of his Daddy is what drives him more than anything else, adding to that 'wounded but gentle soul' persona Cooper is pushing. The only real time he demeaned Ally was when she made a crack about Daddy Dearest.

Kristofferson was apparently equally dead-set on making John a shallow, self-centered man. March was pleasant and well-meaning. Mason was well-meaning, even charming and certainly protective of Esther but also incapable of helping himself.

All the men commit suicide (except perhaps for Kristofferson, who may have just crashed while listening to a Barbra Streisand 8-track), but Cooper's suicide seemed more as a result of destroying himself than of saving Ally/Esther and her career. March and Mason did want to save Esther in their own way, but Mason's sacrifice seemed more genuine given how much he suffered and how much suffering he knew he inflicted.

BEST FEMALE LEAD

Judy Garland (1954)
Janet Gaynor (1937)
Barbra Streisand (1976)
Lady Gaga (2018)

Judy Garland was a troubled person, a mix of Esther Blogget and Norman Maine. Yet out of the four actresses who have played Esther/Ally, I think Garland is the one we will all remember best long after the dust has settled.

Sorry, Little Monsters.

Unlike the naive but eager Gaynor, the more self-confident Streisand or the more insecure but highly talented Gaga, Garland's Esther was someone who was already working her way to somewhere when she came upon Norman. Her big moment comes when she confesses both her frustration and anger about Norman to their friend the studio boss. Garland's Esther lets out her hurt, her anger and her own recrimination about the situation. She understands that Norman is making an effort but he keeps failing and that she in her own way fails him.

I don't think Streisand or Gaga would ever tell themselves or anyone else that 'they failed too'. They may love their man, but they are not going to share the blame for his descent. Gaynor carries some sense of regret about things, but she at times seems like the others more an observer to Norman's descent into darkness. Garland however, insists in thinking that if only she had something: been more supportive, less successful, more capable of being there for him, Norman would be better.

Perhaps in her mind, Norman would have not sunk so far if he hadn't 'discovered' her. Perhaps this unacknowledged sense of guilt that she somehow is if not the cause then perhaps the end result that so terrifies her.

I think it also helps that out of the four, I think Garland gave the best performance. Her quivering manner whether expressing insecurity or distress elevates her performance. She also displayed a genuine love for Norman that went beyond mentor/protege but between man and woman. Her Esther looks like she would give up her career for her man, something the others save Gaynor did not seem eager or willing to completely do.

Gaynor did not have much self-doubt about herself, Streisand had virtually none, and Gaga gets pushed down only because she is playing a variation of herself.

Gaynor, Garland and Streisand all had long acting careers while Gaga is just starting. As such, she gets demoted by default.

BEST MALE MELTDOWN

James Mason (1954)
Fredric March (1937)
Kris Kristofferson (1976)
Bradley Cooper (2018)

At a critical point in A Star Is Born, the male character shows just how disheveled he is. Out of the four, I'm giving Mason's version the top recognition.

When March interrupts Vicki's Oscar acceptance speech, he tells them he wants an award for the Worst Performance, essentially calling for a Razzie before there were any Razzies. His speech is very controlled and coherent, especially given he was supposed to be drunk. Kristofferson seemed to crash Esther's speech just as an act of narcissism. Cooper's Jackson did not so much interrupt his wife's speech to berate his colleagues but more just being drunk and looking foolish.

It was closer to when Elizabeth Taylor looked bombed out of her mind presenting at the Golden Globes or Farrah Fawcett appeared incoherent on Late Night with David Letterman than a genuine cry of the heart.

In short, while Kristofferson's Grammy-crashing was shockingly forced and a bad performance, and while Cooper's performance was better overall, I am making him the worst because he refused to be unpleasant. Cooper's 'wounded soul' was more self-destructive but still loving than hurtful towards Vicki/Esther/Ally.

In the awards meltdown, the humiliation and hurt was Vicki's more than Norman, culminating in Norman/John/Jackson accidentally whacking the one person he loves. Instead, in Cooper's version, Jackson just ended up humiliating himself more than hurting her.

Now when it comes to Mason's moment, it is not done out of maliciousness but out of a deep hurt. Unlike March, Mason is there just to plead for a job, essentially a second chance from people he has alienated over the years. Mason is a mess, in equal turns angry and self-pitying.

March was just angry. Kristofferson was narcissistic. Cooper was incoherent. Mason was a man falling apart, and seeing him ultimately whack Vicki made it all the more painful.

BEST DIRECTOR

George Cukor (1954)
William Wellman (1937)
Bradley Cooper (2018)
Frank Pierson (1976)

Cukor expanded on Wellman's original vision by making Garland's Esther/Vicki actually work for her success.  Success, as the song goes, came so easily to Gaynor. Garland, however, was essentially stranded by the well-meaning but inept Mason. Cukor managed both the grand musical moments, particularly the massive Born in a Trunk number, and those smaller, intimate moments such as when Garland allows herself a mild breakdown. He even manages moments of comedy when Esther comes to the studio and is given the literal runaround.

Wellman was very good at keeping the story going and had the benefit of having the shortest version. Cooper gets points for being a first-time director, even if at times A Star Is Born plays more like The Jackson Maine Story than Ally's Story.  Pierson, perhaps we can cut some slack given Streisand and her partner Jon Peters exercised more control than he wanted them to. However, the resulting 1976 version which was closer to a concert film than a fiction movie rests on his shoulders.

BEST SONG

The Man That Got Away (1954)
Evergreen (1976)
Shallow (2018)

This perhaps is a bit unfair in that 1937 does not have a song and 2018 has many songs. However, I'm picking the songs most associated with their versions.

It's a pity that Shallow is the one being singled out for award consideration given that I think I'll Always Remember Us This Way is better. Shallow, however, is a good song but I think the best part is really when Gaga vocalizes, showcasing her incredible voice. Curiously, that's the only part of the song I really remember.

Evergreen is a lovely ballad that makes its somewhat oddball lyrics sound logical and even romantic ("Love, soft as an easy chair"). However, for my mind, The Man That Got Away is the song of all songs. It helps that Garland knows how to deliver a song and that The Man That Got Away was written by Ira Gershwin (lyrics) and Harold Arlen (music), two of the finest songwriters of the Twentieth Century.

The Man That Got Away is a torch song, one brimming and bursting with anguish of love lost. Shallow is a ballad with a crescendo, pleasant but to my mind, not only does Shallow not compare to The Man That Got Away but, even if should win Best Original Song, it won't be as well-remembered as Garland's song.

After all, who really remembers Sweet Leilani or In the Cool, Cool, Cool of the Evening (which won Best Original Song) versus They Can't Take That Away From Me or A Kiss To Build a Dream On (which lost to those songs respectively)?

BEST VERSION

1954
1937
2018
1976

I am genuinely puzzled by why the 2018 version of A Star Is Born is being held up as this monumental piece of cinema equal to or greater than Casablanca, Citizen Kane or Seven Samurai. I find that the 2018 version is the third-best version of this story. As such, why so many of my brethren insist it will sweep the Academy Awards or worse, should win.

Then again, many of the same people who say A Star Is Born is already the de facto winner said the exact same thing about Black Panther, so there's that.

Even in its butchered state, the 1954 version is for me THE version. Its story is richer, with more subtext and smooth foreshadowing, aided by fine musical numbers and definitive performances by Garland and Mason.

The 1937 version is close behind, with strong performances and an engaging story.

2018 is pleasant but to be honest the hysteria many express for it drives me to almost hate it.

1976 is pretty much a vanity project, more about showcasing Streisand's extraordinary voice than in telling a story.

Once things settle down, I think people will still watch the 1954 version over the others. The 2018 version has the advantage of being the one most people know now, which might explain why so many in the theater were openly sobbing at it all. They probably have either never seen the other versions or perhaps even be aware there are other versions.

Those that do know it's a remake might think the 1976 version was the original, not surprising given that 2018 followed that version more than it did 1954 or 1937.

It's just like those people who think Benedict Cumberbatch is the Greatest Sherlock Holmes of All Time. The only other Sherlocks they know, if they know any, are Robert Downey, Jr. or Johnny Lee Miller. They don't know Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, so they have limited points of comparison.

Same thing with A Star Is Born. If you don't know any other version or maybe just one, it's only logical they'd pick the newest one.

However, for me, the 1954 version of A Star Is Born is the best of them all: a film filled with humor, heartache and among the best performances and songs. Pity they almost destroyed it, but even as is, I think it towers over all the others.