This film shares with most biographical pictures the problematic necessity of covering large portions of its subject's life very quickly, and hence an inherent sense of 'cantering through the highlights' without the luxury of developing in detail any given relationship or scene, whereas a similar story created as pure fiction would be more likely to cover a few days, months or at most years in a single dramatic arc. In the case of a musical biography, you have in addition the problem that sank the Judy Garland version of "A Star is Born" -- with big production numbers added into the running time, you either end up with an unwieldy length of film, or the temptation to cut down on character and plot in preserving the showpiece display. The traditional stage or screen musical can use its sung-through big act finales to advance the action; the performer's biography -- unless life conveniently mirrors repertoire -- doesn't enjoy that option. I saw the uncut version (well over three hours), but I wasn't surprised to learn that the ambitiously-titled "Star!", like "A Star is Born", suffered a drastically shortened re-release. I can't imagine, however, that it can have been an improvement. Even at its uncut length, the film already comes across as a cursory skate over events...
The framing device used is that of Miss Lawrence previewing a sepia-toned retrospective of her own career, with increasingly frequent widescreen colour interruptions supposed to represent reality versus publicity gloss. It isn't entirely satisfactory, but then few framing devices are.
A succession of choreographed songs in what amounts to a Greatest Hits parade is the principal reason for sitting through -- and doubtless for making -- the film, and Julie Andrews belts out the numbers to good effect. She does, oddly, funk the high note towards the end of "Some Day I'll Find You", an omission all too obvious in such an iconic and familiar number; leaving one to speculate that perhaps it was the pianissimo delivery she couldn't manage {Edit: apparently Gertrude Lawrence couldn't manage the original - presumably this was done in aid of authenticity}. Daniel Massey gets all the best lines as composer and wit Noel Coward, and makes the most of them, rather stealing the show. (He is also aided in this by the way that Coward is depicted as a rather more sympathetic character than the brittle, driven heroine!)
In its format, the film reminded me somewhat of 1992's "Chaplin". but its evocation of place and period is nowhere near as convincing. The big production numbers are suitably impressive, but the sketchy acting opportunities and episodic plot -- not to mention the sheer length! -- make the experience more reminiscent of watching back-to-back editions of "That's Entertainment"; on balance I'd recommend the film, but I'd recommend it largely on that basis. It does have its moments, mainly towards the middle where it's more chronologically coherent, but it's mainly worth watching as spectacle.
The framing device used is that of Miss Lawrence previewing a sepia-toned retrospective of her own career, with increasingly frequent widescreen colour interruptions supposed to represent reality versus publicity gloss. It isn't entirely satisfactory, but then few framing devices are.
A succession of choreographed songs in what amounts to a Greatest Hits parade is the principal reason for sitting through -- and doubtless for making -- the film, and Julie Andrews belts out the numbers to good effect. She does, oddly, funk the high note towards the end of "Some Day I'll Find You", an omission all too obvious in such an iconic and familiar number; leaving one to speculate that perhaps it was the pianissimo delivery she couldn't manage {Edit: apparently Gertrude Lawrence couldn't manage the original - presumably this was done in aid of authenticity}. Daniel Massey gets all the best lines as composer and wit Noel Coward, and makes the most of them, rather stealing the show. (He is also aided in this by the way that Coward is depicted as a rather more sympathetic character than the brittle, driven heroine!)
In its format, the film reminded me somewhat of 1992's "Chaplin". but its evocation of place and period is nowhere near as convincing. The big production numbers are suitably impressive, but the sketchy acting opportunities and episodic plot -- not to mention the sheer length! -- make the experience more reminiscent of watching back-to-back editions of "That's Entertainment"; on balance I'd recommend the film, but I'd recommend it largely on that basis. It does have its moments, mainly towards the middle where it's more chronologically coherent, but it's mainly worth watching as spectacle.