As TV biopics go, this is the best I've ever seen. Most of the credit, if not all, must go to the extraordinary Judy Davis. She claims she wasn't all that familiar with Judy Garland, well she could've fool me and she did. I was allowed in without making me feel like a voyeur. There is a sense of fairness about the tragic - yes, tragic - tale of the biggest entertainment performer the world has ever known. What makes Judy Garland so compelling is her unmistakable humanity and her moments of self awareness that come to attack her rather than reassure her. An artist treated like a commodity from day one and that shouldn't come as a big surprise but it does because we see it reflected in Judy's eyes (Garland or Davis, it doesn't matter) I believed it, and what's most remarkable of all, I understood it.
77 Reviews
Probably the Closest Thing We Will Ever Have to a Definitive Biography of a Show Biz Legend
Isaac58556 October 2006
There have been a lot of show business biographies put on film, but for the most part, they are sketchy and fictionalized. Judy Garland was a show business legend, who even though much has been written about her, a definitive film biography has alluded us. An NBC TV movie was made in the 80's called RAINBOW, but it only covered Garland's childhood to the time she was cast in THE WIZARD OF OZ. At long last, we finally were gifted with a surprisingly factual and lavishly produced TV movie called LIFE WITH JUDY GARLAND: ME AND MY SHADOWS, a two-part mini-series which chronicles Garland's life from her first audition for MGM to her tragic death in 1969. Most show biz biopics tend to fictionalize material for dramatic effect or lack of knowledge of the facts, but I trust the facts presented here because there are several events recreated here that I have actually heard Garland herself talk about in interviews. Some things are omitted and/ or glossed over (Her first marriage to David Rose is barely mentioned), but when you only have 2 hours and 45 minutes to tell the story, some fact-trimming is necessary. The filmmakers wisely chose two actresses to play the teenage and adult Garland. Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis both won Emmys for their work as young Frances Gumm and the adult Judy Garland. Davis, in particular, is astonishing in a powerhouse performance that just gets richer and more complex upon repeat viewings. Another wise decision to dub original Garland recordings for Davis' singing voice further enhances the power of the piece. I read that prior to shooting, Davis watched every movie Garland made and as much concert footage as she could get her hands on and her homework pays off in spades here. Her recreations of "The Trolley Song" from MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and "The Man that Got Away" from A STAR IS BORN are positively spooky. Victor Garber gives the performance of his career as Judy's volatile third husband, Sid Luft. Hugh Laurie is a little too masculine as Judy's 2nd hubby, Vincente Minnelli, whose rumored bisexuality prior to meeting Judy is part of Hollywood folklore. There is also solid work from Sonja Smits and John Benjamin Hickey as Judy's good friends, Kay Thompson and Roger Edens and by Dwayne Addams as a young Mickey Rooney. There is also a memorable turn from Marhsa Mason as Ethel Gumm, Judy's hard-nosed mother. A hauntingly accurate look at the tragic life of, arguably, Hollywood's greatest creation, whose very human troubles never allowed her to live up to the creation.
Extraordinary for a TV-Movie
xanagu6920 March 2001
I must say that Judy Garland has never been a favorite icon of mine, although many of my friends adore her. My impressions of Judy Garland have always been the classic star who seemingly had it all but lost it due to drugs and addiction. But what struck me most about "Me and My Shadows" was how the film was able to portray Judy Garland as a human being, not just a typical star immersed in tragedy, which unfortunately is too common among Hollywood legends.
Lorna Luft should be truly proud of this film which will I predict sweep the Emmy Awards this year. Judy Davis was mesmerizing!!!! Watching her performance literally sent chills down my spine. I haven't seen an actress completely transform herself into another actress so brilliantly and believably. Faye Dunaway, who was literally Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest", was not even as good as Davis. She has always, in my opinion, been seriously underrated as a dramatic actress. This performance is undoubtedly the best of her career, and she deserves all of the praise she has been garnering. Tammy Blanchard was also remarkable, and Victor Garber was good as well. The acting performances of all were truly breathtaking and just goes to show that true talent doesn't always lie at the feet of the "Hollywood star machine." The pace of the movie was just right, and it seemed to truly encompass the scope of Judy Garland's life, leaving out minor details such as her first marriage and subsequent abortion.
If there was a complaint, it would probably be that Liza Minnelli was not mentioned a great deal here, but the movie itself was not about Liza. This was a truly well-crafted cinematic effort that doesn't particularly cast Garland as a victim, but not as a saint as well. That balance is needed to truly avoid this movie from becoming a sad, soppy melodrama. Overall, this will stand the test of time and really allow the public to see first and foremost the dark side of Hollywood back in the days of the studio system.
I highly recommend seeing this movie. Even if you're not particularly familiar with Garland, the acting and storyline will keep you glued to the television set.
My rating is 9 out of ten.
Lorna Luft should be truly proud of this film which will I predict sweep the Emmy Awards this year. Judy Davis was mesmerizing!!!! Watching her performance literally sent chills down my spine. I haven't seen an actress completely transform herself into another actress so brilliantly and believably. Faye Dunaway, who was literally Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest", was not even as good as Davis. She has always, in my opinion, been seriously underrated as a dramatic actress. This performance is undoubtedly the best of her career, and she deserves all of the praise she has been garnering. Tammy Blanchard was also remarkable, and Victor Garber was good as well. The acting performances of all were truly breathtaking and just goes to show that true talent doesn't always lie at the feet of the "Hollywood star machine." The pace of the movie was just right, and it seemed to truly encompass the scope of Judy Garland's life, leaving out minor details such as her first marriage and subsequent abortion.
If there was a complaint, it would probably be that Liza Minnelli was not mentioned a great deal here, but the movie itself was not about Liza. This was a truly well-crafted cinematic effort that doesn't particularly cast Garland as a victim, but not as a saint as well. That balance is needed to truly avoid this movie from becoming a sad, soppy melodrama. Overall, this will stand the test of time and really allow the public to see first and foremost the dark side of Hollywood back in the days of the studio system.
I highly recommend seeing this movie. Even if you're not particularly familiar with Garland, the acting and storyline will keep you glued to the television set.
My rating is 9 out of ten.
Remarkable Achievement
Twillhead11 April 2001
No one can capture the true Garland essence, but Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis come as close as humanly possible, and I'll settle for that. While I'm still conflicted over daughter Lorna's motives for writing the book upon which this film is based (and would Judy have approved??), and knowing there are gaps in the story, I was nonetheless astonished at the total virtuosity of this film. Wisdom prevailed when electing Blanchard and Davis to lip-sync to Judy herself, although this undoubtedly created more of a challenge for the actors portraying her. Both rose to the occasion. Ms. Blanchard's performance is little short of incredible--she captures the young Judy with a brilliance that is exceeded only by the subject herself (the "Oz" sequence is almost spooky). Judy Davis performing "The Trolley Song" is a bit jarring (perhaps Ms. Blanchard exited the film a bit too soon), but as the film moves ahead, the perfection of her casting is obvious. She vocally and physically mimics the great Garland in another "tour-de-force" performance. The supporting cast also shines, in particular John Benjamin Hickey as Roger Edens, Judy's vocal coach, mentor, and dear friend. Mr. Hickey's quiet strength matches that of Mr. Edens, a lovely, warm glow in the background. Even Legends have their anchors--Roger was Judy's for many years, and Mr. Hickey's silent presence in this regard is perfect. Garland fan or not, this is captivating show(man-and-woman)ship of the first order. I repeat . . . "virtuosity". In keeping with the great and wonderful Judy Garland.
Judy Davis shines as iconic legend Judy Garland
BaileySEA25 March 2006
Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows is the penultimate of made-for-TV biopics. Both Judy Davis and Tammy Blanchard do fine jobs portraying the legendary singer/actress Judy Garland. Based on daughter Lorna Luft's loving paean to her mother, this is a warm, poignant, buoyant motion picture for the small screen. The re-creation of "Meet Me in St. Louis" is eerily exacting, it's like watching a documentary of the film. Davis quite simply glows as the doomed Judy. Old pro Marsha Mason has the unenviable role of mother Ethel Gumm, and quite convincingly too. This movie was televised five years ago, but it still haunts me. Even Judy would have been proud of this masterful television production. Kudos to all.
Judy IS Judy!
BobLib25 February 2001
What starts out as a slightly better-than-average Hollywood biopic becomes sheer dynamite when Judy Davis takes over the role of the talented, tormented "Rainbow Girl" herself, Judy Garland. She perfectly conveys all the professional and personal highs and lows of a unique show biz legend. Garland herself was always something of a dichotomy. Professionally, at her best ("Oz," the Palace, Carnegie), no one could touch her; as a human being, no one in their right mind would want to BE her. Davis conveys this every step on the way. Even when her vocals are dubbed by the original Garland recordings, you're watching a true pro at work.
Not that she's the only reason for seeing this film by any means. Victor Garber brings his usual understated but powerful presence to the role of Sid Luft, Hugh Laurie is a solid Vincente Minelli, and the late Al Waxman, who died just before the film was aired, makes a good L.B. Mayer.
It would seem that Judy Garland would be just too big of a subject to bring to the screen. But the producers, and a lady named Davis, have done so, brilliantly.
Not that she's the only reason for seeing this film by any means. Victor Garber brings his usual understated but powerful presence to the role of Sid Luft, Hugh Laurie is a solid Vincente Minelli, and the late Al Waxman, who died just before the film was aired, makes a good L.B. Mayer.
It would seem that Judy Garland would be just too big of a subject to bring to the screen. But the producers, and a lady named Davis, have done so, brilliantly.
A repeat visit with an old friend.
mark.waltz14 July 2003
I decided to watch "Life With JG" after seeing Tammy Blanchard as Gypsy Rose Lee on Broadway opposite Bernadette Peters in the classic musical "Gypsy". I had seen this film two times before, and after seeing Blanchard almost top the great Bernadette in "Gypsy", I had to see her go from the most famous stripper in the world to the most famous singer in the world two years before. I was familiar with Tammy from the TV soap "Guiding Light" where she played a young vixen, so to see her as the innocent young girl in "Life With JG" had me very impressed upon my first two viewings. Then, on Broadway, she really made an impact on me, so a month after seeing that, I decided to watch "Life With JG" once again.
As a child, I was brought up on the music and films of Judy Garland, not just "The Wizard of Oz". By the time I was out of High School, I had seen 3/4 of her films and listened to most of her albums. Her intensity as a singer and the obvious love of her audience was right there in the audio. I didn't even have to see her perform. Today, it is as fresh and memorable as ever. In the 1970's, "Annie's" Andrea McCardle played young Judy in a TV movie called "Rainbow" which covered her childhood years up until "The Wizard of Oz". While not bad, McCardle resembled an older Shirley Temple more than she did Judy Garland, and the film suffers greatly because of that. (One really good performance in that film was Piper Laurie as Mama Gumm, played here by Marsha Mason.) Because of this new film, "Rainbow" is probably almost forgotten, although it does exist in a rare video. Tammy Blanchard, on the other hand, is Judy the moment she appears in her blue navy outfit, rushing off to audition at MGM. Some people complain that Blanchard should have continued on with the role past the "Girl Crazy" shooting sequence, and considering that "Meet Me in St. Louis" was only a year later, it does make sense. However, the introduction of Garland to Vincent Minnelli does represent the beginning of her adult years, and that is what probably motivated the producers to change actresses at this point.
Blanchard's highlights are the revelation of her father's death, recreation of "The Wizard of Oz" sequences (with a hysterical impersonation by the actor playing Bert Lahr's lion), as well as the breakdown she suffered upon learning of first love Artie Shaw's marriage to Lana Turner. While some things could have been added, there were too many highlights of Garland's professional life to include here. Once Judy Davis takes over, we get to see where the more difficult and demanding star came into being. Even in spite of her notorious problems on sets and behind the curtain at her concerts, Garland remains lovable and human. While there is the obvious element of tragedy (her addiction and withdrawal from pills, suicide attempts, etc.), one thing which does remain evident is her love of her audience and the love she feels from them. Judy Davis does not do a female impersonator's Judy; She does a Judy Garland that does not even appear to be acting.
Marsha Mason really does justice to the role of Ethel Gumm, Judy's notorious stage mother who would give Mama Rose in "Gypsy" a run for her money. From the time we see Mason's Mama reacting to her husband's attraction for another man to her lack of grief at his death, then up to her banning from the MGM lot, Mason is terrific. She plays Mama as a broken down woman who has nothing else in her life but her daughter's success, and as we see her being pulled away from her life, we begin to feel her pain. Victor Garber, playing a supposedly whitewashed Sid Luft, does a remarkable job. Even if Lorna left out some private details about her father, it is apparent that even with their divorce, he was still drawn in by Judy's emotional power. That power was so intense that apparently total strangers were often drawn under Judy's magical spell.
Like the recent popular Broadway show "Elaine Stritch at Liberty", "Life With Judy Garland" is the story of a woman who has a magical spell on her audience that often brought loneliness into their personal relationships. (I compare Garland and Stritch, although Garland is more well known than Stritch, who mentioned her friendship with Garland in her show). These complex women also share an amazing sense of humor about their own failings as people that never make them seem angry or overly bitter. Their humor, which could be bitter, does allow them to laugh at themselves, and is a valuable lesson in a hard society which makes us cynical before our time. Stories like this are important because they remind us not to ever take ourselves too seriously or forget the funny side of life.
As a child, I was brought up on the music and films of Judy Garland, not just "The Wizard of Oz". By the time I was out of High School, I had seen 3/4 of her films and listened to most of her albums. Her intensity as a singer and the obvious love of her audience was right there in the audio. I didn't even have to see her perform. Today, it is as fresh and memorable as ever. In the 1970's, "Annie's" Andrea McCardle played young Judy in a TV movie called "Rainbow" which covered her childhood years up until "The Wizard of Oz". While not bad, McCardle resembled an older Shirley Temple more than she did Judy Garland, and the film suffers greatly because of that. (One really good performance in that film was Piper Laurie as Mama Gumm, played here by Marsha Mason.) Because of this new film, "Rainbow" is probably almost forgotten, although it does exist in a rare video. Tammy Blanchard, on the other hand, is Judy the moment she appears in her blue navy outfit, rushing off to audition at MGM. Some people complain that Blanchard should have continued on with the role past the "Girl Crazy" shooting sequence, and considering that "Meet Me in St. Louis" was only a year later, it does make sense. However, the introduction of Garland to Vincent Minnelli does represent the beginning of her adult years, and that is what probably motivated the producers to change actresses at this point.
Blanchard's highlights are the revelation of her father's death, recreation of "The Wizard of Oz" sequences (with a hysterical impersonation by the actor playing Bert Lahr's lion), as well as the breakdown she suffered upon learning of first love Artie Shaw's marriage to Lana Turner. While some things could have been added, there were too many highlights of Garland's professional life to include here. Once Judy Davis takes over, we get to see where the more difficult and demanding star came into being. Even in spite of her notorious problems on sets and behind the curtain at her concerts, Garland remains lovable and human. While there is the obvious element of tragedy (her addiction and withdrawal from pills, suicide attempts, etc.), one thing which does remain evident is her love of her audience and the love she feels from them. Judy Davis does not do a female impersonator's Judy; She does a Judy Garland that does not even appear to be acting.
Marsha Mason really does justice to the role of Ethel Gumm, Judy's notorious stage mother who would give Mama Rose in "Gypsy" a run for her money. From the time we see Mason's Mama reacting to her husband's attraction for another man to her lack of grief at his death, then up to her banning from the MGM lot, Mason is terrific. She plays Mama as a broken down woman who has nothing else in her life but her daughter's success, and as we see her being pulled away from her life, we begin to feel her pain. Victor Garber, playing a supposedly whitewashed Sid Luft, does a remarkable job. Even if Lorna left out some private details about her father, it is apparent that even with their divorce, he was still drawn in by Judy's emotional power. That power was so intense that apparently total strangers were often drawn under Judy's magical spell.
Like the recent popular Broadway show "Elaine Stritch at Liberty", "Life With Judy Garland" is the story of a woman who has a magical spell on her audience that often brought loneliness into their personal relationships. (I compare Garland and Stritch, although Garland is more well known than Stritch, who mentioned her friendship with Garland in her show). These complex women also share an amazing sense of humor about their own failings as people that never make them seem angry or overly bitter. Their humor, which could be bitter, does allow them to laugh at themselves, and is a valuable lesson in a hard society which makes us cynical before our time. Stories like this are important because they remind us not to ever take ourselves too seriously or forget the funny side of life.
Judy Judy Judy!!!! (Part 2 Review)
ween-326 February 2001
Judy Davis gets the Emmy for this one. Beyond belief performance. Not since Ben Kingsley in "Gandhi" have I seen anyone inhabit a real-life based character the way Davis does here. A career high note. Hate to say it..but this movie really deserved a theatrical release. It's almost too big for TV. Hats off to ABC either way. Great direction by Ackerman. The attention payed to the nuances is surreal. Blink..and you'll swear you're watching the real deal. Solid support from Victor Garber and Alison Pill as a young Lorna Luft. And Tammy Blanchard just bought herself a career. Wave bye-bye to "The Guiding Light", Tammy. Your boat has just sailed.
There has to be some sort of cosmic yin-yang Zen supernatural otherworldly force at work here that placed one "Judy" in the ruby slippers of another to this effect. There is no other handy explanation. A star is born (Blanchard) and another one goes into supernova (Davis). This is great moviemaking. Now, get this sucker to video where I can watch it without commercial interruptions.
There has to be some sort of cosmic yin-yang Zen supernatural otherworldly force at work here that placed one "Judy" in the ruby slippers of another to this effect. There is no other handy explanation. A star is born (Blanchard) and another one goes into supernova (Davis). This is great moviemaking. Now, get this sucker to video where I can watch it without commercial interruptions.
A descent into Drug Hell.
robert-259-2895411 October 2017
I thought that Tammy Blanchard was eerily like the young Garland. In some scenes, her resemblance and manner took my breath away. But I'm sorry to say that Davis didn't seem to measure up to her performance, or the hype. I'm not taking anything away from her acting, she was superb, as was the rest of the excellent supporting cast. But she just didn't seem to "channel" Judy like Blanchard did. Her lip syncing was spot-on, but not so anything else. On the biopic as a whole, it was like a long, harrowing ride into the pit of substance abuse Hell, certainly not a joy ride. Albeit accurate, this is an unrelentingly depressing film.
A Brilliant Performance
wdavew322122 August 2006
I never thought I would be watching a 170 minute biog on Judy Garland. I doubt that I would have watched a TV biog on Judy Garland at 90 minutes! I figure there was only one Garland and any TV biog attempt would result in a cheap imitation for pure sensationalism. Glad to report that I was wrong. It's all thanks to Judy Davis' mesmerizing performance as the legendary Garland. Once on the screen, Davis left no doubt that she WAS Judy Garland and her performance never looked back from there. Miss Davis seemed to get inside Garland's skin and capture not only mannerisms an physical movements, but the spirit of this troubled legend. A brilliant performance, well supported by a fine cast, good writing (based on the book by daughter Lorna Luft) and excellent production values. Impressive also was Tammy Blanchard as the young Judy Garland. Well worth the time!
A decent if flawed film, a great performance
runamokprods9 June 2016
For the first half this is just a pretty good TV bio-pic, not very subtly hitting the high and low points of Garland's life and career. But then Judy Davis takes over the role and gives an amazing if sometimes over the top performance that galvanizes your attention. She manages to make Judy both a selfish monster and a heartbreaking victim of the system that created her, often both at the same time.
Victor Garber nicely underplays to balance out Davis as Luft, Judy's third husband.
(mild spoiler ahead)
However, the film is dragged down by awful voice overs lifted from Lorna Luft's book about her mother (upon which this is based), the worst and most disastrous at the very end, when, in spite of everything the film has shown us, we're preached to that Judy's life wasn't a tragedy, that she knew the show must go on, and that she was an eternal optimist. This does nothing except pull out the emotional rug from what we just watched which was, by very definition a tragedy; a woman of immense talents hooked on drugs as a young girl by those around her to keep her going, and then slowly being chewed up and spit out by the entertainment industry.
Victor Garber nicely underplays to balance out Davis as Luft, Judy's third husband.
(mild spoiler ahead)
However, the film is dragged down by awful voice overs lifted from Lorna Luft's book about her mother (upon which this is based), the worst and most disastrous at the very end, when, in spite of everything the film has shown us, we're preached to that Judy's life wasn't a tragedy, that she knew the show must go on, and that she was an eternal optimist. This does nothing except pull out the emotional rug from what we just watched which was, by very definition a tragedy; a woman of immense talents hooked on drugs as a young girl by those around her to keep her going, and then slowly being chewed up and spit out by the entertainment industry.
Incredible Performances, But Not Entirely Accurate
gftbiloxi18 April 2005
Arguably the single greatest talent to emerge from golden-era Hollywood, Judy Garland continues to fascinate us even more than four decades after her untimely death. As a singer, she was incomparable; as an actress, she was exceptional; as a star, she was perhaps the most brilliant celebrity of her generation. But behind the brilliance there was a deeply troubled woman who began her career as a child in the hands of a driven mother and an all-powerful studio, who raced through five husbands, who fought a losing battle with chemical dependency throughout most of her life, and who self-destructed again and again--only to arise, phoenix-like, from her own ashes time and time again. It was an extraordinary life.
So it should come as no surprise, really, that this three-hour television falls a bit short. Realistically, it would take a talent of Garland's own scope to bring her fully to the screen. But what the film does right, it does extremely, extremely well--and the centerpieces of the film are the remarkable performances of Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis. Both give extraordinary performances. That said, however, both performances are flawed due to the age of the actresses. Blanchard, who plays the teenage Garland, is clearly too old to be thirteen-ish when the film begins; Davis, who plays Garland from her twenties until her death, is clearly too old to be Garland in her twenties.
But so exceptional are the performances that these are actually minor quibbles. When made up for the role and placed in period attire, both Blanchard and Davis have the look to an absolutely uncanny degree. More importantly, they match each other in their skill at playing Garland, who was one of the most uniquely idiosyncratic personalities of her era--indeed, Davis has been described by many as having "channeled" Garland, and I certainly wouldn't disagree. And the supporting cast is quite good as well, ranging from above average to extremely good, something of a surprise in a made-for-television movie. Equally impressive is the painstaking recreation of the world in which Garland moved; her wardrobe, both on stage and off, has been meticulously recreated right down to the hat she wore for her wedding to Vincent Minnelli. Be it sets, costumes, or props, the design staff did a truly miraculous job.
But the film falls down a bit in both script and detail. Part of this is due to fact that Lorna Luft's memoir was, naturally enough, based on what her mother told her about her life. Doubtlessly Luft accepted much of this as fact, but Garland was notorious for twisting the truth if it would make a good story--and consequently the film includes several depictions of events that by all other accounts didn't happen that way, assuming they happened at all.
When filming THE WIZARD OF OZ, SHADOWS shows Garland being crowded out of the shot by her co-stars, prompting director Victor Flemming to say "You three dirty hams, let that little girl in there!" It was one of Garland's favorite party stories--but it didn't happen. Garland was well known for her ability to perform complex musical numbers with little rehearsal in a single take, and SHADOWS offers her performance of "The Trolley Song" in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS as an example of her ability to do that--but while she certainly could and often did perform her numbers in a single flawless take, she didn't do it for that particular number. You need only look at MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and count the cuts in the sequence for change of camera set up. Perhaps the most obvious gaffe in the film is when Garland is found dead in the bathroom of her London apartment; SHADOWS shows her husband going to the bathroom door and seeing her sprawled out on the floor, clearly dead. In reality, the door was locked and he had to climb out on the roof to look in the window--and from her appearance he was unsure of her condition until he actually got into the room.
Such details aside, the script does a superior job of showing Garland's racy, acid, and often self-mocking sense of humor and her often-hidden but powerful sexuality. It also does a fairly good job of displaying her love-hate relationship with her own talent. But it is extremely spotty, skipping over major events and focusing on considerably more trivial incidents. (Garland's first husband, David Rose, is never seen in the film--and indeed, scarcely mentioned at all.) It lacks flow. And were it not for the incredible performances of both Blanchard and Davis, it would often also lack drama--a pretty astonishing thing when one considers how electrically dramatic Garland's life was from day to day. Perhaps most frustrating, the film also has a certain aloofness from its own subject; we observe Garland, but the script itself never really allows us to get inside her.
In the final analysis, ME AND MY SHADOWS is a film that will most greatly appeal to casual viewers or to new Garland fans, for it does show the main outlines of her life and her career. Hardcore fans, however, will be frustrated by its covert inadequacies--and will be quick to spot the numerous moments when the script goes awry. Still, even with its numerous flaws, Blanchard and Davis are exceptional. And I strongly recommend it on that basis.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
So it should come as no surprise, really, that this three-hour television falls a bit short. Realistically, it would take a talent of Garland's own scope to bring her fully to the screen. But what the film does right, it does extremely, extremely well--and the centerpieces of the film are the remarkable performances of Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis. Both give extraordinary performances. That said, however, both performances are flawed due to the age of the actresses. Blanchard, who plays the teenage Garland, is clearly too old to be thirteen-ish when the film begins; Davis, who plays Garland from her twenties until her death, is clearly too old to be Garland in her twenties.
But so exceptional are the performances that these are actually minor quibbles. When made up for the role and placed in period attire, both Blanchard and Davis have the look to an absolutely uncanny degree. More importantly, they match each other in their skill at playing Garland, who was one of the most uniquely idiosyncratic personalities of her era--indeed, Davis has been described by many as having "channeled" Garland, and I certainly wouldn't disagree. And the supporting cast is quite good as well, ranging from above average to extremely good, something of a surprise in a made-for-television movie. Equally impressive is the painstaking recreation of the world in which Garland moved; her wardrobe, both on stage and off, has been meticulously recreated right down to the hat she wore for her wedding to Vincent Minnelli. Be it sets, costumes, or props, the design staff did a truly miraculous job.
But the film falls down a bit in both script and detail. Part of this is due to fact that Lorna Luft's memoir was, naturally enough, based on what her mother told her about her life. Doubtlessly Luft accepted much of this as fact, but Garland was notorious for twisting the truth if it would make a good story--and consequently the film includes several depictions of events that by all other accounts didn't happen that way, assuming they happened at all.
When filming THE WIZARD OF OZ, SHADOWS shows Garland being crowded out of the shot by her co-stars, prompting director Victor Flemming to say "You three dirty hams, let that little girl in there!" It was one of Garland's favorite party stories--but it didn't happen. Garland was well known for her ability to perform complex musical numbers with little rehearsal in a single take, and SHADOWS offers her performance of "The Trolley Song" in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS as an example of her ability to do that--but while she certainly could and often did perform her numbers in a single flawless take, she didn't do it for that particular number. You need only look at MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and count the cuts in the sequence for change of camera set up. Perhaps the most obvious gaffe in the film is when Garland is found dead in the bathroom of her London apartment; SHADOWS shows her husband going to the bathroom door and seeing her sprawled out on the floor, clearly dead. In reality, the door was locked and he had to climb out on the roof to look in the window--and from her appearance he was unsure of her condition until he actually got into the room.
Such details aside, the script does a superior job of showing Garland's racy, acid, and often self-mocking sense of humor and her often-hidden but powerful sexuality. It also does a fairly good job of displaying her love-hate relationship with her own talent. But it is extremely spotty, skipping over major events and focusing on considerably more trivial incidents. (Garland's first husband, David Rose, is never seen in the film--and indeed, scarcely mentioned at all.) It lacks flow. And were it not for the incredible performances of both Blanchard and Davis, it would often also lack drama--a pretty astonishing thing when one considers how electrically dramatic Garland's life was from day to day. Perhaps most frustrating, the film also has a certain aloofness from its own subject; we observe Garland, but the script itself never really allows us to get inside her.
In the final analysis, ME AND MY SHADOWS is a film that will most greatly appeal to casual viewers or to new Garland fans, for it does show the main outlines of her life and her career. Hardcore fans, however, will be frustrated by its covert inadequacies--and will be quick to spot the numerous moments when the script goes awry. Still, even with its numerous flaws, Blanchard and Davis are exceptional. And I strongly recommend it on that basis.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Comments and Questions
guyb1 March 2001
As a person who makes it a rule to NEVER watch made-for-TV movies (been burned too many times), I must say that this was a good one. I'm not really a fan of Judy Garland, but this got my interest and I have questions:
1) Was Micky Rooney really that gay? Or was that just a colossal miscasting? 2) I don't think that Judy Davis did the singing and I'm curious who that was she was lipsynching to 3) I think that Liza Minnelli was not represented properly. I can believe that maybe Luft was the one who really took care of Judy, but I do know that there was much more to Liza than the goofy performance portrayed here. I heard that Liza and Luft had a big falling out around the time of this book, so maybe that was the reason, but, nevertheless, it was a big hole. 4) The ending gave the distinct impression that Judy committed suicide. Was that ever proven?
1) Was Micky Rooney really that gay? Or was that just a colossal miscasting? 2) I don't think that Judy Davis did the singing and I'm curious who that was she was lipsynching to 3) I think that Liza Minnelli was not represented properly. I can believe that maybe Luft was the one who really took care of Judy, but I do know that there was much more to Liza than the goofy performance portrayed here. I heard that Liza and Luft had a big falling out around the time of this book, so maybe that was the reason, but, nevertheless, it was a big hole. 4) The ending gave the distinct impression that Judy committed suicide. Was that ever proven?
Dull bio-pic fails to capture even a bit of what made Judy so great!
thirteenthfloorelevator20 February 2006
This bio-pic fails on all accounts. It trivialises the great Judy Garland and turns her into a pathetic caricature of what she once was. The main problem with the movie is that it tries to cover 45 years of Judy's life in just three hours. As a direct result of this, monumental events in Judy's life are skimmed over or just ignored altogether? What happened to her public breakdown while on the set of her TV show - not even mentioned in the film. What was the deal with getting Judy to say "If you want the girl next door, go next door", one of Joan Crawfords famous quotes? I would imagine that the last thing anyone wants is to draw comparisons between Garland and Crawford, but apparently not in this pathetic bio-pic.
Written by Judy's daughter Lorna, Lorna is portrayed as an absolute saint, which I get the feeling is distorting the truth. The scenes featuring Mickey Rooney are cringe worthy as the actor in question looks nothing like Rooney ever did. The whole first ten years of Judy's film career are skimmed over, and "The Wizard of oz" is given a more perfunctory treatment than I thought possible. Judy's father is portrayed as a great, caring man, despite real life documentation that suggests he was a very strange man, indeed. Maybe Lorna believes she is honouring her late mothers memory by making this film, but it truly is a disgrace to both her and Judy.
Written by Judy's daughter Lorna, Lorna is portrayed as an absolute saint, which I get the feeling is distorting the truth. The scenes featuring Mickey Rooney are cringe worthy as the actor in question looks nothing like Rooney ever did. The whole first ten years of Judy's film career are skimmed over, and "The Wizard of oz" is given a more perfunctory treatment than I thought possible. Judy's father is portrayed as a great, caring man, despite real life documentation that suggests he was a very strange man, indeed. Maybe Lorna believes she is honouring her late mothers memory by making this film, but it truly is a disgrace to both her and Judy.
She overcame the Wicked Witch only to be destroyed by demons
David, Film Freak11 January 2002
Lorna Luft wrote and produced this epic tale of her mother Judy Garland's often-tragic life in the spotlight.
Frances Gumm starts her life out becoming an actress and singer. She changes her name to Judy Garland and signs a contract with MGM studios who promise her a big break.
That break comes in the form of Dorothy Gale in The Wizard Of Oz. But fame comes at a price. Addictions to drugs and alcohol plus failed marriages and piles of debt leave Judy sprialling out of control.
It's the touching true story of Judy Garland. From her humble beginnings to her dramatic end, this is quite simply, brilliant.
Tammy Blanchard, who plays the younger Judy Garland is so much like her, it's not even funny - and her acting is fantastic, also. 9/1O
Frances Gumm starts her life out becoming an actress and singer. She changes her name to Judy Garland and signs a contract with MGM studios who promise her a big break.
That break comes in the form of Dorothy Gale in The Wizard Of Oz. But fame comes at a price. Addictions to drugs and alcohol plus failed marriages and piles of debt leave Judy sprialling out of control.
It's the touching true story of Judy Garland. From her humble beginnings to her dramatic end, this is quite simply, brilliant.
Tammy Blanchard, who plays the younger Judy Garland is so much like her, it's not even funny - and her acting is fantastic, also. 9/1O
Fascinating
itsbarrie5 August 2006
I can't say I'm Judy Garland fan, but I've always been fascinated by her story. While this film doesn't exactly do the story justice -- how could it in 2-1/2 hours? -- it does offer two performances that you'd almost SWEAR were by Judy herself.
Lots here that's familiar (drugs, drugs, and more drugs) and very little that's not, but it's all done in such a way that if you'd never heard of Judy, you'd have an excellent idea of what she was about just from watching this.
I have to agree with the many people who said that Judy Davis took over the role way too early in the film -- it's pretty unsettling to see young, dewy Judy morph into nervous neurotic Judy so quickly. My only other complaint is that while Hugh Laurie gave a fine performance as Vincente Minelli, he looks NOTHING like him. Odd that they strained so hard to get the actresses playing Judy to look like and move like Judy, but didn't extend the same care to the rest of the cast, or at least with those we're familiar with, i.e. while most of us probably couldn't pick Roger Edens out of a lineup, I think most film fans know what Vincente Minelli looked like.
Judy's story is meaty enough that the network should have made a much longer film -- maybe more of a four- or five-episode miniseries. I'm sure it would have paid off in a big way, and we could have seen fully developed scenes of events which are just hinted at in this film.
Lots here that's familiar (drugs, drugs, and more drugs) and very little that's not, but it's all done in such a way that if you'd never heard of Judy, you'd have an excellent idea of what she was about just from watching this.
I have to agree with the many people who said that Judy Davis took over the role way too early in the film -- it's pretty unsettling to see young, dewy Judy morph into nervous neurotic Judy so quickly. My only other complaint is that while Hugh Laurie gave a fine performance as Vincente Minelli, he looks NOTHING like him. Odd that they strained so hard to get the actresses playing Judy to look like and move like Judy, but didn't extend the same care to the rest of the cast, or at least with those we're familiar with, i.e. while most of us probably couldn't pick Roger Edens out of a lineup, I think most film fans know what Vincente Minelli looked like.
Judy's story is meaty enough that the network should have made a much longer film -- maybe more of a four- or five-episode miniseries. I'm sure it would have paid off in a big way, and we could have seen fully developed scenes of events which are just hinted at in this film.
Halftime Report (First Night Only)
ween-325 February 2001
A star is born, okay. Tammy Blanchard nails the speaking voice and cadences to a tee. And she is proof positive that Judy Garland was, indeed, cloned. I mean..come on! She looks E-X-A-C-T-L-Y like the genuine article. This could well be the biggest breakout role I've seen since Angelique Jolie in "Gia". Sure fire Emmy nominee. Problem is...she's gonna be up against Judy Davis who plays the adult Judy and...once again...is a dead ringer. Given what I've seen so far, I'd cut the damned thing in half down the middle and hand 'em each a slice. Terrific production and we're only halfway done. Watch for this movie to sweep a bunch of tech awards as well, starting with make-up and costuming. Finally...looks like network TV is going to give cable some competition at the Emmys.
Judy Davis is a known quantity. She's been putting in one phenomenal performance after another for years. And she's got a great vehicle here. Blanchard, on the other hand, just fired the booster rockets on what looks to be a big ride. I don't watch the soaps, so I'm blissfully unaware of her work on "Guiding Light". But this one's going to put her on everbody's "A" list immediately. And I'll be the first one on line when she's ready for her next trick. You gotta believe that if she can pull this one off.......
Lorna Luft has to be really happy with this biopic. You couldn't ask for two betters actresses to play your Mommy. See ya manana for the finale.
Judy Davis is a known quantity. She's been putting in one phenomenal performance after another for years. And she's got a great vehicle here. Blanchard, on the other hand, just fired the booster rockets on what looks to be a big ride. I don't watch the soaps, so I'm blissfully unaware of her work on "Guiding Light". But this one's going to put her on everbody's "A" list immediately. And I'll be the first one on line when she's ready for her next trick. You gotta believe that if she can pull this one off.......
Lorna Luft has to be really happy with this biopic. You couldn't ask for two betters actresses to play your Mommy. See ya manana for the finale.
A Major Motion Picture Worthy Production.
appealing_talent5 July 2018
Why this absolutely - 1st Class - biopic was relegated to TV, instead of given a theatrical release, is unfathomable to me. It was a brilliantly acted, particularly by Judy Davis as the adult Garland, and well written, beautifully told story with excellent production values. Such a praise worthy rendering of the legendary singer/actress is certainly better than many, if not most, top notch major motion pictures I've ever seen. Maybe the producers didn't feel Garland's current fan base was substantial enough to warrant a klieg lighted premiere... Your guess is as good as mine. But, whatever the case may be, this is a film made with a great deal of care and genuine Love for its subject. I highly recommend it to any and everyone who enjoyed Garland's work, some of which is highlighted, and for those who are curious about her personal triumphs and tribulations.
In this movie, Judy Garland is a real peach not a lemon...
tiduslionheart9X8 June 2005
What can i say about this fantastic film? It's brilliant! and i only saw this film a week ago. Judy Davis is breath taking as Garland thats why shes my favourite Australian actress, i never seen an actor portray a performer this good since Jamie Foxx in Ray.
When i started seeing Davis perform in costume, and brilliantly lip syncing to Judy's music i just fell in love with the movie and what about Tammy Blanchard, she captures the young innocent Judy perfectly her acting is fantastic.
The film explains the glamorous and tragic life of Judy Garland and i was really impressed by the costumes of the movies that she made, like The wizard of oz and Meet me in st Louis but i would have love to see them recreate "ragtime violin" in Easter Parade, this film is sad and entertaining it really shows a legend, a legend who brought happiness to our hearts. Dorothy found the end of the rainbow, Judy spent her life looking for it she certainly did...
When i started seeing Davis perform in costume, and brilliantly lip syncing to Judy's music i just fell in love with the movie and what about Tammy Blanchard, she captures the young innocent Judy perfectly her acting is fantastic.
The film explains the glamorous and tragic life of Judy Garland and i was really impressed by the costumes of the movies that she made, like The wizard of oz and Meet me in st Louis but i would have love to see them recreate "ragtime violin" in Easter Parade, this film is sad and entertaining it really shows a legend, a legend who brought happiness to our hearts. Dorothy found the end of the rainbow, Judy spent her life looking for it she certainly did...
The Performance of a lifetime
wayno-625 February 2001
Rarely does a movie suspend your disbelief. Even rarer, a television performance. Judy Davis gives the performance of a life time.
I was convinced, this was America's most beloved actress on the little screen.
Kudos for a job well done.
Wayno
I was convinced, this was America's most beloved actress on the little screen.
Kudos for a job well done.
Wayno
Best Biopic I've Ever Seen
clearandfocusedmom16 June 2018
This movie compelled me to write a review, so as many people as possible would know to invest the time to watch the amazing acting, directing, casting, as well as the amazing true story of the incredible Judy Garland told with detail, compassion, warmth and understanding, from the vantage point of Judy's loving daughter, Lorna Luft. How well we come to understand all the players in Garland's life, and how they crashed against her rocky shores. The role of controlling, powerful men, the government and its taxation policies, and her unfortunate dependence on pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol were too much for her to bear. Poor Judy Garland, and bravo Judy Davis for her portrayal. The story is also immensely moved along by recordings of the unforgettable diva herself.
Was this really necessary?
st.lyons31 March 2001
This hocus opus adds nothing of positive value to the legacy of Judy Garland. With such a large number of Judy Garland's performances available on video, CD and DVD, a more balanced treatment of Judy Garland's trials, tribulations and triumphs(!) would still seem to be waiting somewhere in the wings. Furthermore, given the fact that Judy's personal life has been in public domain for a long time (check the number of works available on her life and career) this new and overly abbreviated re-hashing of her life only proves that her daughter's catharsis is really what this is all about and I just don't buy it. And consider the partial sponsorship of this opus by pharmaceutical companies plying their wares with equal time, of course, for the usual spiels about side effects and another message becomes patently clear: this movie (?) is also posing a public service announcement with Lorna Luft's endorsement and Judy Garland's silent seal of approval. Catch the final scene with the actors portraying Lorna, Liza and Joey watching Judy Davis' rendition of "Get Happy" and the sweet little message about mama not approving of some things. Yeeech ! Exoneration is lurking in the wings !
Now, if Lorna Luft had decided to forego a television adaptation of her memoirs and chosen instead to expand "Judy Garland, The Concert Years", we would have been left with a work far more enduring and worthy of her mother's incredible talent. Which is not to say that the above-mentioned documentary was without its faults, but they were indeed minor ones because this documentary never made any claims to be anything other than a tribute to her incredible talent as a performer.
As much as I was moved by Judy Davis' efforts, there was something particularly grotesque about watching Judy Davis give it her all in her rendition of "The Trolley Song" or assorted gems from Carnegie Hall. Try as she might she did not capture the essence of Judy Garland because, in the final analysis, there was only one Judy Garland and she died in 1969.
If choosing Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis guaranteed effective look-alikes, lip-synching, gestures and movements, the final effect is just another drag show. But this time around, a Hollywood drag show far more elaborately staged with a story line that leaves out so much of her personal and professional life that at the end of it all I was asking myself, is that all there is to Judy Garland. For my money, I would rather sit through a drag show that wouldn't attempt to rejuvenate selected trials and tribulations with a smattering of triumphs.
Maybe one of the saddest truths about Judy Garland's life was that throughout much of her career she performed to live instead of living to perform and the reasons for this can be found in the numerous biographies available on the market today. But, at the end of the day, the whys and hows take very little away from her legacy to the many people who are continually inspired by her incredible talent. And, on a far more positive note, the public has been left with a particularly impressive body of work that will always hold countless pleasures and surprises.
I look forward to purchasing more of the real Judy Garland performances. No reasonable(?)facsimiles for me.
Now, if Lorna Luft had decided to forego a television adaptation of her memoirs and chosen instead to expand "Judy Garland, The Concert Years", we would have been left with a work far more enduring and worthy of her mother's incredible talent. Which is not to say that the above-mentioned documentary was without its faults, but they were indeed minor ones because this documentary never made any claims to be anything other than a tribute to her incredible talent as a performer.
As much as I was moved by Judy Davis' efforts, there was something particularly grotesque about watching Judy Davis give it her all in her rendition of "The Trolley Song" or assorted gems from Carnegie Hall. Try as she might she did not capture the essence of Judy Garland because, in the final analysis, there was only one Judy Garland and she died in 1969.
If choosing Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis guaranteed effective look-alikes, lip-synching, gestures and movements, the final effect is just another drag show. But this time around, a Hollywood drag show far more elaborately staged with a story line that leaves out so much of her personal and professional life that at the end of it all I was asking myself, is that all there is to Judy Garland. For my money, I would rather sit through a drag show that wouldn't attempt to rejuvenate selected trials and tribulations with a smattering of triumphs.
Maybe one of the saddest truths about Judy Garland's life was that throughout much of her career she performed to live instead of living to perform and the reasons for this can be found in the numerous biographies available on the market today. But, at the end of the day, the whys and hows take very little away from her legacy to the many people who are continually inspired by her incredible talent. And, on a far more positive note, the public has been left with a particularly impressive body of work that will always hold countless pleasures and surprises.
I look forward to purchasing more of the real Judy Garland performances. No reasonable(?)facsimiles for me.
Above average TV film
clydefrogg5 May 2002
Me and My Shadows is an above average TV film that tells an average story of Judy Garland's life. The acting, particularly by the two Judy's, Tammy Blanchard and Judy Davis, as well as Victor Garber as Sid Luft, is outstanding. The producers did an outstanding job of recreating decades of history. But this telling of Judy's life, based largely on Lorna Luft's recollection, would have been much better told with Get Happy or a more personal account of Judy's life.
Again, this is a pretty good film. The acting is outstanding, and the recreations of the musical numbers from some of Judy's films, particulary "Meet Me In St. Louis" and "A Star is Born" is incredible. The bit players, like Mickey Rooney, Louis Mayer and Vincente Minelli were also superbly cast.
However, this production is bogged down with a number of problems. First and foremost, Judy Davis takes over the role WAY too early. The filming of Meet Me In St. Louis started in 1943, when Judy was 21 years old. Judy Davis is 45. You do the math. Now, drugs and other factors did cause Judy to age pretty badly, but that really didn't happen until the fifties, when Judy hit her 30's. Twenty one year old girls do not have horribly visible wrinkles. Tammy Blanchard did an outstanding job, and should have held the role until 1950's Summer Stock, which isn't covered in the film.
Which leads me to another problem I had with this film: important parts of Judy's life/career are not covered, Summer Stock being one of them. After "Over the Rainbow", "Get Happy" is probably Judy's most well known song. And the story of how that number gets into the film was worth being told. The film, without commercials, is about 2 1/2 hours, and too much time is spent beating us over the head about Judy's pill problems. There are other aspects of Judy and her life that needed to be mentioned, as well, such as her promiscuity with characters such as Artie Shaw, her wild teenage years, and World War II, which all get absolutely no mention. Practically the last half hour of the film is more about Lorna Luft than Judy. Who cares about Lorna Luft???!!!
In addition to those things, I also have a problem with the way "facts" are dropped throughout the film. The characters don't speak the way people normally speak. It sounds awkward to hear Judy Garland tell Vincente Minelli that he and Gene Kelly are whispering all the time. She would have called him "Gene" or "Kelly", not "Gene Kelly". Or the way Judy and her friends throw out generic insults to the other Best Actress nominees Judy is up against in 1954 (Incidentally, Grace Kelly totally deserved that Oscar). There are silly speeches made by the characters to help move the script along where they would have been better served actually adding the scenes that they refer to. Judy's problems with Bubsy Berkeley were well documented, and he caused her an inordinate amount of grief over the years. A major part of Judy's early career that's just sort of swept along by a quick shot of Berkeley having a mild tantrum and Judy making an all encompasing speech about it. The film neglects many major characters in Judy's life, but for some reason, bothers to introduce some of them, only to never be heard from again. The scene where Judy meets Lana Turner is pointless if they're not going to show Judy's competition with Lana and her affair with Artie Shaw that ended with Turner taking him away from Judy. Same thing with Berkeley. Either tell the whole story, or don't bother introducing the character. Even major characters in the film are underdeveloped, Sid Luft being an example. This is a guy with a serious gambling problem and a very bad temper, who is pretty much angelically played by Victor Garber.
This production really should have been 4 or 5 hours. But as a 2 1/2 hour production, they should have cut some of the redundant scenes (pill popping), dug deeper into what they underdeveloped, and moved the film along with shots of newspaper and magazine headlines and radio and movienews voiceovers. They actually did do that in one part of the film; I don't know why they didn't do it throughout. One place in particular that something like this was needed was after Judy's first show at Carnegie Hall, which was considered a legendary perfect masterpiece by everyone who saw it, and one of the high points of Judy's entire career. The magnitude of this event is not conveyed in this film.
My final problem with this film is the passive way in which Judy and "her shadows" are filmed. This was a very emotionally unstable woman with a lot of serious issues. Judy Davis's portrayal of THIS woman, especially in the later years, is very shallow and too driven by incidents that occur than by whatever torment Judy Garland was actually experiencing.
It's hard to expect too much from a TV movie. Especially since they have to be designed to appeal to the masses and the short attention spans of people. But who was this film made for? Certainly not the big fans of Judy Garland, who like me, I'm sure wanted more depth and accuracy. This film was targeted to a general audience and assumes people have little or no knowledge of Judy, and don't want to find out too much. But there is plenty of good here, and it's entertaining. "B-"
Again, this is a pretty good film. The acting is outstanding, and the recreations of the musical numbers from some of Judy's films, particulary "Meet Me In St. Louis" and "A Star is Born" is incredible. The bit players, like Mickey Rooney, Louis Mayer and Vincente Minelli were also superbly cast.
However, this production is bogged down with a number of problems. First and foremost, Judy Davis takes over the role WAY too early. The filming of Meet Me In St. Louis started in 1943, when Judy was 21 years old. Judy Davis is 45. You do the math. Now, drugs and other factors did cause Judy to age pretty badly, but that really didn't happen until the fifties, when Judy hit her 30's. Twenty one year old girls do not have horribly visible wrinkles. Tammy Blanchard did an outstanding job, and should have held the role until 1950's Summer Stock, which isn't covered in the film.
Which leads me to another problem I had with this film: important parts of Judy's life/career are not covered, Summer Stock being one of them. After "Over the Rainbow", "Get Happy" is probably Judy's most well known song. And the story of how that number gets into the film was worth being told. The film, without commercials, is about 2 1/2 hours, and too much time is spent beating us over the head about Judy's pill problems. There are other aspects of Judy and her life that needed to be mentioned, as well, such as her promiscuity with characters such as Artie Shaw, her wild teenage years, and World War II, which all get absolutely no mention. Practically the last half hour of the film is more about Lorna Luft than Judy. Who cares about Lorna Luft???!!!
In addition to those things, I also have a problem with the way "facts" are dropped throughout the film. The characters don't speak the way people normally speak. It sounds awkward to hear Judy Garland tell Vincente Minelli that he and Gene Kelly are whispering all the time. She would have called him "Gene" or "Kelly", not "Gene Kelly". Or the way Judy and her friends throw out generic insults to the other Best Actress nominees Judy is up against in 1954 (Incidentally, Grace Kelly totally deserved that Oscar). There are silly speeches made by the characters to help move the script along where they would have been better served actually adding the scenes that they refer to. Judy's problems with Bubsy Berkeley were well documented, and he caused her an inordinate amount of grief over the years. A major part of Judy's early career that's just sort of swept along by a quick shot of Berkeley having a mild tantrum and Judy making an all encompasing speech about it. The film neglects many major characters in Judy's life, but for some reason, bothers to introduce some of them, only to never be heard from again. The scene where Judy meets Lana Turner is pointless if they're not going to show Judy's competition with Lana and her affair with Artie Shaw that ended with Turner taking him away from Judy. Same thing with Berkeley. Either tell the whole story, or don't bother introducing the character. Even major characters in the film are underdeveloped, Sid Luft being an example. This is a guy with a serious gambling problem and a very bad temper, who is pretty much angelically played by Victor Garber.
This production really should have been 4 or 5 hours. But as a 2 1/2 hour production, they should have cut some of the redundant scenes (pill popping), dug deeper into what they underdeveloped, and moved the film along with shots of newspaper and magazine headlines and radio and movienews voiceovers. They actually did do that in one part of the film; I don't know why they didn't do it throughout. One place in particular that something like this was needed was after Judy's first show at Carnegie Hall, which was considered a legendary perfect masterpiece by everyone who saw it, and one of the high points of Judy's entire career. The magnitude of this event is not conveyed in this film.
My final problem with this film is the passive way in which Judy and "her shadows" are filmed. This was a very emotionally unstable woman with a lot of serious issues. Judy Davis's portrayal of THIS woman, especially in the later years, is very shallow and too driven by incidents that occur than by whatever torment Judy Garland was actually experiencing.
It's hard to expect too much from a TV movie. Especially since they have to be designed to appeal to the masses and the short attention spans of people. But who was this film made for? Certainly not the big fans of Judy Garland, who like me, I'm sure wanted more depth and accuracy. This film was targeted to a general audience and assumes people have little or no knowledge of Judy, and don't want to find out too much. But there is plenty of good here, and it's entertaining. "B-"
An amazing movie, well done for most.
love_4pink25 February 2006
And I say well done for MOST. I adore this movie, it was amazing, brilliant. Most of the cast did extremely well. However, there are slight things I'd like to change.
Judy Davis, I have no doubt, is a great actress. But her role as the older Judy, was too long, and not that great. I would have accepted her stepping in around the time Judy Garland was in her forties, or late thirties. She didn't seem to me to look the part. Her face was in no resemblance to Judy's. Judy's face, no matter how old she was, was always soft, round, and welcoming. I thought Davis' face was harsh, and almost mean.
If they couldn't have cut Judy Davis out, then they should have had Tammy Blanchard step in and keep playing the younger, more vibrant Judy, through her twenties, maybe even thirties. If Tammy could play a twelve year old at twenty five, I think she could hack a thirty-year old. I was amazed at Blanchard's performance, and she really did resemble Judy Garland.
Don't think this is telling you it was a bad film, it was a very excellent film, one of my favorites, and I urge you to see it.
Judy Davis, I have no doubt, is a great actress. But her role as the older Judy, was too long, and not that great. I would have accepted her stepping in around the time Judy Garland was in her forties, or late thirties. She didn't seem to me to look the part. Her face was in no resemblance to Judy's. Judy's face, no matter how old she was, was always soft, round, and welcoming. I thought Davis' face was harsh, and almost mean.
If they couldn't have cut Judy Davis out, then they should have had Tammy Blanchard step in and keep playing the younger, more vibrant Judy, through her twenties, maybe even thirties. If Tammy could play a twelve year old at twenty five, I think she could hack a thirty-year old. I was amazed at Blanchard's performance, and she really did resemble Judy Garland.
Don't think this is telling you it was a bad film, it was a very excellent film, one of my favorites, and I urge you to see it.
Priceless, Unforgettable
lee-150-85222620 December 2014
Judy Garland was the greatest singer I ever heard, but her life was the greatest tragedy I ever witnessed. Having grown up watching Judy Garland and following her tortured romances, attempted suicides, battles with the film studios and TV networks, and learning of the ways in which she was robbed of her hard earned income and seeing the IRS seize her home and put her on the street, I felt her pain. Then, too, her drug addiction was imposed on her by the film studies who drove her to work to exhaustion, all when she was still a child. To capture such a life on film is a daunting challenge.
Judy Dafvis portrays Garland with truth, pathos, empathy, passion, love and tears. Her every word and expression are totally believable. She and her supporting cast enthrall the viewer in a magic spell and leave the viewer drained emotionally,but grateful for experiencing one of the most unforgettable biographies of our time. Thank you Judy and all, ever so much!!!
Judy Dafvis portrays Garland with truth, pathos, empathy, passion, love and tears. Her every word and expression are totally believable. She and her supporting cast enthrall the viewer in a magic spell and leave the viewer drained emotionally,but grateful for experiencing one of the most unforgettable biographies of our time. Thank you Judy and all, ever so much!!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
