#cal bernstein

[retropopcult]

"The 'Beatnik' community of San Francisco's North Beach district, socializing at a local coffee house and bagel shop." (The Co-Existence Bagel Shop at Grant Avenue and Green Street.) Photographed September 1958 by Cal Bernstein for the Look magazine article "The Bored, the Bearded and the Beat."

[elvisomar]

Jay Ward, creator and animator of Rocky & Bullwinkle, Peabody & Sherman, Dudley Do-Right, Tom Slick, Cap'n Crunch, Quisp & Quake, and much more.

Photograph by Cal Bernstein for Playboy (1963)

[paralleljulieverse]

Star!, the 1968 musical biopic of Gertrude Lawrence celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, signalled a substantial shift for the on-screen persona of Julie Andrews. Although the actress had tackled slightly ‘darker’ roles in some of her previous dramatic films –– notably, The Americanization of Emily (1964), Hawaii (1966) and Torn Curtain (1966) –– her star image in this era was primarily defined by the trio of hit screen musicals –– Mary Poppins (1964), The Sound of Music (1965) and Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967). Together these family-friendly blockbusters cemented a popular ‘nice girl’ image humorously described by one commentator of the time as “Miss Sunshine of the Sixties” (Coleman, 118). 

The part of Gertrude Lawrence, by contrast, was no sunny musical ingenue. As depicted in Star!, she is an ambitious arriviste driven to theatrical and social success at all costs. A self-absorbed hedonist, Gertie drinks, swears, and leaves a trail of broken romances and –– perhaps, most subversive vis-à-vis the traditional Julie Andrews screen image –– abandoned children in her wake. Much of the film’s commercial underperformance has been attributed to the difficulty audiences of the time had in accepting Julie Andrews in such a radically atypical role (Kennedy, 154; Silverman, 131). Even the Dame herself subscribes to this theory, musing in retrospect that:

“It was a time of enormous change for me and for movies…And people then were not ready to accept me in an unsympathetic role like Gertrude Lawrence in Star!” (Anderson, 27).

Things weren’t possibly helped much by the film’s pre-release publicity campaign. The second of two films that Julie was contracted to make for Twentieth Century-Fox, Star! was initially announced in late 1964, before her first film, The Sound of Music was even in the can (Scheuer, V-15). By the time Star! was ready for production, The Sound of Music had become the highest grossing film of all time and Fox spared no expense in promoting their new big Julie Andrews musical. The studio assigned not one but two Publicity Directors to handle the film, Howard Newman and Mike Kaplan. Together they helmed what was described as “the biggest publicity barrage in Hollywood history” with countless media releases, photographs, interviews, and PR stories (Edwards). 

From the outset, Fox was quick to promote Star! as a reunion of the “dream team” behind The Sound of Music: star Julie Andrews, director Robert Wise and producer Saul Chaplin (”Movie Call Sheet,” IV-10).  “Julie Andrews…returns to singing and dancing in Star! with the same two movie makers who guided The Sound of Music,” trumpeted a widely syndicated press release to mark the start of shooting in early 1967. “If any picture is likely to match The Sound of Music in public popularity, it will be Star!” (Kaplan, B-10). As a purely attention-grabbing marketing strategy, it made sense to play up The Sound of Music connections, but it arguably served to foster false expectations that Star! was set to be another upbeat family musical. 

During the film’s long 18 month production, media articles started to hint that Star! marked a change of pace for Julie. However, the focus was largely on change at the level of visual style with Star! framed as little more than a cosmetic makeover for “our Julie”: 

“To play Gertrude Lawrence should give Julie Andrews a much deserved chance to prove what a charmer she is. On the screen Julie has been hidden under nun’s robes and missionary muumuus for the past two years…In Gertrude Lawrence’s chiffon and ostrich she should come alive as a glamorous woman instead of a wholesome girl” (Sheppard, D1).

Or again:

“In ‘Star!’ [Julie is] playing her first glamorous role, a musical comedy star based on the life of Gertrude Lawrence. Donald Brooks designed a $250,000 wardrobe for her, not including the $2,500,000 worth of real jewels supplied by Cartier’s in New York…It’s a chic and elegant Julie you’ll be seeing in ‘Star!’, singing more than two dozen songs by Noel Coward, Kurt Weil, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and other great composers” (Sherman, B-3).

The net effect of these widespread media reports was to present Star! as a variation on the classic Cinderella ‘makeover’ musical which had been central to Julie’s stardom from My Fair Lady to Thoroughly Modern Millie (Cantu 2015). Small point that Julie’s new character was possibly more Wicked Stepmother than Cinderella.

One of the most spectacular examples of the promotional framing of Star! as fairytale makeover is this lavish cover spread from the popular US weekly magazine, Look. Hitting the stands in mid-September 1967 –– nine months before Star!’s UK premiere and a full year before its US release –– the magazine spread is essentially a photographic panegyric to Julie as ‘glammed up’ princess with costume designer Donald Brooks cast in the the role of symbolic Fairy Godmother:

“At this point, Star! is only half-born…However, publicity on the Robert Wise production for 20th Century-Fox starts now, and its uproar will echo immediately through the world of fashion. Julie will wear 124 different costumes in Star! They are all glamorous, a word invented for the likes of Gertie Lawrence and captured now by designer Donald Brooks. For women who do not want to follow the hippie road or slick moon-blast to fashion, here is salvation” (Zill, 63).

In glossy full page shots by famed photographer, Cal Bernstein, Julie is showcased in some of Brook’s most lavish costumes, set against a series of fantasy backdrops courtesy of the Fox prop department: Julie as darling flapper, as ‘swellegant’ society lady, as landed gentry. It’s a stunning preview of "Julie’s Dazzling New Look” but it offers nary a hint about “Julie’s Acidic New Personality”!

On its release, reviews of Star! were sharply mixed. The film garnered more praise than is often remembered, but among the many brickbats, critics were quick to highlight the jarring disjunction between Julie’s received star image and her waspish new role. In a typical example, Renata Adler* of The New York Times wrote:  

“Miss Andrews, who plays Gertrude Lawrence, is not at her best in this one. There is some sort of clash between her special niceness and innocence and the attitude that the film, directed by Robert Wise (of ‘The Sound of Music’), has toward the star of ‘Private Lives’ and ‘The King and I’" (Adler, 21).

Could this type of response have been averted with a more careful pre-release framing of the film and its casting of Julie ‘against type’? Possibly, but then Star!’s problems were never limited to the film’s surprise revision of Julie’s ‘girl next door’ persona. Failure may be a proverbial orphan but in the case of Star! it most definitely had ‘multiple fathers.’ Some of the other factors operative in the film’s underperformance will likely be flagged in future posts but the Look magazine cover from 1967 provides a telling insight into one of them. The cover’s uneasy juxtaposition of Julie’s fantasy glamour makeover alongside headline allusions to the war in Vietnam and rising murder rates serves a symbolic snapshot of the rapidly brewing social tumult that would rise to engulf America and bedevil the reception of Star! and other big screen musicals of the era. 

Variously dubbed ‘the year that rocked the world’, 'the year of awakening’, ‘the year of revolt’, 1968 was nothing if not a watershed moment of profound social upheaval. As post-war baby boomers came of age and countercultural youth movements reached critical mass, “there occurred a spontaneous combustion of rebellious spirits around the world” united by “a sense of alienation from the established order and a profound distaste for authoritarianism in any form” (Kurlansky, xvii). In such a context, the complexion and tastes of movie audiences were, like the times, a-changin’ fast. Small youth-oriented and iconoclastic social realist films like The Graduate (1967) Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Easy Rider (1969) were the new order of the day and, almost overnight, big budget musicals like Star! were deemed woefully old-fashioned, even irrelevant.

In a remarkably hostile piece that is possibly more cultural symptomatology than actual film review, Robert Kotlowitz, resident critic for Harper’s magazine, took Star! to task for what he saw as the film’s reactionary obliviousness to America’s changing zeitgeist. The filmmakers, he writes, seem to:

“have simply strolled over to Hollywood’s immense fantasy bin –– in which slivers of our national psyche lie buried –– and casually plucked dozens of the gaudiest clichés from the dust and packaged them as a Technicolor extravaganza…[Star!] is less concerned with the biography of Gertrude Lawrence than with using the rags-to-riches, triumphs-and-heartaches outline of her story to define an extinct type of glamor, the ideal of an anti-serious and pre-pop generation…it’s impossible to imagine the John Lennon legend ever receiving this kind of treatment “ (169).

Not sure about John Lennon –– though fifty years after the fact, one would be hard pressed to claim his legend hasn’t been subject to its own forms of clichéd idealisation –– but Kotlowitz’s diatribe certainly gives a sense of the extent to which Star! suffered substantial fallout from the era’s rapidly transforming social climate. 

And, pace Kotlowitz’s testy dismissal of the film as “extinct glamor”, Star! possibly offers its own eloquent rejoinder when, in a spirited defence of Gertie’s mercurial eccentricities, Noël Coward grandly declaims: 

“I know she’s maddening, infuriating and impossible…but she’s also probably the most beautiful and entrancing creature ever to walk onto a stage. Glamour is a very overworked and quite indefinable word but I think the world could do with a little of her brand of it at the moment” (Fairchild, 142).

Five decades on, some of us are still entranced by the glamour of Star!…warts and all! ___________________________

Notes:

* It was widely reported that Renata Adler left the press screening of Star! early due to illness. The fact that she went ahead to file a negative, and dismissively short, review despite only having seen half the film prompted an outraged letter to the editor from Twentieth Century-Fox head, Daryl F. Zanuck. It was one of several gaffes that marked Adler’s brief but tempestuous tenure as resident film critic at The New York Times (Roberts, 181ff).

Sources:

Adler, Renata. “Screen: ‘Star!’ Arrives: Julie Andrews Featured in Movie at Rivoli.” The New York Times. 23 October 1968: 21.

Anderson, George. “Andrews Garned in New Image.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 23 March 1982: 27, 30.

Cantu, Maya. American Cinderellas on the Broadway Musical Stage: Imagining the Working Girl from Irene to Gypsy. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015.

Coleman, John. “Per Adua ad Julie.” New Statesman. 26 July 1968: 118.

Edwards, T.J. “The Saga of ‘Star!’”. Star! Special Edition LaserDisc. Beverley Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, 1993.

Fairchild, William. Star! Unpublished screenplay. Final version: 26 January 1967. 

Kaplan, Mike. “Julie Andrews to Film ‘Star’.” The San Bernadino County Sun. 29 April 1967: B-10.

Kennedy, Matthew. Roadshow!: The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Kotlowitz, Robert. “Films: ‘Star!’, ‘Finian’s Rainbow’, ‘Hot Millions’.” Harper’s. Vol. 237. No. 1422, November 1968: 168-171.

Kurlansky, Mark. 1968: The Year that Rocked the World. New York: Random House, 2004.

“Movie Call Sheet.” The Los Angeles Times. 24 May 1965: IV-10.

Roberts, Jerry. The Complete History of American Film Criticism. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Press, 2010.

Scheuer, Philip. “Julie Andrews Just Right for Gertie.” The Los Angeles Times. 2 December 1964: V-15.

Sheppard, Eugenia. “Julie Will Play Gertrude Lawrence Role.” The Honolulu Advertiser. 7 November 1966: D1.

Sherman, Eddie. “’STAR’ Communique.” Honolulu Advertiser. 8 August 1967: B-3.

Silverman, Stephen M. The Fox That Got away: The Last Days of the Zanuck Dynasty at Twentieth Century-Fox. Seacusus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1988.

Zill, Jo Ahern. “Julie Plays Gertie.” Look. Vol. 31, no. 19. 19 September 1967: 63-68.

Copyright © Brett Farmer 2018

[mudwerks]

April 1958. "The 'Beatnik' community of San Francisco's North Beach district, socializing at a local coffee house, at a 'beat' party and other activities." 35mm negative from photos by Cal Bernstein for the Look magazine assignment "The Bored, the Bearded and the Beat." View full size.