The problem with most of the people who complain about this film is: THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO JUDGE IT ON ITS OWN MERIT.
They, either, hate it because she's not playing another Poppins/Maria von Trapp (which, for anyone daring to call themselves a Julie fan: is the ultimate blind disrespect for the extra dimension of ability her acting CLEARLY matures with in "Star!") or...they hate it precisely because they thought Poppins/Sound of Music was the sort of frothy fare she -in, mainly, the critics' minds- should've been confined to doing(!).
I believe "Star!" is the last historical document of true Old Hollywood-style imagination, escapism, and glamour; made by people from an era with the most dedicated level of craftsmanship (something which, unfortunately, the modern world does not seem to have the humanity to value anymore). The BEST person in the cinematic universe of the mid-'60s that was left to exemplify those qualities was Julie Andrews.
The biggest problem, though, the story has (besides; taking into account the number of decades they had to squeeze together all at once) is, that: (for whatever reason) Wise -or writer Fairchild?- exaggerates Gertie's nastiness to the extreme of making the main character almost the villain of her own story(!). Why(?)...they, surely(?), would've had input from Noel Coward and Richard Aldrich (Lawrence's second husband) themselves to provide enough of a "living portrait" into what Gertie was like(?). So, that element got me interested in wanting to learn about the ACTUAL personalities depicted in it and, finding out how much the same-or-different fact was from fiction. The character insight Wise couldn't hit upon here, I've concluded, was: recognizing Gertie's flakey and mercurial traits just seemed -in *real life* terms- to be more a result of...someone caught up in the petulant and rakish generation of (young) Britons then-living fast in the wake of all the hardships and death of WWI; rather than it being some kind of conspiratorial "meaness" which was constantly motivating her. The only times the dramatic segments of the story show any relatable spark are, ironically, when supporting characters challenge the materialistic contrivance of Gertie's portrayal (ex: the running thread of Massey's excellent pastiche of Coward providing a disciplined counter-balance; her trying to reconnect with her daughter; and the arrival of Richard Crenna in the last Act to finally stop her from self-destruction...THESE are the moments, unfortunately ever so few, anyone with any objectivity becomes mesmerized by the way Julie Andrews' acting chops grew a lot deeper fast).
"STAR!" is like having a "music video" of a Julie Andrews Broadway performance from the prime of her career. She even is allowed to show a sassy, sex appeal to alluring effect (which, here, still resonates a naturally-captivating power...unlike the later films her forever miserable-seeming Svengali second husband could never gracefully incorporate into his recycled slapstick vanities)!
They, either, hate it because she's not playing another Poppins/Maria von Trapp (which, for anyone daring to call themselves a Julie fan: is the ultimate blind disrespect for the extra dimension of ability her acting CLEARLY matures with in "Star!") or...they hate it precisely because they thought Poppins/Sound of Music was the sort of frothy fare she -in, mainly, the critics' minds- should've been confined to doing(!).
I believe "Star!" is the last historical document of true Old Hollywood-style imagination, escapism, and glamour; made by people from an era with the most dedicated level of craftsmanship (something which, unfortunately, the modern world does not seem to have the humanity to value anymore). The BEST person in the cinematic universe of the mid-'60s that was left to exemplify those qualities was Julie Andrews.
The biggest problem, though, the story has (besides; taking into account the number of decades they had to squeeze together all at once) is, that: (for whatever reason) Wise -or writer Fairchild?- exaggerates Gertie's nastiness to the extreme of making the main character almost the villain of her own story(!). Why(?)...they, surely(?), would've had input from Noel Coward and Richard Aldrich (Lawrence's second husband) themselves to provide enough of a "living portrait" into what Gertie was like(?). So, that element got me interested in wanting to learn about the ACTUAL personalities depicted in it and, finding out how much the same-or-different fact was from fiction. The character insight Wise couldn't hit upon here, I've concluded, was: recognizing Gertie's flakey and mercurial traits just seemed -in *real life* terms- to be more a result of...someone caught up in the petulant and rakish generation of (young) Britons then-living fast in the wake of all the hardships and death of WWI; rather than it being some kind of conspiratorial "meaness" which was constantly motivating her. The only times the dramatic segments of the story show any relatable spark are, ironically, when supporting characters challenge the materialistic contrivance of Gertie's portrayal (ex: the running thread of Massey's excellent pastiche of Coward providing a disciplined counter-balance; her trying to reconnect with her daughter; and the arrival of Richard Crenna in the last Act to finally stop her from self-destruction...THESE are the moments, unfortunately ever so few, anyone with any objectivity becomes mesmerized by the way Julie Andrews' acting chops grew a lot deeper fast).
"STAR!" is like having a "music video" of a Julie Andrews Broadway performance from the prime of her career. She even is allowed to show a sassy, sex appeal to alluring effect (which, here, still resonates a naturally-captivating power...unlike the later films her forever miserable-seeming Svengali second husband could never gracefully incorporate into his recycled slapstick vanities)!