NitrateVille.com

Finally got a chance to see this lovely movie: LUCKY STAR (1929) from the Borgaze set. In my opinion it is the best of the Gaynor/Farrell colaborations. Charles Farrell was especially good as the sensitive war victim. It is his best performance of all. Janet Gaynor's character seemed a bit "feeble" to me. And the ending was a bit unbelievable and saccharine, BUT the visuals and the style holds up very well.

Danny

Yeah, I don't know what it is about the Gaynor/Farrell combo but they suck me in every time and "Lucky Star" is no different. EXTREMELY implausible ending on this one but I love it just the same.

LouieD wrote:Yeah, I don't know what it is about the Gaynor/Farrell combo but they suck me in every time and "Lucky Star" is no different. EXTREMELY implausible ending on this one but I love it just the same.

IIRC, the Barthelmess feature THE PATENT LEATHER KID - made a year or two earlier - had a similar ending.

The Barthelmess left me seething, thinking of all the WWI vets who came home crippled. But like y'all, I was completely taken in by Lucky Star.

I think a lot of it has to do with, for the lack of a better term, the Murnau influence. The silent Gaynor-Farrells all have a fairy-tale aspect to them. I think that makes their unrealistic endings easier to swallow.

As for Lucky Star, I think it's Charles Farrell's best performance in any of his films with Janet Gaynor. But I would rank their films like Street Angel and Seventh Heaven among the great silent films.

I love The Patent Leather Kid and hope it's in line to be restored. This one offers a great performance by Richard Barthelmess (Oscar nominated) and deserved to be better known.

Danny wrote:Finally got a chance to see this lovely movie: LUCKY STAR (1929) from the Borgaze set. In my opinion it is the best of the Gaynor/Farrell colaborations. Charles Farrell was especially good as the sensitive war victim. It is his best performance of all. Janet Gaynor's character seemed a bit "feeble" to me. And the ending was a bit unbelievable and saccharine, BUT the visuals and the style holds up very well.

Danny

I agree totally. I liked Farrell's performance much better in this than in the more famous "Seventh Heaven." He fit the part much better. Chico was a little silly to me. He had obviously honed up on his acting skills in this one.

silentscreen wrote: I agree totally. I liked Farrell's performance much better in this than in the more famous "Seventh Heaven." He fit the part much better. Chico was a little silly to me. He had obviously honed up on his acting skills in this one.

Reviving an older thread: I just watched Lucky Star last night. Agree about Farrell; this is the first time he impressed me as something other than a lovely side of beef hired to accessorize Janet Gaynor. He gave a real and very touching performance in this. Having now seen 7th Heaven and Lucky Star almost back to back (oh, OK, I crammed in more Borzage, Fritz Lang, Stella Dallas, and Iron Man II), I can say I liked Lucky Star better than 7th Heaven. Although both were lovely.

The ending is OTT, but like Harlett, where the similar ending of The Patent Leather Kid annoyed me, this didn't. I was firmly in Borzage-Land, so bring on the OTT. I also liked the Caliendo score on this lots.

Was Janet Gaynor excruciatingly tiny, or was Farrell huge? Or was it a combination of the two?

Frederica wrote: Having now seen 7th Heaven and Lucky Star almost back to back (oh, OK, I crammed in more Borzage, Fritz Lang, Stella Dallas, and Iron Man II), I can say I liked Lucky Star better than 7th Heaven. Although both were lovely.

Yes, but how do they compare to Iron Man II?

rollot24 wrote:

Frederica wrote: Having now seen 7th Heaven and Lucky Star almost back to back (oh, OK, I crammed in more Borzage, Fritz Lang, Stella Dallas, and Iron Man II), I can say I liked Lucky Star better than 7th Heaven. Although both were lovely.

Yes, but how do they compare to Iron Man II?

There weren't as many explosions and I don't know what the costume designer was thinking, forgetting a shiny red metal suit for Janet Gaynor. The mortality rate in Iron Man was lower than in Kriemhild's Revenge, though.

Was Janet Gaynor excruciatingly tiny, or was Farrell huge? Or was it a combination of the two?

IMDB says 6'2" for him and 5' for her. Normally I'd subtract at least two inches from any reported height figure, but in this case I could believe those... or at least the ratio.

Frederica wrote: I don't know what the costume designer was thinking, forgetting a shiny red metal suit for Janet Gaynor.

Hmm ...I'd like to see that.

I think this is my favorite of the Farrell/Gaynor films, though I love all three. I find this one the most romantic. He towers over her, but they're so cute together.

Janet Gaynor was 5' 8" but had it in her contract to always be filmed while standing in a hole.

It is a little-known fact that Janet Gaynor was actually a hobbit. That's why in all of her films you never see her feet. They were just too big and furry.
Wonderful smile though.

Ed,


Huh? 5' 8'???? Don't you mean 4' 8'???

no she was 5' 8"... she's standing in a hole; the shoes are fake

She's standing in a section of the set that doesn't have a cobblestone, subtracting an inch or two at the most, not a hole.

There are plenty of non-publicity shots of Gaynor standing next to Farrell, and it's obvious that he had a good foot on her.

There are plenty of non-publicity shots of Gaynor standing next to Farrell, and it's obvious that he had a good foot on her.

Ya but was it his left or his right??

Oy, I really walked right into that one...

I guess....

But speaking of Farrell's "good foot," wasn't he lame in the film Lucky Star ? I haven't seen it in a while...

In Lucky Star, Farrell's character Tim was confined to a wheelchair after surviving a shelling on the battlefield in WWI.

The reason the ending of Lucky Star works is because it takes place in that alternate plane of existence called the Borzage-verse, where lovers span the space-time continuum to communicate telepathically every day, where spiritual paintings appear at just the right place and right time to bring sanity back to a disordered mind, body heat and love bring the dead back to life, crippled men rise up and walk to order to correct an imminent rip in the world's moral condition, and people recognize their soul mates the instant they spot each other at swank parties where the rest of the crowd is just making small talk.

Somehow all these things -- which might make you laugh if they took place in OUR universe as usually depicted on film -- are entirely proper and right in the Borzage-verse.

Sad endings sometimes do take in the Borzage-verse but even those embody a transcendence not found in our "normal" universe.

I would be happy to live in the Borzage-verse and visit (via my DVD player) as often as possible. ;)

peachtreegal wrote: The reason the ending of Lucky Star works is because it takes place in that alternate plane of existence called the Borzage-verse, where lovers span the space-time continuum to communicate telepathically every day, where spiritual paintings appear at just the right place and right time to bring sanity back to a disordered mind, body heat and love bring the dead back to life, crippled men rise up and walk to order to correct an imminent rip in the world's moral condition, and people recognize their soul mates the instant they spot each other at swank parties where the rest of the crowd is just making small talk.

Somehow all these things -- which might make you laugh if they took place in OUR universe as usually depicted on film -- are entirely proper and right in the Borzage-verse.

Sad endings sometimes do take in the Borzage-verse but even those embody a transcendence not found in our "normal" universe.

And everyone is pretty, too. I love Borzage-verse.

Readers from way back will know I've been a Lucky Star fan for many years.

But I had the fortunate opportunity when I watched it for the first time to have a terrific pianist...a sensitive accompanist can do wonders to get you through the OTT scenes---the ending didn't bother me at all, the music pulled me through it. And a score who doesn't get it can ruin the film, or a even a mediocre one can give you a bad first opinion, which is hard to shake.

I think the ending also plays much less OTT on a big screen with a big (weeping) audience. That's the way I'v seen it.

How good is the score on this version?

Lokke Heiss wrote:
I think the ending also plays much less OTT on a big screen with a big (weeping) audience. That's the way I'v seen it.

How good is the score on this version?

I liked it quite a bit, it's very low key. I expected a "lush, symphonic score" in "Mythophonic Sound," which would have irritated me, frankly. This score let's the visuals do the talking.