Despite the written assurances from studio producers Arthur Freed and Mervyn Leroy — that they just knew Judy Garland was big star material from the first instant they saw her — doubts persist about how MGM handled (or mishandled) Garland’s career in the early days.
One of the doubters is reader, Mark, who makes several interesting points in response to our Oct. 24 blog:
Hi Joe and Frank:
I enjoyed your essay on “Judy’s Peak Years” very much, and I was wondering if you could comment on an issue I’ve wondered about concerning Judy’s rise to stardom at MGM.
Despite the enormous success of her films with Mickey Rooney, I’ve always felt that MGM dragged its’ heels in promoting Judy as a star in her own right, failing to capitalize on her success in THE WIZARD OF OZ as fully as it might…or should have?
For the three years between OZ in 1939 and FOR ME AND MY GAL in 1942 — the first film for which Judy received solo above-the-title billing as a superstar attraction in her own right (and her first fully “adult” role onscreen) — Judy appeared almost exclusively with Mickey in films (ANDY HARDY & the BABES musicals) that spotlighted him more heavily than her, and for which, at the time, he received the lion’s share (no pun intended) of critical attention.
Of the two films Judy made without Mickey during this period, I think only one, 1940’s LITTLE NELLIE KELLY, could be considered a “Judy Garland vehicle.” The other one, 1941’s ZIEGFELD GIRL, acknowledged Judy’s rising star by listing her second in the cast list after top-billed James Stewart, but is still primarily a vehicle for Lana Turner: one that enabled Lana to make the successful transition from starlet to star.
How do you feel about this period of Judy’s career? Do you agree that Metro failed to capitalize on her success in OZ as fully as it might have? If so, what do you think the reason for the delay was? If not, why do you think Metro waited several years after OZ to begin crafting “Judy Garland vehicles” in earnest?
Great questions, Mark. Keep in mind that Rooney was a HUGE star at MGM during the early Garland years, and the studio may have figured that going with the tried and true was less risky than emphasizing a relative newcomer no matter how talented. Was internal studio politics in some way involved? Undoubtedly.
Here’s Joe’s take on the situation.
I agree it took a few years for the studio to begin crafting musicals just for Garland’s talents, but you must remember that the studio really was “a factory.” It produced a product and since the product was successful, why tamper with success? It took For Me and My Gal to convince the powers that were that Judy–alone–could carry a movie.
And by their last teaming, Girl Crazy, it was obvious that Judy had grown into a mature leading lady and Mickey Rooney was stuck in the role of a “kid.” Judy was then ready for the big time and lucky that Arthur Freed chose Vincente Minnelli to direct her in Meet Me in St. Louis.
Thanks for the response, Guys:
I’m still not sure I agree fully but appreciate the input.
I DO agree that Judy, like any performer under contract to any studio was a “product,” an investment which the studio ultimately hoped would pay big dividends for the time and expense the studio took in developing and promoting it. Judy certainly justified MGM’s faith in her talent and enduring appeal, especially in the post-MEET ME IN ST LOUIS period.
I also realize that MGM may not have wanted to tamper with a hugely successful formula like the Rooney-Garland team. (Their joint popularity is the only reason I can think of for Metro’s decision to cast Judy in 2 more ANDY HARDY vehicles after her breakthrough role in LOVES FIND ANDY HARDY.)
Still, with any of its’ “products,” I think the general studio mindset was to maximize its’ profits by exploiting each product to its’ fullest profit-making potential, and here’s where I believe MGM held back, or perhaps dropped the ball in the early 1940s where Judy was concerned.
For example, during this same period, Mickey appeared not only in the BABES series with Judy, but in the ANDY HARDY films and such prestige productions as HUCKLEBERRY FINN, YOUNG TOM EDISON, BOYS TOWN (and its’ sequel, MEN OF BOYS TOWN), THE HUMAN COMEDY, etc., but Judy appeared almost exclusively with Mickey.
THE WIZARD OF OZ had been one of the most lavish, expensive and cutting-edge films in Hollywood history up to that point, but does any Garland fan really consider the soggy and small-scale LITTLE NELLIE KELLY a worthy follow-up vehicle to OZ? Despite the acting challenge it presented to Judy (an “adult” character in the Mother and a death scene), I don’t.
I mean this was a girl who, from what I’ve read, thrilled studio executives at her auditions. Roger Edens reportedly “fell off the piano” when he heard Judy sing. Arthur Freed wouldn’t stop nagging studio executives about how great she was. Louis B. Mayer reportedly trumpeted, “We’ve just signed a Baby Nora Bayes!” etc.
For all that initial enthusiasm, it seems to me that even after OZ, MGM took baby steps in promoting Judy as a star in her own right, as if uncertain that she could carry a major film on her own. If so, one reason might be that OZ, though a popular hit in terms of the number of people who saw it, didn’t turn a profit on its’ first release? Or perhaps it was because, as with the Mickey-Judy musicals, in many reviews of OZ on its’ initial release, Judy’s contribution wasn’t considered the primary reason for its’ success?
Of course, I agree that in FOR ME AND MY GAL Judy proved conclusively that she could carry a film under her own name, and it was straight up to enduring top stardom from there with ST LOUIS and the films that followed, especially her prestige productions for the Freed Unit.
But GAL is not only significant as the first time Judy achieved solo, above-the-title billing, it’s also Judy’s first real “adult” role, so, to me, it seems almost as if MGM was acknowledging that Judy had “survived” her onscreen adolescence, and the studio was now more certain she’d be a viable long-term investment.
To be fair to Judy, it seems as if MGM took this same gradual approach in promoting later young musical talent like Jane Powell, June Allyson and, especially, Kathryn Grayson, so maybe it became an unwritten, but established studio policy?
Anyway, it’s an interesting issue…at least to me.