The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

By Megan Bianco

Judy Garland is one of the most famous and beloved women to ever live. Because of this, she has been the subject of many biographies and documentaries, too. Since so much has been reported, rumored and speculated about the legendary singer-actress, there are bound to be inconsistencies and agendas from those who genuinely cared about her and those just interested in exploiting her.

Rupert Goold’s Judy is set in the last year of Judy’s (Renee Zellweger) life in 1969, where we see her still putting on a hell of a show—but without a legitimate home to return to after work. Her kids love her, but she’s regularly fighting with their father, ex-husband Sid Luft (Rufus Sewell), on custody arrangements. She can’t afford to turn down gigs, and she’s as dependent on prescription drugs as she was in her prime. The one gig that might turn things around for her is a five-week run of shows in London.

Photo: Courtesy of David Hindley / Roadside Attractions

For lifelong fans of Garland, there probably won’t ever be a properly accurate portrayal on the musical performer’s life, as is the case with the average biopic. Zellweger’s impression of Judy’s speaking voice is very hit-or-miss, but she does manage to physically pull off imitating her mannerisms. No one will ever be able to duplicate Judy’s exact singing vocals, but as we previously saw with Chicago (2002), Renee can sing appropriately when it is necessary.

Not surprisingly, there are dates out of order and locations changed, for whatever artistic reason, by the filmmakers of Judy. One thing that kind of took me out of the feature was that the tone of the flashbacks felt almost like they were from a different film than the 1969 scenes. As a Judy Garland fan myself, I think we already had the not-exactly-accurate-but-still-worth-watching-for-the-performances type of picture with Me and My Shadows (2001).


Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (0)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>