Shirley Temple's last lavishly-produced starring vehicle at 20th Century-Fox didn't come close to equaling the success (financial or otherwise) of 1939's "The Wizard Of Oz" from MGM (who had tried, unsuccessfully, to star Temple as Dorothy). This curious enterprise, based on the play, would seem to have a great deal in common with "Oz" (it even begins in black-and-white and turns to color), but the crucial elements of an identifiable plot are missing, and the young girl at the center of this story is consistently petulant. It was a fundamental error to make Shirley Temple unsympathetic; as the scowling, complaining daughter of a poor woodcutter, she wakes one night to an elderly fairy-woman knocking on her door and soon finds herself and her little brother on a search to find the Blue Bird of Happiness. The production is quite grand, but the saturated colors don't gleam and the set-designs are vast without having a sense of wonderment. As for Temple, she's a little bit stiff and self-conscious (odd for her), though her mature sarcasm in the prologue is very funny. Remade (disastrously, yet amusingly) as a musical in 1976. **1/2 from ****
Add a Review
-
Ron Oliver5 July 2000An obnoxious girl, unable to find joy in her life, is sent by an elderly fairy into the Lands of the Past & the Future to seek for THE BLUE BIRD of Happiness. Her search will change her life profoundly...
Fantasy is the most difficult genre for film to create successfully. All the elements have to come together just right, and then, more often than not, success is a happy accident. Fantasy is not replicable; note the number of failed sequels. If 20th Century Fox was trying to emulate MGM's THE WIZARD OF OZ (an initial box office flop, it should be remembered), it was not a wise endeavor. Given its troubled production history, OZ should have been a disaster. That it was not still puzzles & delights film historians.
THE BLUE BIRD's ultimate failure is not complete. There are several very good things about it. The main trouble seems to be in the casting of Shirley Temple in the lead role. The greatest child star of them all was now aging, and prepubescent Shirley seems to depend a bit too much on the gracious memories of her devotees. She's still cute, but this time that's just not enough. Also, it must have been awkward acting such a nasty role, one doomed to be disliked by the audience for much of the film.
Gale Sondergaard, as the Cat, has much the same problem. She tries hard, but the role is very unsympathetic & we are never told why her character is so wicked - indeed, capable of murder.
It's interesting to note that both Temple & Sondergaard were important contenders for major roles in OZ, but were instead rejected for Judy Garland & Margaret Hamilton.
There are several cast members that do an excellent job with their material: Spring Byington, tender as Shirley's mother; wonderful old Jessie Ralph as the fairy; Eddie Collins, often very funny as the Dog; Nigel Bruce & Laura Hope Crews, giving ripe performances as Mister & Mrs. Luxury; and dear Cecilia Loftus & Al Shean as Shirley's lonely, dead grandparents.
Some of the minor casting is also very effective, witness Thurston Hall as Father Time, Edwin Maxwell as Old Man Oak & Sterling Holloway, on screen only a few seconds as Wild Plum. That's Scotty Beckett, from the old OUR GANG Comedies, as one of the Unborn Boys.
The use of Technicolor is very eye-appealing, although its initial entry into the film lacks the dramatic punch produced in OZ. The forest firestorm sequence is very well done & the Unborn Children scenes have genuine pathos. -
dapplegrey134 August 2007I haven't seen "The Bluebird" since I was about 10 years old or so (back in the late 1960's or early 1970's). It it still sticks with me and I think of it often. It was certainly a memorable film for a little girl. To me, it was a sweet picture of heaven and of home. It also reminded me very much of the close bond I had with my little brother. Every time I see a bluebird, I remember the movie. It made (and still makes) spotting a bluebird a wonderful experience. I hope it will come out on DVD soon so more people can see it and appreciate it. It's similar to the Wizard of Oz. It is a fantasy and a sentimental family film.
-
babeth_jr6 March 2006After having watched this movie, for the life of me I can't figure out why this picture flopped at the box office when it was released in 1940. Shirley Temple plays Mytyl, a young girl who is not happy because her family is poor. She believes that if she were rich and had the luxuries that she has been denied in her life she will be happy. Her parents love her and try to teach her to realize how blessed she is with her loving family, but Mytly doesn't believe it's enough. Without giving the movie completely away she "dreams" that she goes to a magical land in search for the bluebird of happiness. If she can find the bluebird, then she will finally be happy. There is a true dream like quality to the film, and the set decorations are lavish and beautiful. Shirley is supported by a wonderful supporting cast such as Spring Byington, who plays her mother, Gale Sondergaard, who plays an evil cat come to life, and Nigel Bruce (usually remembered as Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes movies opposite Basil Rathbone) as Mr. Luxury. I love the fact that the movie tries to teach that true happiness is not found through riches and things, but found right at home, with the people we love. I have read that people felt that this was a "rip-off" of the Wizard of Oz which was released the year before, but even though there are some similarities in the story lines (young girl goes on a magical journey only to find her happiness is truly in her own backyard) but other than that, the similarities end. Both movies are beautiful and teach their lessons in their own magical way. If you have never seen this movie, and especially if you are a Shirley Temple fan, then you must see this movie. I was impressed...I think you will be.
-
boblipton27 December 2020Shirley Temple and Johnny Russell are the children of woodcutter Russel Hicks and his wife, Spring Byington. One day they find a blue bird in the forest and take it home. It escapes and they go on a journey to recover it.
This was a famous flop, and ended the unbroken string of hits for Miss Temple. Because victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan, everyone seems to have an explanation of why it failed out the box office. Miss Temple was aging out of her cute moppet appeal. It was overproduced, and the focus was on the Technicolor and fantastic sets. War in Europe made people impatient with the allegory. The movie's director, Walter Lang, blamed it on bad editing.
My explanation is a lot simpler: it lacks any sense of fun. It's all obvious allegory that is hammered into the audience's head like they are stupid. Miss Temple starts out as an unpleasant girl, and only gradually becomes nice. She doesn't dance, her singing is limited to one song. Her problems aren't real, so her overcoming them is muted in effect.
Maurice Maeterlinck's play may have been a triumph, but it was a triumph of spectacle. Spectacle can make a movie, but without any sense of engagement, it's empty. This movie is quite beautiful, in a visual sense, but its story telling, its message is mechanical an uninvolving. -
bkoganbing25 April 2017Essentially Shirley Temple's child star career ended with The Blue Bird. After this she was cast in teen roles and eventually young adults. If not the best way to end her child star career and the biggest money maker at the box office it certainly was one expensive way.
Interesting as well because the rumors had it that Darryl Zanuck saw the big money that The Wizard Of Oz made over at MGM with Judy Garland and decided this was action he wanted 20th Century Fox in. So he shot the works financially and the famous Maeterlinck story The Blue Bird was adopted for Shirley Temple.
The Blue Bird is a symbol for good luck and prosperity and one that Shirley and little brother Johnny Russell had has disappeared. A magical fairy played by Jessie Ralph sends them on a journey into an Oz like land with their animated pets, Eddie Collins as their dog and Gale Sondergaard as the cat. Sondergaard is truly interesting, she plays the animated cat like she was being the Spiderwoman and really acts like a fifth columnist for the kids.
The story even resolves itself like the Wizard Of Oz.
The Blue Bird got Oscar nominations for Special Effects, but lost to Alexander Korda's The Thief of Bagdad.
It never came close to raking in its cost for 20th Century Fox. It was the end of Shirley Temple as a child star. Ironically MGM had wanted her for The Wizard Of Oz, but Zanuck wouldn't let her go. It was then they signed Judy Garland who cost L.B.Mayer not a dime as she was under contract.
Seeing it today it's an interesting children's fantasy and may have not gotten the praise it deserved back in the day. -
mike4812810 February 2016The only thing worse could have been the entire film shot in black and white. No songs (probably edited out) except for a short one at the start. My synopsis will make it sound wonderful but it is lifeless and humorless for much of the film. Starts out b/w and turns to color 10 minutes in when she falls asleep. A kindly old witch sends Shirley Temple (and her brother) on a quest for the proverbial "Blue Bird of Happiness". She travels far. She visits her "sleeping" grandparents in the cemetery, visits The Land of Luxury, struggles to survive a truly scary burning forest, and the Land of the Future where all the unborn children wait until birth. The dog and cat are magically transformed into humans. Eddie Collins gives a good performance as the feisty bulldog and Gale Sondergaard, a beautiful villain as always, plays the devious cat. Nigel Bruce is Mr. Luxury and beautiful blonde "Light" is played by Helen Ericson. Also in the cast are Spring Byington (as her Mother) and Sterling Holloway as the plum tree. The trees want to kill them and the only funny action is the cat and dog fight in the mansion of Mr. and Mrs. Luxury. In spite of all this, a very boring movie with stiff looking yet beautiful sets and obviously painted backdrops. Her father is a woodcutter just called to fight in the war. Shirley awakes, after traveling everywhere in vain, and lo and behold, the caged bird is now blue! In spite of the great cast, it's a terrible example showing "How not to make a children's movie". (I quote another reviewer.) I own a huge collection of children's movies, both live action and animated, and not just Disney. I also own several other Shirley Temple films for my family to watch, but not this mess.
-
planktonrules8 February 2013You wonder if the folks who came up with the idea of making "The Blue Bird" were either psychotic or they were deliberately trying to make the public hate Shirley Temple. After all, through most of the 1930s, she was adored--mostly because she played the sweetest child imaginable. However, here in "The Blue Bird" she plays a nasty and selfish, whiny little jerk! Why, oh, why?! And, on top of that, the film is an obvious copy of "The Wizard of Oz"--but with none of its charm.
The film begins in a black & white world where a brother and sister (the oddly named Tyltyl and Mytyl) are walking about town with a bird that they obtained illegally. When they return home, Mytyl (Temple) complains and basically tells her parents that they and her life sucks. I would have slapped her ('don't tell me I don't love you, you little brat') but I guess America was not ready to see their sweetheart get slapped. Instead, they put up with it--as if she is some obnoxious child star having a tantrum and the cast is too afraid of her power to say no. Later, the children go to bed and have a weird dream--and the film becomes Technicolor. A fairy soon arrives and sends them on an adventure to find the Blue Bird of Happiness. This adventure is a bit like doing acid, as it gets REALLY weird. First, their dog and cat come to life to accompany them. Then, they visit a variety of places--such as a visit to spend a bit of time with dead grandma and dead grandpa (this part is VERY maudlin to say the least and the old folks mostly talk about how horrible it is to be forgotten!!), then to stay with some hedonists (Mr. and Mrs. Luxury) who are very selfish as well, the land of unborn babies (what?!?!) as several other adventures that, simply put, are not interesting. And, in the end, the children learn a lesson that 99.9% of the audience KNEW she'd learn by the end of the film.
There really is not much to like about this slickly produced but otherwise dreadful film. My wife commented, rightfully, that watching this film was just painful! I would add it lacked fun--the biggest problem in any sort of children's film. The story is bizarre (and not in a good way) to say the least. None of the characters are likable--and Shirley least of all. I do like Tylette (which sounds like 'toilet')--the evil cat played by Gale Sondergaard. She is a bit humorous and is not meant to be likable. Oh, and although the film was expensive and colorful, the fire sequence looked amazingly cheap. Overall, a HUGE mess--and a film you won't soon forget. Best for its camp value as opposed to entertainment value.
I have seen the Soviet-American version of the 1970s. It's not good but as least has more likable kids--a major plus. Actually, I think that the silent version from 1918 is also bad--but probably the best of the three I've seen. Not exactly a glowing endorsement, I know. -
mikkilmack8 May 2008This is one movie I am surprised so many people have not seen. This is worth having in your collection, especially if you have kids. I remember this fondly as a child. The majority of the movie is part of the lead characters dream, but the wonderful adventure that she goes on to find the "blue bird" is enjoyable. What many today miss is the fact that the search for the blue bird is actually the search for happiness and/or hope which was needed so much during the time that it was made. Based on a play, this adaption brings up so many things young children start to ask about, life, death and what happens in between. Unlike the others movies that Shirley Temple has been in, this movie actually lets her play a character with more depth the the poor pretty princess.
-
belva030820 December 2015I first saw this movie when I was a child. It stuck with me so I don't think it was all that bad.
Spoiler: I loved the part where the Grandparents come to life when they kids think of them.
So it is on TCM today and I turned it and looked up the trivia and came across some of the reviews. My favorite has to be from this person named drystyx. I am fairly sure that this person is writing reviews for their own amusement. If they are not in on the joke themselves then I consider it a total abomination of a review. How you could watch this movie and get outraged by the dog/cat prejudice? The review has nothing at all to do with anything about that movie that is in anyway real or interesting. What Nazi propaganda are you talking about you crazy person?
Its a simple story and even though the audiences of its time did not embrace it, its decent and has a good moral. Its really a tale that applies to every era. -
cineburk21 January 2008"The Blue Bird" is an excellent study in how not to make a children's movie, and stands in stark contrast to "The Wizard of Oz". While many of the elements are the same, the execution is uneven and disengaging. Shirley Temple does a good job, but none of the supporting cast seem up to the task of really selling the fantasy world in which the children find themselves.
While I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for children's films, even my 8-year old daughter pointed out some of the inconsistencies and plot holes, including the fact that while the fantasy of the "Blue Bird" occurs as Shirley sleeps (similar to the "Wizard of Oz"), when she wakes up, her younger brother has also had the same dream and "shared" the experience. -
reijaneviana15 April 2006I've seen this movie a couple of times and I just can't get enough. I simply love it, since I was a little child. I watched it for the first time when I was a teenager in the 80's and I still love it. All the characters are special to me, even the cat. She is mean but we can learn from her that we cannot trust everyone that says they're our friend. The dog is amazing. Always trusting. Someone you really can rely on. And the bird, of course, which is a metaphor for happiness. Maybe it's not in the past or future but here and now. Maybe it's within us, but never out there, or somewhere we've never been to, or someone we've never met.
-
Nate-4831 July 2018Shirley Temple is about as good as ever and there are some other nice acting performances but this is otherwise a second-rate film.
It is obvious that 20th Century Fox was looking for their own Wizard of Oz but this movie lacks much of what made that classic what it was.
This film is released one year after that breakthrough smash but was a flop.
There are some nice special effects and the Technicolor is excellent but there is not enough substance here.
The plot is largely too dark and doesn't fit well with Temple's persona.
There are some brilliant cinematic setups, particularly one in the forest and another that is supposed to be a mix of heaven and a Greek temple that is reminiscent of the castle scene in The Thief of Baghdad (same year - 1940).
This is one of the first films to feature Ann E. Todd, who is a scene stealer.
Helen Ericson is lovely as literally the bright light.
This is also Sybil Jason's last film. Some of her scenes were cut, reportedly at the urging of Temple's mother, so as not to overshadow the star. Jaosn was a great child actress and she steals the screen in her two scenes.
This is worth seeing for film buffs but not for a date night. -
tsmith41726 December 2010I tuned it at the point where Shirley Temple's character was just meeting the witch/fairy so I didn't know this little girl was an obnoxious child and I didn't know their pet dog was a bulldog.
I immediately saw the Oz connection, but this story seemed much darker and sadder. The children visit a graveyard where they see the tombstones of their grandparents who awake because someone is thinking of them. The grandparents are happy to be visited by the children, but then the little girl insists they have to leave right away, even tho Grandma wants so desperately for them to stay so she can bake them an apple tart (she mentions it twice). It seemed to me that the little girl was too anxious to leave such a happy time with the grandparents she supposedly missed so much and was so happy to see, and for no other reason than to look for something that was supposed to make her happy.
I couldn't figure out the cat character. Why was she trying so hard to keep the children from finding the bluebird and being so mean about delaying them? What difference would it have made to her if they found the bird? I realize that some people think that all cats are conniving, but I don't think there's a one that would conspire to actually kill the humans that it lives with! The scenes of living in luxury were confusing. At first, Mr. and Mrs. Luxury welcomed the children and told them about how wonderful it would be to live in their house and couldn't wait to give them fancy clothes. Next thing you know the children are fighting over who gets to play with which toy and the adults can't be bothered with them. Mr. Luxury all but ignores the little girl when she comes to him and he speaks to her in harsh tones and is concerned only with whether she will hurt his gouty foot.
A few reviewers mentioned the last scene, where the children meet the unborn. Why these unborn children would be different ages was a puzzle, and this scene was the saddest of all for me. The little girl meets her sister who is not yet born, but the sister says she will not be with them very long before she goes away (dies), and what does Shirley Temple's character do? She hugs the sister and flashes her dimples and says "I'll tell mother to expect you" and how nice it was to meet her. Did she not understand what the child was telling her? And the boy who I assumed would grow up to be Abraham Lincoln, he was such a sad character; he didn't even have the happiness of childhood to look forward to. He would be born sad and remain sad for his whole life. That's a terrible thing for anyone to imagine, that people might know when they will die before they're even born and then live their lives only as a means to complete what they already know to be their destinies.
Let's not forget the two unborn children who loved each other so much that they couldn't stand to be parted. I expected the Father Time character to tell them not to worry, that they would be reunited one day to love each other once again, but this was not the case. Indeed, Father Time rather angrily forced the boy to leave the girl, who sobbed uncontrollably. One can only imagine the lives both of them would live on earth when they started out so unhappy.
I was confused by the end, where both children had had the same dream. And considering that they never did find the bluebird, they both seemed to be extraordinarily cheerful about it. Frankly, I didn't see anything in their dream that would cause them to be that happy when they woke up; if anything, I would imagine they would be more depressed than they were before.
As I said, I didn't know the dog was a bulldog, so to have made his human form such a dopey thing that was scared of the dark and unable to assert himself in front of other dogs, made no sense. And if the cat perished in the fire, why was she there in the house the next morning? All in all, even though the sets were lovely to look at, I thought this was a very depressing story and not one I would recommend for small children to watch, considering all the references to death. Heck, I don't think I'll even watch it again, that's how depressing I thought it was. -
Although 'The Blue Bird' was not a resounding financial success at time of release, and has always been cited as being a poor imitation of 'The Wizard of Oz', it is an unjustly neglected film. Individual scenes are striking, as for example those depicting the unborn waiting in a kind of heavenly limbo (with billowing clouds) before sailing off to their destination on earth. (You can spot Dickie Moore and Scotty Beckett among the unborn lads.) Shirley Temple and Johnny Russell are tremendously appealing as the young sister and brother searching for the elusive blue bird of happiness. A highlight is Shirley's excursion to the Land of the Past where she visits her dead grandparents and does a charming song-and-dance to a yodel song. The studio would have been wise to incorporate a few more such songs. With added numbers, this might have been a much more successful film. As it is, her role is not strong enough, as written, and yet we can appreciate her by the film's end. She is particularly affecting in the scenes with the unborn children, showing genuine charm and affection and looking radiant in technicolor. The film was nominated for two Academy Awards (Special Effects and Color Cinematography), nominations which were well deserved. The spectacular forest fire is very effective, as are the special effects in general. In the supporting roles, Gale Sondergaard (as Tylette, the cat)has fun with a typical Sondergaard role, mistress of evil. Nigel Bruce and Spring Byington lend excellent support. Summing up, while the whole is not as great as its parts, this is a lavishly photographed film definitely worth viewing. Not a masterpiece, by any means, but there is much to appreciate and it should not be neglected.
-
RandyRodman14 April 2001Point me to the animal shelter that gives away free Gale Sondergaards to a good home! Me-ow! That sexy feline can rub against my leg any day! I can see it now, Gale and I sharing a can of Whiskas by candlelight, then I'll break out my best ball of yarn while she gets comfy on top of the television. After a relaxing bowl of milk I'll put on my Cat Stevens albums and we'll chase the rubber mouse till dawn! After it's over we'll snuggle in each other's paws and I'll scratch her tummy while she purrs sweet nothings into my ear. Aaaaahhhh.....
Oh, and Shirley was good, too. -
JoeytheBrit11 May 2020Shirley Temple had outgrown her days of puppy-fat cuteness by the time she made 20th Century-Fox-s answer to MGM's The Wizard of Oz, and the requirement for her to play something of a spoiled brat proved to be a turn off for audiences. The Blue Bird clearly draws it's inspiration from Oz, but it's a very pale imitation, although the colour photography is beautiful at times. Temple is also pretty good, but there's only so much she can do with the material she's given.
-
springfieldrental16 April 2024There is one major liability childhood actors have: they grow up. Approaching adolescence, Shirley Temple was nearly twelve when she made January 1940's "The Blue Bird." Her devoted fans saw a change in their sweetheart, and they failed to embrace the movie, handing Shirley her first box office flop. The film led to a quick exit from her box-office reign, breaking a six-year top ten winning streak, four as number one.
Shirley Temple was one of several actresses considered for the role of Dorothy in 1939's "The Wizard of Oz," and was screen tested by singing. However, her voice didn't compare to front-runner Judy Garland's. The idea of Shirley starring in a child-fantasy movie like 'Oz' took hold with 20th Century Fox head Darryl Zanuck, who dug up a 1908 play "The Blue Bird" by Maurice Maeterlinck. He decided to pour $2 million into the production, quite a high budget in those days, figuring the movie would be a surefire hit. It wasn't.
Film critic J. P. Roscoe described "The Blue Bird" as having "all the pieces of a big and bold fantasy but seems to miss the target. It mostly feels like it tries too hard to be something that it isn't." Many have pointed to the personality of Shirley's character, Mytyl, the spoiled daughter of a wood cutter who doesn't appreciate her life in a small German village during the Napoleonic wars. She's haughty and petulant, something her fans never witnessed in Shirley before. Mytyl and her younger brother, Tyltyl (Johnny Russell), capture a blue bird and bring it home. Like "The Wizard of Oz," "The Blue Bird" was filmed in black and white prior to Mytyl's dream, then kicks into a Technicolor world once she's in slumberland. In the dream, the sister and brother set out to find the Blue Bird of Happiness which has flown away. They're accompanied by their family pet dog who has transformed into a human, Tylo (Eddie Collins), while Tylette (Gale Sondergaard), the house cat has turned into a woman. Sondergaard had been cast as the original Wicked Witch of the West in "The Wizard of Oz," with a look similar to the glamorous Evil Queen in 1937's 'Snow White.' But the film's producers had a change of opinion, feeling the bad witch should be ugly. Sondergaard refused to play the new look figuring it would be a career killer, and the witch went to character actress Margaret Hamilton instead.
Shirley's dream in "The Blue Bird" lead the four wanderers to the land of yet-to-be-born children. Throughout Mytyl's travels, the child eventually gains an appreciation to life. But both the movie public and critics disliked the fantasy film, with many in the press labeling it "The Dead Pigeon." Temple's previous film, 1939's "Susannah of the Mounties," was popular at the theaters, and made a profit, but not as large as her earlier films. Because Temple was in only two motion pictures in 1939, her first place mantle as the top box office actor ended. Compounding her turn of fortune was an occurrence the month before "The Blue Bird's" release. A deranged woman barged into the CBS radio studio where Shirley and actor Nelson Eddy were reading an adaptation of the film. She approached the pair with a loaded gun while Temple was singing 'Someday You'll Find Your Blue Bird." She aimed the gun at the child star before security guards stopped her. The would-be assassin believed that Shirley stole her late daughter's soul after she had died in 1929, the same day she thought Temple was born. Trouble was, the gun slinger got the year wrong: Shirley was born in 1928.
After "The Blue Bird," 20th Century Fox terminated Temple's contract. Technically, Shirley's final movie for the only studio she had ever worked for was August 1940's 'Young People,' where she made several brief appearances while stock footage was inserted showing her in her cutesy heyday. After that Shirley's private suite in the studio was disassembled and made into offices, leaving no trace of the actress who purportedly rescued Fox years before from insolvency. -
Steffi_P1 May 2012Amid the competitiveness of classic era cinema, whenever one studio had a big success the others would inevitably roll out their copycats. These were invariably inferior knock-offs, but they often fared reasonably well because they cashed in on the popularity of whatever it was they were imitating. But imagine, if you will, a rip-off movie so appalling that it failed at the box office, even with the attachment of a popular star. Just such a thing is The Blue Bird. It's making was a particularly pertinent bit of point-making by 20th Century Fox, since its star Shirley Temple had lost out to Judy Garland for the lead role in The Wizard of Oz. However, the fantasy movie Fox gave to Temple got wrong everything The Wizard of Oz got right.
The failure of The Blue Bird is usually blamed upon the fact that Temple plays a mean-spirited little girl, and it's true this is at least part of the problem. It's not that she isn't good at being the snooty brat – I can well imagine her being like that in real life – it's just that it's wrong for the movie. The story arc is all about Temple's moral development through her adventures, but she's so convincing as the little madam we have no starting point with which to sympathise with her. Ironically though it's the deliciously evil Gale Sondergaard who I find myself routing for, especially since the "good guys" in this movie are so flimsy (or in the case of Fairy Berylune, downright rude).
But there are still deeper flaws running through The Blue Bird. Its joyless, po-faced moralism becomes tiresome incredibly quickly. Its fairytale concepts may be a little different but they don't really inspire much delight. Admittedly a little poignancy has been eked from the scene with children waiting to be born, but the concept of unborn babies being love-struck teenagers is a little too weird even for a fantasy movie. And plot-wise it doesn't really have much else to offer. There is a tacked-on "daddy going to war" subplot, very much a Shirley Temple staple, but it falls flat because unlike in The Little Princess an emotional bond between father and daughter is not established.
And when one compares The Blue Bird to its predecessor The Wizard of Oz, its woeful banality reaches depressing proportions. Like The Wizard of Oz, it begins in monochrome and turns to colour, but as oppose to the unforgettable transition in Oz it's an almost arbitrary switch between two scenes. Essentially it steals the idea but has learnt none of the grace. And, for want of a better word, it's not movie-fied enough. A frumpy Jessie Ralph in her patchwork cloak is very much as the character might appear in a book of fairy tales, but The Blue Bird could benefit more from the glamour of Billie Burke and her sparkles. And Helen Ericson as "Light" is simply too bland to be a replacement. Also bland is the music, the special effects, the set design I could go on, but there doesn't seem much point. The Blue Bird shows classic Hollywood at its least enchanting. -
johnstonjames19 August 2012It's hard not to lavish praise on this gorgeous family feature. There is so much about this lovely movie that is outstanding and keenly done, as well as it's quite a looker as a film. Cinema seldom looks this beautiful and feels so classical in style and the film has a feeling of antiquity about it for it's relatively contemporary source. This has got to be the most beautifully filmed color film of that period. period. It also boast some accomplished technical effects as well that surpass many film effects of the past.
It's very hard viewing this impeccable classic today and imagine that anyone could have called this film a rip off (in comparison to the 'Wizard of OZ'), and a lackluster achievement. Walter Lang gives this film a look of refinement and elegance and a visual beauty that most definitely surpasses the 'OZ' film. 'OZ' works better as fun entertainment, but it is not nearly as attractive in art direction and photography as is 'Bluebird'.
What 'Bluebird' is, is exquisite. That might be why children take to it less than 'OZ'. Children don't want "exquisite" they often prefer entertainment that is rough around the edges. 'OZ' is definitely a coarser film than 'Bluebird'. Beauty describes Walter Lang's visuals where peculiar and bizarre are what come to mind while describing 'OZ'
'OZ' is also sturdier as entertainment where 'Bluebird' is more delicate and artsy. Children are also probably more suspicious of 'Bluebird' too because it's obviously a "message" film. Walt Disney often said that audiences didn't like to be "preached" or "moralized" to and resented films with weighty messages. That of course shouldn't always be the case but Disney was probably right.
A real shame because 'Bluebird' has so much to offer in terms of a healthy moral message for young audiences. It does preach wisdom over pure entertainment content.
I also love this film in particular because it features Shirley Temple in probably one her most serious acting roles at this time. Her character of MyTyl is, in the beginning, a sort of anti hero. Cold, harsh and indulgently cynical. A role that was out of character for Temple as a child.
As of today this film, and the 'Bluebird' fairy tale in general, fails to capture the same popular interest that other fairy tales like 'Snow White', 'Pinocchio' and 'Peter Pan' do. A disappointing statement about people's taste because the film does have a lot to offer in terms of substance and popular entertainment. -
loloandpete3 January 2021Children's film, sweet and moving but sometimes a little sickly! Treads similar territory to The Wizard of Oz with a child (children in this case), and animals in 'human' form on a quest that leads to self discovery. Like Oz there is a young icon in the lead, in this one, Shirley Temple (to Oz's Judy Garland). Gale Sondergaard gives a wonderfully wicked performance as a feline who gets her comeuppance. Like Oz it starts in black and white then moves to colour and features a good fairy and 'perils' to beset Temple and her brother (Johnny Russell- sweet). Nigel Bruce is 3rd billed as Mr Luxury and enters sliding down a bannister! He has some droll horseplay and grumpy gout riddeness and is good value for his, perhaps, 15 minutes of screen time.
-
brendan-36-94996020 September 2017I finally saw this film tonight, thanks to the British cable channel "Talking Pictures" screening a really gorgeous print and at last, I can understand why it was such a major box office flop in 1940.
The reviews here on IMDb are mostly from people living in the USA and a large number of them express being entranced by this heavy-handed fantasy. Perhaps they see things differently there? Or maybe they just adore Shirley Temple, no matter what the film? As a Britisher, I have never understood the appeal of Shirley Temple. Her saccharine cutesy-pie act and tuneless, off-key singing always left me cold, even as a child. In this movie (her first in colour), she is even less appealing than usual and the thought that she was ever considered for the part of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz just beggars belief.
The main problem with The Blue Bird as far as I'm concerned is that it lacks charm, though it tries very hard indeed. The composer Alfred Newman (a musical genius) scores the film with as much sweet-toned romantic melody as he is capable of, but it just does not match what is happening on screen.
Some wonderful character actors do their best in various roles and the colour photography is often ravishing - but at the end of the day, one never warms to the central character (Temple) and the "message" of the film is so obvious, the final scene is painfully predictable.
The Blue Bird is often compared to Oz and I can see why. But Oz had great songs, humour (Eddie Collins as the dog just leaves me cold) superb special effects (in Blue Bird, the effects are obvious and cheap looking, with gaudy painted backdrops at every turn) and also had a terrific narrative drive thanks to Mr Baum.
It also had the unique talents of Judy Garland, who brought pathos, wit, charm and musical verve to the role of Dorothy that had audiences transfixed then and forever afterwards. Ms Temple on the other hand, grates with every toss of her curls and every pout of her lips.
In spite of many video, DVD and TV revivals, The Blue Bird has failed to find an audience, even with the patina of nostalgia through the passage of time. I doubt it ever will.
It is an expensive, lumpen curio and proof that not everything produced in Hollywood's Golden Age was worthy of the great talents working there. -
lugonian10 October 2000THE BLUE BIRD (20th Century-Fox, 1940), directed by Walter Lang, adapted from the story by Maurice Masterlinck, is an interesting failure in Shirley Temple's movie career. A worthy follow-up to her previous success of THE LITTLE PRINCESS (1939), a family oriented story also produced with lavish scale settings and glossy Technicolor, THE BLUE BIRD, a dream-like fantasy often labeled as the studio's answer to THE WIZARD OF OZ (MGM, 1939) starring Judy Garland, could have or should have become a box office success, but it didn't. Using the same opening credit method from Temple's HEIDI (1937) introducing the cast and staff through a series of flipped pages from an open book, THE BLUE BIRD, coming nearly three years later, did allow the now taller Temple to break away from her sweet wholesome image to a selfish, disagreeable adolescent. Unlike her most typical films where she often played either an orphan, or a daughter of a widowed parent, THE BLUE BIRD gives her a set of parents as well as a little brother.
Black and White prologue: Set on Christmas Eve in a little German town sometime in the 19th Century, Mytyl Tyl (Shirley Temple), and her little brother, Tyltyl (Johnny Russell) at the Royal Forest are introduced trapping a rare little bird into a cage. On the way home, Mytyl is called over by Angela Berlinger (Sybil Jason), a sickly child resting by her bedroom window, if she would be interested in trading the bird with one of her possessions, but is refused. Aside from Angela's mother (Leona Roberts) who labels Myrtyl as a selfish child, so do her parents (Russell Hicks and Spring Byington), which explains why Mytyl is never very happy. Problems soon arise for the family when Mytyl's woodcutting father is called to war and to report Christmas day. As the children go to bed for the night, (shift to Technicolor) they each dream of themselves searching for the Blue Bird of Happiness, thus, meeting with numerous characters to guide them: Fairy Berylune (Jessie Ralph), Light (Helen Ericson), their dog and cat, Tylo and Tylette (Eddie Collins and Gale Sondergaard), magically changed to human form. While going through many aspects of human experience, Mytyl and Tyltyl visit the past, going to the land of memories in the cemetery where they are briefly reunited with their deceased grandparents (Al Shean and Cecilia Loftus); living the life of richness in the mansion of Mr. and Mrs. Luxury (Nigel Bruce and Laura Hope Crews); roaming through the forest where danger awaits, with uprooted trees and blazing fire; and moving into the future where the children visit the Palace of the Unborn where they make the acquaintance of children awaiting to be born before finding their destinies on Earth - but still no finding of the blue bird of happiness. Upon their awakening, further events await them. (While it would be asking too much to accept two children to be having the exact same dream while sleeping, but considering this to be a fantasy, it's possible acceptance to the viewer).
Other members of the cast are Thurston Hall (Father Time); Sterling Holloway (Wild Plum Tree); and possibly every child actor in the movie business appearing briefly as Gene Reynolds; Ann E. Todd, Scotty Beckett, Billy Cook, Diane Fisher, among others. Johnny Russell, the doll-faced little boy has that rare distinction of having and sharing equal time with Temple, while the lesser known name of Helen Ericson as Light stands out as a sort of glowing guardian dressed in white angel with that Heavenly glow.
First produced as a stage play, then adapted as a silent movie (Paramount, 1918), and much later retold again (20th Century-Fox, 1976) directed by George Cukor, regardless of its negative reputation, it's the 1940 edition that's become the best known of the three due to frequent television broadcasts starting in the late 1960s, usually around the Christmas season. Though there are those who claim this BLUE BIRD has laid an egg, overlooking some dull passages, it does contain some fine moments of honorable mention: lavish scale settings with crisp, glossy Technicolor; the beautiful yet haunting score to "Through the World so Far Away" sung by children on with giant ship with the golden sail on their way to be born, this being one of the longer dream segments of the dream; and one with an important message. Reportedly consisting of occasional song numbers, all except one, "Lay Dee O," sung and danced by Shirley Temple to her grandparents, remains in final cut. In fact, this is one of the few instances where the film comes to life, being a sheer reminder of formula Temple cheerfulness. Eddie Collins adds occasional humor as the humanly frightful dog while Gale Sondergaard adds tastes of cat-eye wickedness, but no threat to Margaret Hamilton's scene stealing Wicked Witch of the West from THE WIZARD OF OZ.
Formerly available as part of the Shirley Temple Playhouse on video cassette in 1989, and later in DVD format, THE BLUE BIRD has turned up on numerous cable channels over the years, ranging from The Disney Channel (1980s), American Movie Classics (1996-2001), Fox Movie Channel, and finally Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: December 20, 2015). With the reportedly heavy editing of songs and scenes to abide to Temple's attention throughout, it's a wonder how THE BLUE BIRD might have turned out theatrically in completed form of more musical sequences as opposed to its 83 minute release of the blue bird search for happiness? Whether it would have made a difference between success and failure is anybody's guess. (***1/2) -
TheOldGuyFromHalloween318 April 2020The forest fire scene is awesome. The rest of the movie is corny and lame. Shirley Temple plays an obnoxious brat a little too believably. Makes me wonder if that's what she was like in real life
-
ptb-829 March 2005An extraordinary fantasy from 1940, THE BLUE BIRD is a much discussed drama with acute stings for a child audience. Kids today in 2005 would certainly immediately respond to the more severe points of this very strong lesson in life - and aware adults who watch it with them will have much to discuss - especially after the 'heaven' sequence with the unborn children. This 1940 BLUE BIRD is much maligned as is the 1975 version...and isn't that just so tiring?! What is it with 2005 comments that just criticize a film so well intentioned and produced like this? Apart from the Pixar 3D cartoons, family movies made today are not better than this 1940 and 1975 production, in fact this film of 1940 is easily as well produced and as emotionally powerful as THE WIZARD OF OZ which is the template (as opposed to Shirley) for this version. We all know the debate about OZ and this film (read other comments) but his is a much maligned and unappreciated major film, lavishly produced at a time when the world was heading into war and a moment for the reflection of what was going to happen to the children's hearts and heads. Don't believe me? Well have a good look and listen to the 'unborn' sequence. One of the great quiet emotional thumpings an adult can get while gasping for breath in a truly superb 'old movie' sequence. Fox need to allow this film to fly again and a DVD release is much deserved. Moaners just should shut up and stop trying to off-put educated families from seeing the genuine wonders and heart in this excellent film. And Johnny Russell! what a kid star! where do they find a 70 year old character and looks in a 6 year old's body and face? such is the genuine truth in THE BLUE BIRD and all its incredible realism.