El pájaro azul

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 ****

After 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.

Shirley 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.

An 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.

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.