Bye Bye Birdie

I tend to agree with Alice from Orlando regarding this film. While "Bye Bye, Birdie" is a terrific film with terrific performances, viewed today, it's also a tribute to an era that we'll never get back. I completely agree with those historians who feel that 1953 - 1963, the ten year period between the end of the Korean War and that dark day in Dallas, was the last real "Era of Good Feeling" in American history. By and large, we knew who we were, what we were, and where we were going. Then came political assasination, the "Summer of Love," Viet Nam, Watergate, et. al., and we have a society that's not sure of anything anymore. Happily, there are films like "Bye Bye, Birdie," made during the apex of the 1953-63 period, to remind those of us who came of age during that era what we've lost, and to show those who weren't there what it was like. Would that we all had a Sweetapple, Ohio, to go back to again.

I am usually in the corner of those who complain about how Hollywood generally altered many classic Broadway stage musicals into something radically different when they were made into movies. Most of the time, the changes were ridiculous and weakened the property dramatically.

"Bye Bye Birdie" though, is the rare exception where the changes made to get it to the big screen were absolutely necessary. And nothing demonstrates this more than the fact that the faithful 1995 TV version is a lumbering, slow-moving mess that manages to demonstrate perfectly how what plays great on the stage does not always translate effectively to the film medium.

By contrast, the 1963 film version decided to make itself a bright, colorful film extravaganza that played to the strengths of the film medium. And the results in my opinion, worked wonderfully.

To a stage fan like "citybuilder" who rips the changes from the play, he needs to stop and think of how the structure of the stage version, which has the Sullivan show moment and the punching of Conrad as an Act I finale, would never have worked on film. It simply makes more cinematic sense to move that to the end. And the whole big deal over Rose's ethnicity, which was really done to showcase the talent of Broadway lead Chita Rivera, would have been a distraction as well because spotlighting Albert's mother as a racist would have gone against the whole tone of the movie (and truth be told "Spanish Rose" is not that great a song). Likewise, it's better to have Albert sing "Put On A Happy Face" to Rose rather than a nameless Conrad Birdie fan we never see again.

Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde offer the right amount of gravitas from the Broadway cast, Janet Leigh in her black wig gets to show off her dancing talent which she seldom got a chance to do (her singing is admittedly a bit thin, but she gets by), and of course Ann-Margret totally elevates the role of Kim McAfee into a star vehicle, and who can blame them for doing this? Her rendition of the title song written for the film is enough to leave one gasping for air, yet she still manages to be convincing as the wide-eyed teenager just the same.

Ultimately, stage fans can be satisfied that they got the version they prefer done on film (though it should be noted that the 95 version is not a pure rendition of the 1960 stage script, but rather the 1991 touring revival), but movie fans got the better end of things with this version in 1963. It will never be among the great movie musicals, but it is two solid hours of colorful early 60s fun.

I really mean it. On the surface, it appears to be a funny, innocent, slap-happy musical. And it is - at least during the first half of the movie. Then it starts to wink at itself. I was ten when I first saw it, and though I enjoyed it a lot of it went way over my head. Watching it now, ten years later, I realize that BYE BYE BIRDIE is actually a smart, sophisticated satire that's not for kids.

The title character is Conrad Birdie, a vain, oily rock-'n'-roll star who's been drafted by the army. In fact, the movie focuses not so much on him as it does on the other characters - a songwriter and producer (Dick Van Dyke), his girlfriend (Janet Leigh), and a teenage girl named Kim (Ann-Margret). Forget Jesse Pearson, who plays Conrad; it's Van Dyke and Margret's movie all the way.

As I said, this film is actually a satire. There are so many in-jokes and jabs at the 1960s that watching it is almost like reading an issue of MAD or CRACKED magazine. In particular, the Cold War comes in for some heavy ribbing (this movie was made during 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis); the Soviets are made to look like pompous buffoons, with one guy even whacking himself in the head with his shoe (hint, hint). It's still pretty funny nearly four decades later, but I can imagine how much more of a punch it would have packed back during those foreboding times. In other scenes, the movie predates the style of John Waters by poking some fun at suburbia.

Lots of satire - and most of it decisively adult. You can bet that kids simply won't understand the scathingly sarcastic remarks delivered by Kim's Archie Bunkeresque father (Paul Lynde), or Kim's budding sexuality. And of course they're not going to be familiar with Ed Sullivan (himself). Still, there are lots of joyfully kinetic dance numbers and memorable songs (most notably "Going Steady," "Got a Lot of Livin' To Do," and the tune everybody remembers: "Put on a Happy Face"). Kids will want to fast-forward the VCR to the musical numbers, and also the funniest moment in the picture, which involves a glass of drugged milk and a ballet conductor.

An excellent, well-made, highly underestimated comedy, and infinitely superior to the made-for-TV version from 1995. So get a bowl of popcorn and check out this classic piece of popular culture. Just be prepared to explain a lot to the kiddies...

The vitriol below from fans of the Broadway original is absurd. Yes, this is not a filmed version of the stage play - GET OVER IT! What we have is a funny, smart, classic film musical that gets virtually everything right. Dick Van Dyke reprises his Broadway role while at the peak of his career, Paul Lynde gives his best film performance, Maureen Stapleton milks her part for all it's worth, and Ann-Margret is simply astounding! The only casting error is Janet Leigh - but they needed a name, since everyone else in the cast was unknown at the time. While Leigh gives a solid performance, songs had to be cut since she could sing only with difficulty. But this is a minor flaw - everything else about this film is spot on, as demonstrated by the sad effort to redo it for TV in 1995. It captures the era perfectly - of course, it's dated: it's about America in the early 60s! If it wasn't dated, it wouldn't work! So if you haven't seen it, get it - I just watched in in NYC's Bryant Park with thousands of jaded New Yorkers, and it won over that audience completely. Enjoy!

With the gift of a DVD by a good friend, I have now viewed BBB for the first time in over 20 years. And the comments here astound me: so many people coming to a message board to complain on a film that isn't a stage show. Or a book. Or an editorial. Different media sometimes (not always, to be sure) necessitate a change or alteration in a story adaptation. Yes, Rosie's ethnicity is down pedaled in the film (mainly because Chita Riviera wasn't in it), but they don't eliminate it entirely by the inclusion of a hideous black wig on Janet Leigh. I didn't miss Albert not being an English teacher as opposed to a chemist at all; it doesn't change the essence of his still-henpecked-by-his-mother character. On a different matter, I'm a little surprised to learn that Dick Van Dyke apparently had a bruised ego because of the strong emergence of co-star Ann-Margret in the film (his name still comes before hers, f'heaven's sakes!), but what can you do? The film is a fun, bright, pseudo-satire of the generation gap, teens, Elvis, and most of all, Ed Sullivan!! The finer numbers include the A-M introduction in "How Lovely to be a Woman" followed by the insane ensemble piece "Sincere-" which contains one of the funniest closing camera pans ever used in a film. "Kids" is also fine, but "Put on a Happy Face" is hampered by the limited dancing ability of Janet Leigh- through no fault of her own, mind you, but an obvious hole in what should have been a boy-girl dance duet (which they try to hide with excessive trick camera effects). The film's standout number, IMO, is "A Lot of Livin' to Do-" a nightclub extravaganza sung by THREE different leads advancing two different plots of the story at once. With stellar direction by George Sidney and inventive choreography by Onna White, it first appears as a conventional girl-swooning solo for the title character, but quickly shifts to the cat-and-mouse antics of torn lovers A-M and Bobby Rydell, who lead the entire club in a kind of challenge dance. And while it isn't her first film, this is the scene (for me, anyway) which shows A-M's breakout performance, dancing in a bare midriff and pair of hot-pink capris- and she blows the roof off the place. No surprise that the next year she was cast opposite Elvis himself. Check it out, and try not to break into dance yourself, I dare you!!