Alla ricerca della felicità

When I started to see this movie, didn´t expect nothing more but enjoy the wonderful presence of Temple. But watching the entire film, I can only say that is an amazing experience of fantasy, spectacular set decorations, unforgettable characters (Tylette and Tylo are lovely!)...and the most important thing: the beautiful meaning of the blue bird at the end of the movie. In one word: unforgettable! Thanks.

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.

I 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.

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 ****

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.