O Pássaro 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 ****

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.

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.

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.

Obvious, an eccentric version of the play by Maurice Maeterlinck. First, for Mytyl proposed by Shirley Temple, seeming more a combination of Heidi and tomboy.

Second, for very restrained team.

Not the last, for effort of Gale Sondergaart. To offer a reasonable cat but who preserves as pure obscure its evil gestures motivation. And the rest in flames is not the most inspired idea.

Two virtues save the film - the intense firestorm and the poetic - and faithfull palace of unborn children. And, sure, the dog, beautiful performed by Mr. Collins, like the grandparents or the location în time.

But the feeling to be an eccentric try remains. Sure, one of films of Shirley Temple. But, I suppose, it is not just enough ehen you real love the original play.