The Blue Bird (1940)

Amid 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.

This 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.

Being old doesn't excuse a movie from participating in every sick prejudice there is. Despite what people think, such prejudices were known about and detested by the mainstream even then. One reason this movie never made it far. The idea could have been good without the propaganda. It is about a child (Shirley Temple) who goes on an imaginary journey with her brother to a lot of places to search for the bluebird of happiness. A sort of fairy godmother changes her pets into humans. Going with the first great prejudice, the ugly bulldog is loyal, loving and helpful. I've been a kid before, and I can tell you nothing is more dangerous to a kid than a dog, and a bulldog is not a good dog. The cat is depicted as pure evil. Talk about stereotypes! It might have made sense if the evil cat woman had been a Siamese at least, which are the only cats that actually fit the personality treat to any degree (sorry Siamese lovers. I know they can be loving, too. But they do display the most aloofness and selfishness, though not in any evil way.) Instead, this movie took a black and white cat (part Main Coon), which are by far the most affectionate and easy going of the kitty cat world. But then the real reason the director-writer team did this was to cast a dark haired woman in the only role that would involve getting killed. If you look at the votes for this movie, you'll see women rate it much higher, and young girls especially rate it high. Nothing makes them happier than seeing a beautiful brunette woman killed. And nothing makes a heterosexual guy more depressed. The director slaps you in the face with his Nazi idealism so hard it is impossible not to notice. These, and all the other prejudices you will see make this movie impossible to enjoy, at least for a male viewer. This should have been a good movie. It was a sick flop.

I'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.