The Blue Bird (1940)
Many people consider the 1940 film version of The Blue Bird starting Shirley Temple to basically be a second-rate Wizard of Oz. Well, to that I say...yeah, they’re pretty much right. Just looking at the film itself, it’s clear that they’re trying everything they can in an attempt to replicate the successful film techniques of Wizard. For example, both use the idea of changing to Technicolor when the fantasy elements are first introduced and some of the casting choices seem to have been made with Wizard in mind. Eddie Collins plays Tylo, who has characteristics similar to the Cowardly Lion, while Gale Sondergaard, who plays Tylette, had originally been cast as the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz before dropping out due to a disagreement over how the character should be portrayed. Even Shirley Temple herself is believed to have been considered for the role of Dorothy in Wizard of Oz, though many sources differ on this. The film had a lot of talented and successful people working on it giving it their all, but despite all the effort, it is not entirely able to meet the standards of The Wizard of Oz.
Mytyl (Shirley Temple) and Tyltyl (Johnny Russell) envy the fact that they don’t belong to a rich family while Mytyl selfishly refuses to give a bird she found to a sick friend (Sybil Jason). When a fairy (Jessie Ralph) sends the two of them on a quest to find the Blue Bird of Happiness, they discover on their journey that rich life is not what they think it is and that they should appreciate what they have rather than what they haven’t.
So why doesn’t this work as well as Wizard of Oz? For one thing, The Blue Bird does not lend itself well to the Technicolor aspect. I know this may not sound like it’s that big of a deal, but remember that both of these films are fantasies and are trying to build on elements that are not common in the real world. Both films try to contrast this by having the home settings not in color (although The Blue Bird remains in color even after they return home). The difference is that the fantasy world and buildings in Wizard are bright and colorful, to the point where they actually mislead you into thinking that they lead to something beyond happiness. The Blue Bird, meanwhile, takes place mostly at night, not allowing for them to show off the colors very well. The one exception is the land featuring the children who have yet to be born and even that is not a very big setting.
Another major issue is the behavior of Mytyl. One reason often cited for the film’s failure is that audiences were not used to seeing Temple play a selfish and constantly complaining character, which is basically what she plays here. The problem isn’t so much the fact that Temple is out of character as it is that the characterization feels unnecessary. The message of the film is supposed to be about where to find happiness, though this film is trying to teach this to Mytyl while also teaching her not to be selfish. Even though they sometimes can be related, happiness and selfishness are not the same thing and the selfish angle feels both unnecessary and annoying. Mytyl is constantly complaining at the beginning and is especially rude to her very sick friend! Although in the silent version Mytyl also refuses to give the bird to the sick friend, she says this to the girl’s mother instead of directly to her and other than this, the characters show no real signs of ungratefulness and self-indulgence. This story could have been told without this angle and Mytyl ends off coming across as especially unlikeable at the beginning of this version. This may have been added in an attempt to copy the dreamer aspect of Dorothy Gale’s personality, since Mytyl wants to be rich, though Dorothy at least has reason to feel neglected and she only gets mad at the people who deserve it.
So let’s completely forget about the Wizard of Oz comparisons for a second. Even without that taken into account, this film still does not stand very well on its own. For example, there’s a really dumb scene where Tylette convinces a bunch of tree spirits that they need to kill Mytyl, Tyltyl, and Tylo because they’re searching for the Blue Bird of Happiness. It’s never really stated why they have to kill them, though I think it has something to do with the fact that the spirits will return to their original form if they succeed. So, what’s their solution? To start a forest fire! They are literally killing themselves for no reason! Even Tylette runs straight into the fire in an attempt to kill them, only to sacrifice herself because...she didn’t want to be a cat again. This scene is just so unnecessary and unsurprisingly it also does not appear in the silent version.
The musical score is alright, although the song, “Lay-De-O” feels like it was forced in, not necessarily because Wizard had songs but rather the fact that Temple generally did song-and-dance numbers in her other films. It’s the only song with lyrics in the film and it feels out of place since the film is stressing the fantasy elements over the music.
Despite the film’s problems, it’s not a complete disaster. The supporting cast gives it their all and actually succeed quite well. Sondergaard and Collins are very effective in their roles and really help liven up the picture during some of the more dull moments. The cast also includes such talents as Nigel Bruce, Spring Byington, Cecilia Loftus, and Al Shean, all of whom are able to give emotional yet also totally believable performances.
The elements that are retained from the original play are also handled very well, like with the grandparents who only come to life when they’re remembered. Moments like this actually do manage to be really emotional and give the film a certain somber feel that does make it feel a bit more unique. Even the message itself is a good one, although also one that is literally spoken directly to the audience.
Overall, the film isn’t really bad, though it is seriously flawed. There’s a reason it isn’t remembered quite as fondly as some of Temple’s other films.
6 out of 10
Mytyl (Shirley Temple) and Tyltyl (Johnny Russell) envy the fact that they don’t belong to a rich family while Mytyl selfishly refuses to give a bird she found to a sick friend (Sybil Jason). When a fairy (Jessie Ralph) sends the two of them on a quest to find the Blue Bird of Happiness, they discover on their journey that rich life is not what they think it is and that they should appreciate what they have rather than what they haven’t.
So why doesn’t this work as well as Wizard of Oz? For one thing, The Blue Bird does not lend itself well to the Technicolor aspect. I know this may not sound like it’s that big of a deal, but remember that both of these films are fantasies and are trying to build on elements that are not common in the real world. Both films try to contrast this by having the home settings not in color (although The Blue Bird remains in color even after they return home). The difference is that the fantasy world and buildings in Wizard are bright and colorful, to the point where they actually mislead you into thinking that they lead to something beyond happiness. The Blue Bird, meanwhile, takes place mostly at night, not allowing for them to show off the colors very well. The one exception is the land featuring the children who have yet to be born and even that is not a very big setting.
Another major issue is the behavior of Mytyl. One reason often cited for the film’s failure is that audiences were not used to seeing Temple play a selfish and constantly complaining character, which is basically what she plays here. The problem isn’t so much the fact that Temple is out of character as it is that the characterization feels unnecessary. The message of the film is supposed to be about where to find happiness, though this film is trying to teach this to Mytyl while also teaching her not to be selfish. Even though they sometimes can be related, happiness and selfishness are not the same thing and the selfish angle feels both unnecessary and annoying. Mytyl is constantly complaining at the beginning and is especially rude to her very sick friend! Although in the silent version Mytyl also refuses to give the bird to the sick friend, she says this to the girl’s mother instead of directly to her and other than this, the characters show no real signs of ungratefulness and self-indulgence. This story could have been told without this angle and Mytyl ends off coming across as especially unlikeable at the beginning of this version. This may have been added in an attempt to copy the dreamer aspect of Dorothy Gale’s personality, since Mytyl wants to be rich, though Dorothy at least has reason to feel neglected and she only gets mad at the people who deserve it.
So let’s completely forget about the Wizard of Oz comparisons for a second. Even without that taken into account, this film still does not stand very well on its own. For example, there’s a really dumb scene where Tylette convinces a bunch of tree spirits that they need to kill Mytyl, Tyltyl, and Tylo because they’re searching for the Blue Bird of Happiness. It’s never really stated why they have to kill them, though I think it has something to do with the fact that the spirits will return to their original form if they succeed. So, what’s their solution? To start a forest fire! They are literally killing themselves for no reason! Even Tylette runs straight into the fire in an attempt to kill them, only to sacrifice herself because...she didn’t want to be a cat again. This scene is just so unnecessary and unsurprisingly it also does not appear in the silent version.
The musical score is alright, although the song, “Lay-De-O” feels like it was forced in, not necessarily because Wizard had songs but rather the fact that Temple generally did song-and-dance numbers in her other films. It’s the only song with lyrics in the film and it feels out of place since the film is stressing the fantasy elements over the music.
Despite the film’s problems, it’s not a complete disaster. The supporting cast gives it their all and actually succeed quite well. Sondergaard and Collins are very effective in their roles and really help liven up the picture during some of the more dull moments. The cast also includes such talents as Nigel Bruce, Spring Byington, Cecilia Loftus, and Al Shean, all of whom are able to give emotional yet also totally believable performances.
The elements that are retained from the original play are also handled very well, like with the grandparents who only come to life when they’re remembered. Moments like this actually do manage to be really emotional and give the film a certain somber feel that does make it feel a bit more unique. Even the message itself is a good one, although also one that is literally spoken directly to the audience.
Overall, the film isn’t really bad, though it is seriously flawed. There’s a reason it isn’t remembered quite as fondly as some of Temple’s other films.
6 out of 10
Comments
Post a Comment