I finally saw this film tonight, thanks to the British cable channel "Talking Pictures" screening a really gorgeous print and at last, I can understand why it was such a major box office flop in 1940.
The reviews here on IMDb are mostly from people living in the USA and a large number of them express being entranced by this heavy-handed fantasy. Perhaps they see things differently there? Or maybe they just adore Shirley Temple, no matter what the film? As a Britisher, I have never understood the appeal of Shirley Temple. Her saccharine cutesy-pie act and tuneless, off-key singing always left me cold, even as a child. In this movie (her first in colour), she is even less appealing than usual and the thought that she was ever considered for the part of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz just beggars belief.
The main problem with The Blue Bird as far as I'm concerned is that it lacks charm, though it tries very hard indeed. The composer Alfred Newman (a musical genius) scores the film with as much sweet-toned romantic melody as he is capable of, but it just does not match what is happening on screen.
Some wonderful character actors do their best in various roles and the colour photography is often ravishing - but at the end of the day, one never warms to the central character (Temple) and the "message" of the film is so obvious, the final scene is painfully predictable.
The Blue Bird is often compared to Oz and I can see why. But Oz had great songs, humour (Eddie Collins as the dog just leaves me cold) superb special effects (in Blue Bird, the effects are obvious and cheap looking, with gaudy painted backdrops at every turn) and also had a terrific narrative drive thanks to Mr Baum.
It also had the unique talents of Judy Garland, who brought pathos, wit, charm and musical verve to the role of Dorothy that had audiences transfixed then and forever afterwards. Ms Temple on the other hand, grates with every toss of her curls and every pout of her lips.
In spite of many video, DVD and TV revivals, The Blue Bird has failed to find an audience, even with the patina of nostalgia through the passage of time. I doubt it ever will.
It is an expensive, lumpen curio and proof that not everything produced in Hollywood's Golden Age was worthy of the great talents working there.
The reviews here on IMDb are mostly from people living in the USA and a large number of them express being entranced by this heavy-handed fantasy. Perhaps they see things differently there? Or maybe they just adore Shirley Temple, no matter what the film? As a Britisher, I have never understood the appeal of Shirley Temple. Her saccharine cutesy-pie act and tuneless, off-key singing always left me cold, even as a child. In this movie (her first in colour), she is even less appealing than usual and the thought that she was ever considered for the part of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz just beggars belief.
The main problem with The Blue Bird as far as I'm concerned is that it lacks charm, though it tries very hard indeed. The composer Alfred Newman (a musical genius) scores the film with as much sweet-toned romantic melody as he is capable of, but it just does not match what is happening on screen.
Some wonderful character actors do their best in various roles and the colour photography is often ravishing - but at the end of the day, one never warms to the central character (Temple) and the "message" of the film is so obvious, the final scene is painfully predictable.
The Blue Bird is often compared to Oz and I can see why. But Oz had great songs, humour (Eddie Collins as the dog just leaves me cold) superb special effects (in Blue Bird, the effects are obvious and cheap looking, with gaudy painted backdrops at every turn) and also had a terrific narrative drive thanks to Mr Baum.
It also had the unique talents of Judy Garland, who brought pathos, wit, charm and musical verve to the role of Dorothy that had audiences transfixed then and forever afterwards. Ms Temple on the other hand, grates with every toss of her curls and every pout of her lips.
In spite of many video, DVD and TV revivals, The Blue Bird has failed to find an audience, even with the patina of nostalgia through the passage of time. I doubt it ever will.
It is an expensive, lumpen curio and proof that not everything produced in Hollywood's Golden Age was worthy of the great talents working there.