Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Brilliant and touching

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Beautiful performances and astonishing special effects highlight this very early allegory of where and how to seek happiness.Other reviewers have commented on the performance of the then very young actress Tula Belle, who was about 12 and who didn't make movies but for two more years, to our loss. No superlatives are excessive.The entire cast was, in fact, excellent, and not a one is well known today. In fact, of the entire production, most of the names are generally unknown today, except for director Maurice Tourneur, film editor Clarence Brown, and -- known to me, at least, because I actually met him in about 1974 -- Ben Carré, who designed both costumes and set. Ben Carré was a genius in his field.For 1918, the special effects were amazing and effective. The entire production was just breath-taking and eye-popping.Seeing this on Turner Classic Movies Sunday night, 17 January 2015 (California time), was an exciting experience, even to me, and I have been a silent movie fan for more than 40 years. I thought I knew the history of the genre, and still have lots to learn.For anyone who missed it on TCM, or for anyone who wants to see it again, it's available at YouTube, three versions at this writing for free and another for a rental fee."The Blue Bird" is a real treat, both for its entertainment value and for its history lesson. The message is perhaps rather corny and maybe not so well delivered in the last shot, but the over-all experience is, to me, just overwhelming. I highly recommend "The Blue Bird."

The Blue Bird (1918) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Poor children Mytyl (Tula Belle) and Tyltyl (Robin Macdougall) are visited by a fairy (Lillian Cook) who takes them on a trip to see what's really important in life. THE BLUE BIRD was directed by Maurice Tourneur, a highly visionary director who actually does a very good job with the look of this film as it's certainly one of the more impressive films visually from this era. This was actually the first version of this story that I've ever seen, which is somewhat shocking considering how many there have actually been. This is basically a fantasy-adventure film as the children and the fairy go searching for the "Bluebird of Happiness" which they are hoping will cure a sick nature. The film really does seem like a darker version of THE WIZARD OF OZ and it's funny because if you've seen any early version of Oz you'll remember that many of the animals were played by humans in costumes and that's the same case here. I've read many reviews that say this makes a film look silly but I'd disagree. I'm going to guess that at the time people were very use to this practice and I'd argue that in today's time it doesn't look silly but instead it adds a surreal effect to the film. Another gimmick is that the kids are able to view the souls of various objects including fire and even bread. The visual effects here aren't ground-breaking and they're not among the best I've ever seen but they are still impressive for the time. I found the performances of the two leads to be very good as was Cook at the fairy who really gives a comforting performance. I think there are some pacing issues in the film and even at just 80-minutes the film is a little slow at times. With that said, it's still an interesting visual film and for that it's worth viewing.

well. can't say this film was totally my cuppatea, but i am neither a true scholar of cinema and i often am put off by how disturbingly strange the overall effect of cinema silents are. i'm not the smartest on the block, but i don't think i'm a total slouch either. i can at least recognize the importance of something because of my partial familiarity with classicism, neo or otherwise. it was pretty obvious of the artistic and cultural importance of Maurice Tourneur's 'Bluebird'.the real problems with this film more than likely have more to do with me. even though i love horror movies and ghost stories, i also scare easily. as a child i had many recurring nightmares that were more often than not, induced by the images i was exposed to at the movies. i admit it. i was one of those silly, wimpy little kids that was frightened by 'OZ' and flying monkeys. even though i love cinema, i can't say for sure if i ever really have gotten used to the whole thing. maybe that's part of the fun. let's hope so.to be perfectly honest i found this movie to be more than just a little bit creepy and disturbing. to be truthful, i thought it was pretty weird. but it was what they say it is. beautiful, mysterious and haunting. unfortunately a little TOO haunting for some of us. it almost feels like having a actual ghost present in the TV room. if i was a kid again watching this, i'd be afraid of it. as a adult i'm not so sure i wasn't afraid of this. fortunately i saw this first as a adult because i could assess the images here better than i would have as a child. after all, don't they always say, "it's only a movie". repeat that thought two more times every time the cinema gets to you too much.not to say that this movie doesn't have moments of charm and humour. once you get used to all that caked on silent movie make up all over those kids faces, they start to look a little more like cute, normal kids. but at first they were kind of off putting. many of the sentiments are well expressed with good insight and tell the folklore with great love of tradition.also the guy that played the cat was a hilarious trip to watch run around on all fours, and the scene where he gets into a fight with the dog is a real guffaw.this also has some of the most beautiful fantasy images from the silent cinema era. a far cry from the often pedestrian imagery in the delightful and cute, but often hokey 'Peter Pan' by Adolph Zukor. love the silent 'Peter Pan', but this is obviously a more sophisticated film-work. and with due respect to James Wong Howe, the cinematography here is more accomplished and stylish. the whole thing was spooky, but definitely otherworldly.it is very sad to note the condition of the film print here. much of it was severely deteriorated and neglected to a shameful extent. this should never happen to any film. that's why film preservation should include all film and television and not be left to personal opinion or pick and choose mentality. one person's garbage is another's personal experience. at least preserving films can tell us something about the time period from which they came and about the persons. no art form should ever go this neglected or abused like this. a testimony to the cruelty man shows against the things he creates in this world.i enjoyed this classic very much. but i can't say children or families of today's commercial driven market will. most kids will probably think it weird and creepy, and their baby boomer and Gen.X parents will be confused by it. this film is probably best enjoyed by cinema scholars or people interested in the classical. whatever, it's probably only people with a learned education that will appreciate this. it's not something you might take to naturally. but who knows, wonders do happen and people can be surprisingly quirky sometimes. it's rare, like this beautiful film, but it happens.a definite must see for silent film fans and scholars in the art of filmmaking. they're probably the ones who can explain this the best.

Somewhere or anywhere, during a snowy winter, young Robin Macdougall (as Tyltyl) and little sister Tula Belle (as Mytyl) learn their neighbor's child is sick. The ailing girl thinks she might be well and happy if she could only have young Tyltyl's caged bird, but Mytyl decides the siblings won't give it up. That evening, they are awakened by a winged fairy, Lillian Cook (as Berylune), who sets them off on a quest to find the elusive "Bluebird of Happiness" and put it in their suddenly empty cage.Companions like humanized feline Tom Corless (as Cat) consider sabotaging the mission, because he, canine Charles Ascot (as Dog), and other manifestations of inhumanity learn they will cease to exist if and when the children achieve success. Tyltyl and Mytyl search far and wide for the Bluebird of Happiness - meeting not only their dead grandparents, but also their future brother during their journey - but the creature remains hidden where they least expect to find it… "The Blue Bird" is filled with beautiful thoughts from the original Maurice Maeterlinck play. Homilies like "Heaven is where you and I kiss each other…" seems as good a definition as any. With majestic allegory by director Maurice Tourneur, production designer Ben Carré, and their crew, it was probably unwise to try to improve this orchestrated silent version of "The Blue Bird" - and filmmakers famously failed twice. Despite the ravages of time, this is the definitive version of the classic story.Regrettably, the film has deteriorated beyond restoration in some spots. Moreover, some cutting has been done. Most famous is the trimming of a nude child sleeping right of mother "Night" - still, the naked form appears full, early in the sequence. Probably, the censors left the long shots intact. The children were modestly and tastefully photographed, by the way. Also, it does seem like some exposition is missing about the diamond-studded hat Tyltyl is given - the turning of which prompts magic.After the huge success of Mary Pickford as "The Poor Little Rich Girl" (1917), Mr. Tourneur was obviously riding a creative peak. Within a year, he had three more critically acclaimed classics - "Barbary Sheep" (1917), "The Blue Bird" (1918), and "Prunella" (1918). All three placed in "Motion Picture" magazine's year's best photoplays (at #4, #6, and #3).Probably, "The Blue Bird" was too long and episodic a flight for most 1918 theatergoers, and the film performed less than spectacularly at the box office. Potential plot threads, like the Cat's mutiny, appear curiously underdeveloped. Still, the film's beauty shines through. And, the dream-like quality present in the tinted, flickering, wordless scenes only add to the magic.Perhaps most incredible is the not original, yet startling in context ending - young Tyltyl (Macdougall) unexpectedly "speaks" directly to the audience (about the quest) while the once sickly, but now beautiful young Katherine Bianchi smiles knowingly at his side - sister Mytyl (Belle) is regulated to the background, most definitely pondering this latest turn of events… ********* The Blue Bird (3/31/18) Maurice Tourneur ~ Robin Macdougall, Tula Belle, Lillian Cook, Tom Corless