thinbeach Was this written by a VFX department? Heavy on effects, and light on story, a couple of kids from a poor family have a dream that an angel takes them to heaven and reminds them of all the good stuff in life. To pull this off we get reverse footage, double exposures, stop animation, painted sets, creative editing and so on - all the high tech tricks of the era, which are still being used in cinema today, if a little more convincingly. The feel of the film is part Melies, part 'The Wizard of Oz' (particularly the 1914 version - complete with humans dressed up as animals) and part the dream sequence of Tourneur's earlier 'Poor Little Rich Girl'. Despite some campiness, the visuals are the most interesting thing going for it - there is some nice photography here.But what is the good stuff the angel shows them, you ask? Well, mostly just pretty girls dancing in the outdoors, as it turns out. These images are meant to symbolise ideas, such as 'the joy of pure air'. The 'souls' of inanimate objects like milk and water and light are also symbolised, and guess what they turn out to be - pretty girls! Very cheesy, and completely lacking in the poignancy it tries so hard create, this is only for those who like abstract for the sake of abstract.Now I have no issue with a moral reminding us of the natural virtues of life and the people around us, but a moral alone does not a great film make, and this film is sorely lacking in the most important element - story.

johnstonjames 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.

wes-connors 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

FerdinandVonGalitzien As it is well-known among silent film connoisseurs, the fine Arts were an essential influence on silent films in general and Herr Maurice Tourneur's work in particular. His beautiful oeuvres gave him fame and prestige around the world from his French period in the mid 10's to his career in the USA."The Blue Bird" (1918) tells the story of two poor children, Mytyl and Tyltyl, who are led by the fairy Berylune in the search, around a fantastic world, for the blue bird of happiness. The film belongs to Herr Tourneur's American silent film period, and in this movie it is possible to watch all his artistic virtues in full display. This early astounding production is striking even today for its great artistic merits. The film was based on a book written by the Belgian poet Herr Maurice Maeterlinck and maybe Herr Tourneur during his young days could have illustrated it due to his earlier career as a book illustrator or… MEIN GOTT!!! Perhaps he even read it! In any case, Herr Tourneur adapted and transferred the fairy tale story to the silent screen in a superb way.The film exudes classicism and even romanticism, artistic subjects that Herr Tourneur know very well how to employ in the world of fantasy. There is amazing art direction, elaborate decors and costumes and witty technical effects, not to mention the inventiveness that can be seen in every shot of the film and in the beautiful, exemplary photography of Herr John van den Broek and Lucien Andriot that captures the atmosphere of the classical fairy books through a cinema lens in a masterly way.Probably the story can be considered as affected, even innocent in this modern time but even that has a special value in artistic terms for this film; that baroque taste and out of date atmosphere fit perfectly in the story that moves from the real to the dream world, from the real to the unreal. Herr Tourneur's interpretation of this fantastic universe is a prodigious work, imaginative and inventive and shining with brilliant artistic merits.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must listen to the gracious caw of the Schloss crows.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/