Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I found this 1918 version of "The Blue Bird" by accident. The film was based on the show by Maurice Maeterlinck, originally titled "L'Oiseau Bleu", and apparently had success on Broadway.This silent movie was directed by Maurice Tourneur. The story springboards in the manner of Bunyan's pilgrim's progress as the "similitude of a dream." The shots, employing the rigid camera technique of the day, resemble illustrations in children's books from the era and remain quite beautiful over the course of various monochrome tintings.So far so good, because this is a ...strange, strange story. The premise for the children's dream is that with help from the Blue Bird of Happiness we can see beyond the apparent nature of the perceived world of material objects and somehow grasp the spiritual essence of the merest of mere things. We will then stop coveting wealth, fame, and power, and discover contentment with the joys of (our existing) home and hearth.Confined to a verbal description the premise seems more than a little banal, yet on film the concept allows Tourner-Maeterlinck to birth some of the oddest roles in movie history: e.g., check out Charles Craig as Sugar (yes, the real thing) and Sammy Blum as Bread (ditto). I don't know how "method" acting figures in all of this, but the result seems to be an attempted demonstration of Spinoza's view that apparently inert matter is somehow ensouled. Then again, encountering Bread and Sugar as just guys is less surprising after years watching all the animation of the inanimate in television commercials. For good measure the children's dream grants the household pets human speech and personality, revealing the pets' canine and feline characters as noble and sinister, respectively. That for me was about the only unoriginal thing in this one-of-a-kind viewing experience.If only Maeterlinck could have tried out his idea in the Sixties, maybe with Timothy Leary as technical adviser... But I digress.The two child leads, the characters named Mytyl and Tyltyl (easy to type on the script?), are effectively, if naively, portrayed. I also remember enjoying the choreographed sequence introducing the "fire" character. And the artistically accomplished use of silhouettes in place of live actors to present a party sequence deepens the credibility of a filmed dream.The music-only soundtrack on the version I saw was marred by a flutter so bad I simply turned off the sound and missed nothing. Aside from a few brief rough patches in the images the print I saw was gorgeous. Based on the frequent use of tinting to signal mood changes I would even call this black and white movie colorful.Theatrical adaptations of Baum's "Oz" books were running at about this time (a young Ray Bolger saw one, forming a resolution achieved years later as an adult), along with Barrie's "Peter Pan". In spite of its age you can see ingredients that would later appear in the 1939 production of "The Wizard of Oz". The Blue Bird tale was remade in the sound era in 1940 starring Shirley Temple. Intended to rival MGM's "Oz", it flopped. Another try occurred in 1976 as a U.S. - U.S.S.R. exercise in détente. Maybe Soviet censors saw the lively menagerie of physical things noted above as a creative application of the Marxian principle of "materialism".

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/

Taken from Maurice Maeterlinck's play (which was produced in the period immediately after Barrie's successful "Peter Pan") about 2 children who must go on an epic journey to find the Blue Bird of Happiness. Their journey takes them through the houses of terror, excessive wealth, and happiness. There are some very interesting scenes visually speaking. In the early sequences, we see the common household items come to life, such as milk (a lovely woman in flowing white robes), the family dog and cat (who bear comparison to the animals in the silent versions of "Oz"), a sugar loaf (amusingly portrayed by a man in a white tube costume with a pointy head) and most impressively fire (an interpretive dance with striking impact). Unfortunately some of these early scenes are almost ruined by the deterioration of the print.Later they see some somewhat terrifying things as they must enter the house of "Mrs. Night". Upon leaving there, they encounter their dead grandparents in a graveyard, who remonstrate with them for not visiting their graves enough. That's typical of the many ways in which this film attempted to give children a guilt trip about not taking things in their lives seriously enough. I found it bizarre that their "dead brothers and sisters" were also present, and there were a full half dozen of them. That would indicate an infant mortality rate above 80%. There's an amusing bit where they are in some kind of house that symbolizes excessive luxury. All the "things" begin to turn from their mission and enjoy the luxury, including the Sugar Loaf who is being licked by a half dozen lovely ladies! They end up in the house of happiness, where they see a deified version of their mother and in one interesting bit they come upon all the children who have not yet been born.The children who portrayed Mytyl and Tytyl were quite engaging, but most of the other performances in the film felt very 2 dimensional. Although there is some stylization, a lot of the shots feel very stage-bound. I think Tourneur should have strayed further from the story's original stage version and made it more cinematic in general. Also I think the film's story and its message are hopelessly obvious. There really isn't a feeling of continuity in the children's character transformations, they seem confused and at times foolish only to suddenly realize what's happening in the film's conclusion -- which might work in terms of the plot but it doesn't make this a richer film. In the end I think it has to be called an interesting failure by Tourneur in terms of expanding the scope of film fantasy.

the blue bird from 1918 is one of the most beautiful, captivating films of all time. it is the story of 2 poor children who are visited by a fairy on Christmas eve. the fairy shows them how to see things through the eyes of God. she teaches them about what is truly important in life. they follow the fairy through many events and learn something new from each experience. if you have not seen this great silent film or have seen another version, then please take the time to watch this masterpiece, you will never forget it. the young girl who plays mytel (tula belle) is nothing short of tremendous. her acting is very natural and has a realism i've never seen in another child star. tula's facial expressions even without speech, is more effective than most child stars with both mediums. tula belle's performance in the blue bird is probably the single best performance by a child star of all time.