|
Author
|
Comment
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(9/25/05 2:40 am)
|
The Blue Bird?
Thought I'd throw the topic out, for curiosity, and just to get a sense of bearings--
I was about to embark on a personal project on Maurice Maeterlinck's "The Blue Bird", and wondered where the resident experts stand on it today:
The story was a stage rival for "Peter Pan" when it came out, and handed Maeterlinck his literature Nobel on a silver platter; nowadays, you can barely find anyone who remembers the Shirley Temple movie version.
Even my memories date back to seeing the no-resemblance Temple version on TV when I was a kid--and I'd even managed to find the accurate-but-hideous all-star 1976 Russian version on disk--and it wasn't until I'd tracked down an old vintage-book version of the play that I'd discovered how much the story I remembered was buried under Maeterlinck's forced, clunky, inexperienced writing.
Maurice clearly had no idea how to turn his 20's-mysticism sermonizing into a fairytale--except to toss some Perrault references around and think that all child protagonists should resemble Hansel & Gretel--but darnit, it still seems like there's a wide-eyed Hans Christian Andersen story underneath, struggling to get out...
...Any thoughts (either from those who remember it or those who came across it in college)?
Does it still carry a modicum of reputation, or am I digging this one too far out of the past? :o |
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(9/25/05 7:57 am)
|
Bluebird
Sorry to say that I've never read the story, but if it's of any interest, I do know that the Temple movie was rushed into production in the wake of the success of The Wizard of Oz. Of course, it didn't have anything like Oz's impact. I believe that it was one of the last, if not the last child-actress films Temple made. Then she did some teen stuff after a break, I think.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 9/25/05 3:58 pm
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(9/25/05 2:54 pm)
|
Re: Bluebird
Specifically, it was made in response to Fox's "d'ohh!" over having held out too long to lend Temple to MGM to play Dorothy (which might explain how similar Oz-exile Gale Sondergaard ended up in the cast as well)--
More to the point, it gutted the story, switched the leads to accomodate Temple, removed the entire Palace of Night act of the play, dropped five of the main characters, and, well...still managed in places to be a kid-friendly "My First" introduction to the general feel of the point, in a less overbearing way than Maeterlinck's own script.
(And aw, go on, what would a rental hurt?)
Guess I can take that as an answer to the "Does anybody remember it?" question, which means I can go ahead with the project as planned. :) |
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(9/25/05 4:00 pm)
|
Re: Bluebird
Sadly, these days, a rental would hurt my finances. I ain't kidding.
Yep, Fox screwed up on that one, but thank goodness. I do not think Shirley Temple could have brought half the emotional depth to the role that Garland did. Sondergaard, interestingly, left by mutual agreement, because she wanted to be a sexy witch, a la Snow White, and MGM decided to do the scary witch we all know, love, and fear.
|
|
