The Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird

A banned film

Do you know the story of the film The King and the Bird?

Hard to mention it without quoting the essential Jean-Pierre Pagliano, author of Paul Grimault and Le roi et l'oiseau, a trip at the heart of the masterpiece of Prévert and Grimault. In this second work, Mr. Pagliano titles his introduction "raising the curtain", a clear reference to the first scene of the first film, underlined by a sketch, the same one which, in the second film, was reanimated in front of a new background ... which is no longer a curtain.

Yes there ARE two films, this is the specificity of this cartoon. To summarize as clearly as possible a complex situation: Paul Grimault, director, André Sarrut, producer and Jacques Prévert, screenwriter, embark after the war in the production of La bergère et le ramoneur (The Shepherdess and the Chimney Sweep), an attempt to make the first French feature cartoon, with their experience of short films already produced in their studio Les Gémeaux. Jean Image beats Les Gémeaux to it when he released the first French feature film cartoon Johnny the Giant Killer in 1950, production dragged on for another 3 years after that and costs accumulated so that the film alone would no longer be sufficient to cover their costs. The producer still tried to release it in French and English but, in his attempt, put a stop to the work of Grimault and Prévert who then publicly disavowed (in the credits, the press and the courts) the editing supervised by Sarrut which they consider to be an incomplete version and not in accordance with their wishes. The company went bankrupt.

25 years later, Grimault bought the rights and the negative, to complete what he still considered at the time his version of the film thanks to a reassembly of the scenes, a new soundtrack and new scenes animated by a new team. The film was renamed The King and the Bird to stand out from the shameful first version, he won the Louis Delluc Prize and the admiration of all critics "by blowing his trumpet with each new release, in theaters or on video. " specifies Mr. Pagliano. All's well that ends well.

Even as briefly summarized, this story raises several questions. Was La bergère et le ramoneur a very bad movie? How to see it today to form an opinion? Are the differences between the two versions so drastic? Why did the film take so long to be produced?
And of course: Is The King and the Bird so superior to The Shepherdess and the Chimney Sweep?

The banned cartoon

There are two ways to answer these questions. For ordinary people, there is only one: imagining what The Shepherdess could have been. And for the very few privileged few, there is another: watching the film. Indeed, Jean-Pierre Pagliano explains: "For the director, in any case, the second version has definitively obscured the first, to which the public should no longer have access."
There you have it. You, dear spectators, have no right to compare. Do not try to know if Paul Grimault was right: you will necessarily be of his opinion.

However, from the introduction of the book, the author reveals that the famous directors of the Japanese animation studios Ghibli consider, for having seen it, this famous Shepherdess as their inspiration and (ouch) "the original sequences appear superior to the new elements. " This does challenge the official story. If the second version won the Louis Delluc prize, the first won the Grand Jury Prize at the Venice Festival! Even on the basis of these two elements, one can begin to question the quality of this first film. Can it be that professionals of the time and today are so wrong?

In fact, when a spectator has fallen in love with a film, they have a rather bad experience of never being able to see it again, and seeing it in a deeply modified version hardly makes it better, whatever the modifications.

The best known example is undoubtedly George Lucas who opposes the release of Star Wars in its initial version, thus attracting the wrath of enthusiasts who wish to know or relive the sensations felt by first-viewers. For the changes made to the film, Lucas is often criticized, or even frankly insulted. For the more drastic modifications and the embargo on The Shepherdess, Grimault is praised and congratulated ("Overall, the press has always been rather nice to me"). There is a fascinating paradox here.

Paul Grimault at work in 1939

The captain of Les Gémeaux and his crew on a cruise

When Paul Duch wrote his article in Ciné Miroir on October 25, 1946, he was visibly delighted by his visit to the Gémeaux studios. He reports that after 4 short films almost completed, a feature film, The Shepherdess and the Chimney Sweep, written by Jacques Prévost (sic) is in preparation. Harmony is all around ("everyone is nice at Les Gémeaux") and the journalist goes so far as to believe that the studio is managed by "the Grimault brothers". If this is Grimault and Sarrut, they must have given the impression of good pair of friends!

While the making of the film is still in its infancy, a Cinévie journalist published on June 24, 1947 an article entitled "With 100 million francs, Paul Grimault hopes to do better than Walt Disney." Passed the astonishment at the utopian immodesty of this title, we realize that the editor is not fooled, and discredits, with figures, the claims of the director. And the reasons for worry are not lacking: insufficient number of designers, too short planned production time, pool of new designers out of school nonexistent, unattractive salary, ... "The situation of the Cartoon is actually desperate. " If a journalist from Cinévie, a "general public" magazine and not a corporate publication, knew how to predict future pitfalls as well, one can only shiver at the thought of being in André Sarrut's shoes. "This production must require 1 year and will cost 100 million francs. At the current rate of work, it threatens to last 5 years." A prediction which sounded catastrophic for the time, and which will prove to be below the truth. Jacques Asséo tells us that André Sarrut waited until he had swallowed 500 million (the New York Times will report a final bill of 600 million!) in a film still not finished to whistle the end of recess. There have been less bossy producers. In fact, Philippe Landrot describes him as "quite nice", "funny, he was a spiritual type." In short, not Norman Bates. The same the article of Cinévie indulgently concludes, although insincere, on the fact that Grimault will undoubtedly know how to recreate "the spirit of a kind which could be eminently French". A void patriotic argument often found as an excuse.

Workshop at the Gémeaux

However, by its costs, the number of people required to create it, and the stakes invariably incurred, the seventh is, of all the arts, the one who suffers the most from this implacable law: a work is not made for its creators but for the public. The filmmaker who does not understand this simple truth risks never creating a second work again, or even never finishing the first one. If Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs had been a flop, Walt Disney would likely be unknown today.

Let us take Jean Image more modestly since I mentioned him above. His first feature film is not what is commonly called a must-see these days. But it was built with a reasonable budget, and accompanied by a campaign with derivative products, youth publications, which allowed to generate in a short time enough profit to start production of a second feature film, with a slightly more poetic ambition, Bonjour Paris. Its creator then made a career in television by making many popular series while continuing to release animated feature films in theaters until the 1980s. We may or may not like his style, but in current vocabulary, that is called a success. After the failure of the adventure of La bergère, Grimault notably made advertisements for Lustucru pasta. He renounced making films at the time and when he published in La cinématographie française the announcement of the creation of his company Presse -Screen-Advertising, he dubbed himself "the excellent director of cartoons to whom we owe The lightning rod thief, The scarecrow, The little soldier. " The Shepherdess was already forgotten.

Ad for Le petit soldat

Grimault later criticized Sarrut for having deleted all the dismissed employees from the credits, including Prévert. A quick glance tells us that, at least in the case of Prévert, it is a lie. Moreover, his name is highlighted in advertisements and posters. But what strikes most an uninformed spectator in this credits is not the absence of names of strangers. It is indeed the two cards of the director and the screenwriter with a message the size of half the screen, like a court decision on the front page of a tabloid magazine: "The characters and the sets were designed and executed by Paul Grimault, but with  modifications which he disapproves. The making of the film is by Paul Grimault, but was ultimately cut, modified, and altered without his consent. This film was made after a script and dialogues by Jacques Prévert and Paul Grimault but has received modifications which they disapprove of. "
Imposing such messages (obviously by way of justice) in an opening credits is tantamount to publicly proclaiming the supposed poor quality of the film, and therefore to condemning its exploitation which would however need a great deal of success to recoup some of its cost.
Sarrut, when invited by La Cinématographie Française, responded with gratitude to the accusations on September 27, 1952, but, perhaps too honestly, limited himself to discreetly signaling that the legal proceedings under way forced him to reserve his detailed explanations for the courtyard. It seems that the opposing party was not bothered by this detail.

The crowd at the Normandie when the film was released

What if this controversy had not existed? Certainly, the debts would have remained. But would the film have been considered a failure? Couldn't the company have inspired investor confidence?

Grimault is aware of this and admits: "The public welcomed it (...) because they had no idea what the film should have been." La cinématographie française, after reminding us that the film won an award in Venice, considers it, as it stands, "a very good French cartoon feature (...) in turn fun and moving (. ..) very pleasant to see and hear ". In short, we are far from the dud or supposed betrayal and if the authors had wanted to compromise earlier, the expenses would have been lower, the profits would have come earlier and the prospects for new projects perhaps would have been more tangible. Presented with Crin Blanc, it also made a respectable career, although not enough to settle its debts, even in English under the title The Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird, thanks to the casting of the great Peter Ustinov in the role of the bird and Claire Bloom. It should be noted that this version is the only one which is still currently available on DVD in a poor quality copy where the controversial inscriptions and the beautiful music have been removed from the credits. The scene of the painter is also shortened.

We are therefore entitled to wonder who is responsible for the relative sinking of the film. Is it the producer who released the film against all odds in order to save the day but despite the wishes of the artists? Or the artists themselves who dragged the realization beyond reason and scuttled its release? As in many quarrels, the wrongs are undoubtedly shared.

Anyway, it would seem that Grimault and his team have lost sight of this essentially mercantile aspect of their art. Regarding the main animators, we can read a revealing sentence from Philippe Landrot: "They were all perfectionists, by the way, and in my opinion, some of the financial troubles come from there." In the land of the blind, one-eyed men are kings. As for Grimault, I invite you to read the many portraits by his collaborators reproduced by Jean-Pierre Pagliano in his book. Everything in the descriptions that are made of the director makes one think of a sweet dreamer (the term used by a reporter for Pour Vous to describe it from May 3, 1939). "Paul Grimault was a free man. Free, for example, to waste time happily." And it seems that this philosophy did not stop at work as Jean Vimenet tells us: "he had done an extraordinary background which was practically finished and then, all of a sudden, he put away his brushes, he opened the tap and he put his sheet under the water! It's rare to see someone having the courage to do that. " Some would speak of unconsciousness, especially when time and money are sorely needed.

In any case, he is the very opposite of the responsible entrepreneur. Grimault will boast about it himself after the release of The King and the Bird: "I managed to get to the end of my thing and I think there are some who preferred to take another train than this one there (a luxury train for a freight train), that’s something else. But when I am asked how many years of work it is, how many erasers, miles of pencil mines, I don't give a damn. "
Everything is said: no matter the budget, bankruptcy, broken friendships, layoffs, aborted careers, as long as he got his "thing" done. Obviously, he was not presented with the bill for the luxury train.

Two differently similar works: sound

So let's take a look at the freight train. What are the differences between these two films? What is immediately striking is the similarity between the two. Indeed, a huge part of the old has been taken over for the new. In fact, the story is therefore generally the same, which somewhat disappoints since one would have expected that such a long, complex and human-drama-generating business, would be justified by a different story, an animation mostly improved. Nay. The obvious major change is of course the soundtrack. First of all the music, which was in the old version a delightful music, sometimes grandiose at will during the credits or the chase and in any case, in the ears of this spectator, among the best works of Joseph Kosma which counts yet many masterpieces in his prolific career. The effect felt is that of a prestige film.
Unfortunately, technical considerations, but also and above all the bitterness of Prévert and Grimault against the brilliant composer, who was not sufficiently supportive of their misfortunes in their eyes, will sound the death knell for this score. Basically, Kosma had made the unforgivable mistake of honoring his contract.

On the other hand, Wojciech Kilar's approach is much more intimate, melancholic and contemplative. "Melancholic" and "dark" are the terms used on subtitles for deaf and hard of hearing in the Blu-ray. This gives a particular tone to the same images, certainly poetic, almost nostalgic, but in my opinion, less universal. By this I mean that the film is not, basically, designed to please the greatest number, this choice of music is not made to deviate from this perspective. The chase scene, largely left without music in the new version, clearly loses rhythm and interest. Some changes don't even make sense: the sound of the organ that draws the bird to the blind man and the lions is replaced by the sound of an orchestra two scenes in a row. It's charming but visually inconsistent.

Obviously, the almost total erasure of the old soundtrack means that none of the prestigious voices in the casting of the original film are kept. Think: Anouk Aimée, Pierre Brasseur, Fernand Ledoux and Serge Reggiani! Who would think that, however talented they may be, the actors of the second version can overshadow these names? Obviously not Grimault who, never shy of a paradox, invites the forgiving Anouk Aimée to participate in his documentary La table tournante (available as an extra on Blu-ray) to discuss the performance he has just condemned to eternal oblivion without even mentioning this fate. The press during the release of The King and the Bird also very conveniently "forgets" that the famous artists were no longer in the credits by citing them in their columns.

However, I admit there are few dialogues in the film. A characteristic which should add to the universality of the film, like silent films, but which has the secondary effect of drawing the characters away from the spectator. It is difficult to identify with the two protagonists of the first title, or the two title roles, however more verbose, of the second film. Besides the fact that he is the villain of the film, the king has the additional complexity of being two characters by himself: the squinting king and his double straight out of a painting; a story twist which undoubtedly finds its source more readily in a poetic inspiration than a need for script clarity, on the contrary! We are moving a little further from a story likely to charm all audiences.
This is not what Grimault is looking for anyway. He has already refused Sarrut's suggestions to facilitate the exploitation of the future film in the United States. Because he also considers that nothing should pollute his vision and his art, he also does not hide his aversion to derivative products which could however have helped the financial aspect and the popularity of the film, and under the guise of considering that the cartoon should not be reserved only for children, an valued opinion he shares with Disney, he strives to prove that it is not made for them at all. He is the ultimate "anti". The anti anime, the anti Disney. When you put so much energy to be against the flow of what is popular (the ugly word!), there is some logic if you are unpopular.

"We felt that there were things in which we could not go further without passing for a guy who absolutely wants to differentiate himself from everyone." He freed himself from this constraint as soon as he could: films such as The Diamond or The Dog Music Lover can, in their style or in the choice of their frankly unpleasant protagonists, hardly be presented to children successfully. In the case of The King and the Bird, this approach is less obvious, but there are indeed elements (political and philosophical in particular) more directly intended for an adult spectator. A former child among my friends with whom I spoke about the film admitted to me that he had seen it then and that it was not "one of the tapes that I regularly asked my parents for." Around me, this opinion seems to be vastly shared.

An animated puzzle: editing

However, the second element modified by Grimault aggravates the situation: the new montage. If almost all of the old scenes have been reproduced, they are no longer necessarily in the same order. Shots of the same scene are cut in half by an insert, in contrast, separate shots are edited together to make a single scene. However, I repeat, it is nevertheless the same story. This is therefore told in a more convoluted way. For example, after the scene of the painter, the king goes up in elevator in his apartments in which they enter by a back door animated with his dresser which splits in two, then contemplates the table. In the new film, a scene is inserted between that of the painter and the elevator, and the plan of the hidden door is deleted, making the entry of the king into the room less logical and visually poorer.

A good part of these cuts is unfortunately motivated by technical reasons. Sometimes a single frame has been removed in order to erase an animation defect on a character, thus creating a cut in the movement of the other characters in the scene. This type of defect is however not prohibitive in classic animation, even after a restoration considered by some to be too intrusive because precisely eliminating original defects, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs today keeps a flower that disappears and reappears in the middle of a shot.
Likewise, in The King and the Bird, all the fade transitions were cut to get rid of the pieces of film that were more than a generation away from the negative. This explains the replacement of some "intro shots" of the castle by new ones or the shortening of much longer shots originally (the shepherdess and the chimney sweep on the roofs who contemplate the dawn). The restoration of Vertigo suffered the same fate years later.

New animation

The third element is the one that mainly motivated the company: the new scenes to "finish" the film. What are they? Scenes of the equestrian statue which now defends the king where it attacked him before, still or little animated shots to replace three-dimensional scenes (the elevator for example: a simple cell moved on a background), a portrait of an woman putting out the fire instead of ornamental fish in the fireplace, an emphasis on the King's statues from the opening scene (a statue does not move, how practical), long and not very useful preparations for the marriage, and poetic ideas unrelated to the story, inserted between two scenes without logical continuity.
For example, the little clown, although very cute, appears to relax the king, who has just ordered the pursuit of the fugitives and who, in the following scene, takes part in it. The pace suffers considerably. Similarly, the usefulness in the history of the orchestral belly of the robot, a new element, does not appear to me, except that the idea requires little animation.

In the lion scene, in addition to the organ sound already mentioned, an important bias was changed: in the first version, the bird "speaks lion". That is to say that it roars, and so that the spectator understands it as well as the lions, it is subtitled in French. In the new version, he also says he speaks lion, but proceeds to speak French immediately after. As for the quality of the animation, I must be fair and mention that recreating scenes with characters created 30 years earlier by others without having all the studies of the time is probably not easy. But this quick comparison of photograms speaks for itself: which style do you think is the most searched, the most successful, in short, the best?

In conclusion

Is everything poorer in this second version? Certainly not! Some details were happily dropped such as the absurd idea to make the bird comment on the escape of the king like a sports journalist. Grimault also painted magnificent new backgrounds. But above all the ending, if it still takes us away from the main characters unlike the classic and consensual happy ending (the wedding of our heroes) of the first film, is generally better with the metaphorical release of the little bird by the robot.

Did Grimault finish his film exactly as he wanted to do it in 1953? Of course not, and he himself will say it at the time of The King and the Bird in an interview: "I did not want this work to be only reconstruction. (...) I still remember that at the time, I had too much restraint (...) So I made new sequences. " We can easily deduce that he therefore added elements to which he would not have thought at the time. Is this a bad thing? No. Is the film any better? It's all about taste.
Films frozen in time do not exist. The very existence of this blog is based on the fact that you can find many alternative versions of most movies. What is unfortunate is when one of these versions remains invisible, especially by human will and not fatality. There are so many films lost forever through the fault of time, of the elements, that one can only deplore the fact that certain films so crucial to the history of cinema are lost because of the vanity of their creator, which lasts beyond his death through his heirs.
However, Grimault said it himself: "This negative is now in deposit and we don't talk about it anymore, and we will talk about it in fifty years if one of my great-great-great-grandchildren wants to make a copy of the film. "
This sentence was printed about 40 years ago. Only 10 years to go. I'm waiting.

To go further, if you read French, make sure you read Sébastien Roffat's book: La bergère et le ramoneur de Paul Grimault et Jacques Prévert: Chronique d'un désastre annoncé.

Click "Like" on the Facebook page if you like my blog.
That's all for today folks! See you soon !