Reviewing - The Mary Poppins Movies
Practically perfect in every way, these are the films about everyone's favourite magic British nanny. Not only do we get to see two films about Mary Poppin's adventures at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, we get to see the story behind the story. The truth about how these films came to be is almost as weird and wonderful as Mary Poppins herself.
Mary Poppins (*****)
In which a man gets fired, kills his ex-employer, and is promptly re-hired
Walt Disney’s final film triumph is practically perfect in every way.
I would love to spend a minute talking about Walt’s journey to create this film, but I think that conversation is better saved for when I review Saving Mr. Banks. That movie gets into all the ups and downs of producing what many consider to be one of the greatest films of all time - so instead, let’s just get right into what makes this film terrific.
Even before I rave about Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, I need to bring your attention to the Sherman Brothers, Richard and Robert. These are the guys who wrote music for a lot of great films, notably Winnie the Pooh and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. They’re also the creators of some famous music that you only hear at Disneyland: the songs of the Enchanted Tiki Room, the theme song for the Carousel of Progress, and most famously “It’s A Small World”. Mary Poppins is packed with such a diverse set of show-stopping tunes. You’ve got fantastic uppity songs like “Supercalifragilisticexpyalidocious”, and you’ve also got the hauntingly beautiful “Feed The Birds”. They’re all wonderful and they each bring a different flavour to the film. Just watching this made me want to re-watch Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (in part for more of Dick Van Dyke, but mainly to hear more Sherman Brothers tunes).
It’s crazy that Julie Andrews managed to star in not just one, but TWO classic film musicals. To be BOTH Mary Poppins AND Maria von Trapp is a pretty big deal, and in this film Julie brings so much warmth and vibrance to what was originally a relatively cold character in P. L. Travers’ book. Mary Poppins still has hints of vanity and no-nonsense that made her such a hit when her books were released, but she also has a clear love for the Banks children that you can always see in her eyes. Her chemistry with Dick Van Dyke is all too tangible, even though Travers insisted there not be any romantic tension between the two characters. All throughout the movie, Julie seems to be having the time of her life. Even when Mary Poppins is cross, she’s enjoying it. It’s her exuberance and the coy denial of her own whimsicality that make her so lovable.
It’s one thing to have a star like Andrews in your film, but to have Dick Van Dyke as well is almost an overload of talent. I think I have a soft spot for Van Dyke, because I’ve never seen him give a performance that I didn’t like. He’s charismatic, charming, and he gives everything he has to his character. He dances up a storm, sings in a notoriously terrible Cockney accent, and even plays more than one character. He’s a master of physical comedy. The scene where he plays an old banker is just hilarious thanks to the way he stumbles and wobbles like he’s inches from death. To bring up Chitty Chitty Bang Bang again, you really need to watch that film if you liked Mary Poppins. It’s even more of Van Dyke dancing, singing, and making you laugh.
I really can’t think of a thing that’s not lovable about this film. The characters, the set design, the music, the story, the animated sequences – every second of the film is fun and delightful. It’s a good time from start to finish. This may not be the final film project Disney worked on, but it was certainly his final – and perhaps his greatest – cinematic triumph.
Saving Mr. Banks (*****)
In which a woman's dream is torn to shreds by a mega-corporation and she swears never to let it happen again
Just like the film that this film is about, Saving Mr. Banks is a heartwarming and enchanting story fueled by two masterful performances, beautiful design, and a terrific script.
I have so many good things to say about this film, but I need to address the fact that it left me scratching my head a little bit. This movie is about P. L. Travers, the woman who wrote the Mary Poppins books that Disney’s film is based on. It details her struggle to give creative control to Walt and his team, and although the movie has a happy ending, it doesn’t hide the fact that Travers was less than overjoyed when the original film was finally released. The true story hits a bit harder than this fictionalized retelling – Travers was thoroughly disappointed with Disney’s adaptation. So much so, in fact, that she swore she’d never allow any more Disney adaptations of her books. "I've learned to live with it,” she said of the film in a 1977 interview. “It's glamorous and it's a good film on its own level, but I don't think it is very like my books."
If you wrote a book, and then someone made a movie about your book that ruined it (at least in your eyes), and then you died…(I know this is weird. Stay with me)…and then they decided to make a movie that focused on how much you hated that first movie…how would you feel?
That’s what made me scratch my head. If Mrs. Travers were alive today, would she have wanted this film made? Probably not. At the very least, the Travers that this film depicts would scoff at the idea of her life story being turned into a Disney film. If there was ever a film to make someone turn in their grave, this might be it.
That said, this is a wonderful, beautiful, powerful film. Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson shine in their roles as Walt Disney and P. L. Travers, respectively. Thompson is hysterical as the cold, proper, and slightly pompous author of Mary Poppins. She’s such a delightfully cross character, and Hanks’ Disney is the complete opposite. He’s friendly, warm, and informal – everything she isn’t. Their incompatibility makes every second of shared screen time a blast to watch. My wife and I have watched this film at least four times, and every time we find ourselves laughing out loud at Travers’ harsh resistance to all of the changes Disney wants to make to her story. This film would be so much less without Hanks and Thompson.
The back story of Travers and her father is heartbreaking, and it gives us a whole other layer of depth through which to view Disney’s 1964 hit. Colin Farrell gives an earnest performance as an alcoholic father pouring the remnants of his heart into his young daughter. What’s brilliant about the storytelling in these sequences is how the dark underbelly of Travers’ childhood is not readily apparent to her as a kid. In the flashbacks, Pamela doesn’t initially see the toil that her father’s addiction is taking on her family. As an audience, we are only given hints as to the family’s real state through the facial expressions and throwaway lines of Pamela’s mother. Instead of viewing Travers’ childhood objectively, the filmmakers give it to us as much as possible through Pamela’s eyes. She doesn’t see at first how her father’s drinking is hurting his wife’s reputation or how it’s forcing them to leave town. She doesn’t see the financial stress. She just sees her dad playing games with her. I think the filmmaker’s approach was both beautiful and sobering. When I was a child living in a broken home, I didn’t know how bad things were until my mother made it apparent to me. Sometimes we don’t see the mess until we step outside of it, and the way we learn more about Travers’ father reflects this. I loved that.
I was really intrigued by the way this film employed the person of Mickey Mouse throughout its narrative. Despite Mickey being a fictional character, he pops up at several key moments throughout the movie. When Pamela first enters her hotel in Los Angeles, she’s welcomed into her room by a pile of stuffed Disney toys. She shoves most of them into the closet, but she keeps a large stuffed Mickey in the corner of her room. Right from this early scene, it seemed that Mickey – to some extent – represented Travers’ fear of the “Disney-fication” of her intellectual property. She didn’t want to become “just another brick” in Disney’s kingdom. For Travers, embracing Mickey meant the loss of her creative control. Mickey meant losing Mary Poppins. What’s interesting, then, is how Pamela finds comfort in Mickey at other points throughout the movie. There’s a scene where Travers can’t sleep, so she pulls Mickey off the floor and brings him into bed like a teddy bear. There’s another scene where Travers sits in front of the contract to give up her creative freedom, and she’s put Mickey in the seat opposite her. It’s like she’s making the deal with Mickey himself. And at the end of the film when Pamela goes to the Mary Poppins premiere, she is walked in by none other than Mickey Mouse himself.
Who is Mickey supposed to be? Is he a symbol of corporate creative consumption – of the idea that Disney’s sprawling multimedia empire is built on the backs of individual ideas that are now in the grip of one intimidating superpower? Or is he a symbol of the enduring power of a good story – the idea that some ideas are too big and wonderful for any one person to retain control of? And can these ideas coexist? Can he be both?
There’s definitely a thesis paper on copyright law and the concept of intellectual property in there somewhere.
Anyway, this is a masterpiece. Watch it.
Mary Poppins Returns (***1/2)
In which it happens again
There is no one who can out-pop the original Mary Poppins, but Emily Blunt makes this a worthy return to 17 Cherry Tree Lane.
I mentioned in my review of Saving Mr. Banks that P. L. Travers - the author of Mary Poppins - would probably turn in her grave if she knew that there had been a movie made based on her hatred of the 1964 film. This takes it a step further. Mrs. Travers swore she'd never allow another adaptation of her beloved classic, and yet here we are. Disney has made not one but TWO further films involving Mary Poppins. What's especially ironic is the fact that Disney didn't try to hide from this unfavourable story. They could've NOT made Saving Mr. Banks, thus keeping many people in the dark as to Mrs. Travers' true feelings about Mary Poppins and the possibility of a sequel. Instead, Disney made a film that blatantly affirmed her feelings - and then they went right ahead and made the film that she SPECIFICALLY said they could not make. I'd love to know how they pulled that off. That's like repeatedly whacking C. S. Lewis in the head with a copy of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe".
But hey - we're here, and so is this sequel. And while I don't think it has that kind of timeless charm that the original possessed, I think they did justice to the original in a lot of ways. Not only is the music great, it FEELS like the music from the original. "The Place Where The Lost Things Go" is magical, heartfelt, and actually has substance to it. "A Cover Is Not The Book" is a delight, and "Trip A Little Light Fantastic" is a showstopper. The dance choreography and set design for that song in particular is positively iconic - the shot of the lamplighters each silhouetted while posed on lamps is the stuff that musicals were made for. The animated sequence is bright and whimsical, and I really loved that they chose to stick with 2D animation (or at least the illusion of 2D animation).
It's true that not all of the songs are unforgettable, and I think the climax of the film was more action-packed than I felt a Mary Poppins film should be. I also didn't find much to love about Meryl Streep's appearance, which is odd considering she's Meryl Streep. But the one other area where I think this film shined was in Ben Winshaw's portrayal of Michael Banks. He actually made me tear up more than once. The grief that he carried over the loss of his wife was expertly delivered, and you really felt for him as he tried to keep his family afloat in the midst of an ocean of uncertainty. He nailed it.
This isn't a must-see by any means, but if you're a fan of musicals, you could do significantly worse. And if you liked Emily Blunt in "A Quiet Place"...then this is the exact opposite.
Bình luận