By
this I mean the classic 1964 Disney film, right before the 1965 R&H “The
Sound of Music”.
It’s London in 1910. The Banks family sees yet another matronly
nanny quit abruptly, unable to manage the two children, Jane and Michael (Karen
Dotrice and Matthew Garber). The father,
Mr. Banks (David Tomlinson) is too busy working at the bank, and the mother
(Glynis Johns) is too busy as a suffragette, i.e. tireless advocate of getting
women the right to vote, to look after or raise the children herself; thus a
nanny is necessary. Along comes Mary
Poppins (Julie Andrews) to set things right.
Her supernatural abilities are complimented by a charming and talented
chimney sweep, Bert (Dick Van Dyke). She
even brings the children to defuse Uncle Albert (Ed Wynn, the voice of the Mad
Hatter from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland) whose incessant laughter has put him
up near the ceiling.
The big sequence in the film is the
excursion into Bert’s chalk painting.
Bert and Mary enjoy a meal at the penguin-staffed restaurant while the
children enjoy the merry-go-round.
“Supercalifragilisticexpialadocious” is explained at length, until a
downpour in real life brings the group back to reality.
Mr. Banks disapproves of Mary
Poppins’ supernatural supervision, but she calls his bluff by manipulating him
into bringing the children to the bank with him on her day off. Panic ensues when the children prove immune
to the bankers’ ecstatic description of compound interest and investment in
infrastructure – the head banker (played by Van Dyke himself in heavy makeup)
snatches the boy’s “tuppence”, and the boy’s reaction sparks a run on the bank.
Predictably, Mr. Banks is fired, but
with some advice from Bert in chimney sweep mode, eventually realizes that
children are children and his role as father has to take that into
account. Finally he’s “saved” and flies
a kite with the children, and the bank staff – also flying kites – notifies him
that not only is Banks not terminated, he’s made partner. “And there was much rejoicing…”
I just imagine MP flying off from
London in 1910 and re-emerging in a convent in Salzburg, Austria, in 1937, just
in time to rescue another family in need of a wonderful nanny. Mary Poppins and Fraulein Maria have almost
identical roles and missions: rescuing
children from an emotionally distant father.
Obviously, “The Sound of Music” was a true story and “Mary Poppins” was
fictional. I do prefer Julie Andrews as
a brunette, and her 1910 attire is more flattering than the outfits she wears
in Austria.
If
you enjoyed that, you may also enjoy…
Saving Mr. Banks (Blu-Ray). Mr. Banks is, of course, the father of the
two children in “Mary Poppins”. This is
the story of how Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) managed to persuade Pamela Travers
(PT) (aka Helen Goff) (Emma Thompson) to give him the rights to make the story
into a movie, despite the fact that the movie would add in music and animation
and substantially change many elements of the story. The movie suggests that Disney finally
persuaded her to agree, but it seems that in real life, Disney managed to get
her sign off but gave himself the final word on the adaptation.
So… it’s 1961, and Disney has
invited Mrs. Travers to L.A. to supervise some of the work on the film, which
has begun despite the fact that PT has STILL not signed off on the rights. Paul Giamatti plays the Disney-assigned limo
driver and BJ Novak (from the US “The Office”) is one of the writers. But the film cuts to flashbacks of PT
herself, as the young girl Helen Goff, in Australia in 1906. Her father, Travers Goff (Colin Farrell) is
an unsuccessful bank manager, dreamer, drunkard – a hopeless bohemian type who
can’t seem to survive as a round peg in the square hole of turn-of-the-century
Australian banking.
At every turn, PT is rude, abrupt,
contemptuous and arrogant. She insults
everyone. She insists on changes
everywhere – even when the writers point out that their material comes right
out of her books - and pretty much vetoes what we know to be the best elements
of the film. Disney makes concessions
here and there, but for his part seems equally determined that the film WILL
emerge consistent with his own vision – complete with music and animation – and
on his terms. So it’s a battle of wills
between him and PT.
Although the enthusiasm of the
creative team and the honesty of the chauffeur make some headway into penetrating
PT’s extremely gruff and intolerant exterior, they can’t prevent her from
petulantly returning to London without signing off on the movie rights. It takes a personal, surprise visit from Walt
himself, and a deep, meaningful conversation in which Walt explains that he
does in fact understand Mr. Banks is meant to be none other than Travers Goff,
which finally breaks down PT’s resistance and induces her to sign.
Really: if you’re going to watch “Mary Poppins”
again, no matter how many times you’ve seen it, do yourself a favor and watch
this film immediately thereafter. Hanks
has a remarkable ability to dial back the smaltz in his roles and give just
enough realism and grit so we don’t vomit up the sugar. Thompson, of course, plays her as an arrogant
bitch we can’t stand. No wonder she
(Travers) was never married, and her only son was adopted; she may have been a
lesbian.
Normally I’m the type who goes back
and reads the original source material – as I did on “The Wizard of Oz”. In this case, I’m less inclined to do
so. The movie seems to indicate that the
original character was closer to PT’s gruff but competent aunt. Granted, the movie was also calculated to
make Disney look good at the expense of PT herself. Perhaps Disney ripped Mary Poppins away from
Travers and turned her into a warm, affectionate supernatural being who
children might actually love. In that
case Disney not only “saved Mr. Banks”, but also saved Mary Poppins from being
the same, cold, heartless bitch that Travers was. Disney and his writers had children: Travers
never did. Every now and then a film
adaptation actually improves on the original story.
