Caroline, Mary Poppins (Disney)

When watching Mary Poppins, I think the better question is how has the original story NOT been disneyfied. While the opening image of Mary Poppins vainly checking her appearance and fixing her makeup high up in the clouds is promising, any hope that Disney attempts to adhere to P.L. Travers’ version disappears moments later as Mrs. Banks waltzes in singing about the suffragette movement (undermined quickly by Mr. Banks own sexist song about joys of being a man in 1910). Gone is nuanced tale about childhood, in its place a story all about the nanny and how much everyone loves her – how it’s a “jolly holiday” with Mary Poppins. And, in the background of the fun and shenanigans, Disney pushes a wholly male-dominated agenda. 

Before the children (John and Barbara mysteriously absent) even enter the story, the movie spends the first fifteen or so minutes mocking the suffragette movement. As Mrs. Banks chirpily sings about the fun of women going to prison and chaining themselves to carriages in the name of women’s rights, Disney ridicules women’s rights (only growing more mainstream as a movement in the 1960s when his version is released) by making an obviously naïve and passive character their "champion." Almost immediately, Mrs. Banks is undermined by both herself (in requesting the sashes be put away as to not upset her husband) and the entrance of Mr. Banks who sings about the pleasure of being the man of a household. 

As the movie progresses (in time, not values), sexism only prevails. In the Disney version, Mr. Banks insists on selecting the new nanny and interviewing Mary Poppins, a task given to Mrs. Banks in the book. His distrust of his wife’s inability to select a good caretaker for their children is solidified by her comment “I would have muddled the whole thing.” And, when it comes to Mary Poppins, the only aspect of Travers’ version of her character that Disney fully preserves is her vanity. When it comes to portray a woman negatively and stereotypically, Disney seems all for an accurate rendition. 

Also, what the heck is up with Burt? He gets one story – ONE – in the book, but now Mary Poppins cannot give Jane and Michael a fun time with a charismatic man at her side? The only scene where the children experience something eventful without Mary Poppins present (when they experience capitalist indoctrination at their father’s bank, well, Michael does – the bankers don’t bother singing to Jane about a future in banking), Burt saves the day and becomes their temporary caretaker. Between Mr. Banks and Burt, there doesn’t seem to be a scene longer than a couple of minutes without a man present to frame it. 

I only grew more partial to the book after reading Travers piece in The New York Times, and now after watching the movie, I cannot think of, at the moment, a worst movie version of a book. In the movie, the maturity of children and the validation of their thoughts and emotions are completely lost. Even the moving connection between Mary Poppins and the children is gone, her character becoming only a vehicle for amusement and nothing more. Everything truly wonderful about the book is left out, making the movie a spectacle for Disney to show his latest technological innovation while letting his sexism show every chance he got. 

Also, talk about a disappointing ending. It takes Burt - a man's opinion - to give Mr. Banks a change of heart. Despite the movie's name, it becomes quite clear that Mary Poppins is at least as much as about Mr. Banks as it is the nanny and children.