Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Isn’t it extraordinarily wonderful that this word repeated ever so often in the
Disney’s Mary Poppins actually became
a real dictionary word? Add another tally to the Disney Empire. It had been a
hot minute since I watched Mary Poppins,
so viewing this tale of catchy tunes, imaginative adventures, and characters
that just seem so pleasing as a viewer was a nice change of pace. But see, that’s
the thing. In reading P.L Travers book, I don’t get that same feeling. Yes, the
imaginative adventures are still there and that’s really the only thing that I
liked about it. Disney takes over this dry nature that audience viewers like myself
may feel, and really takes it into the wind.
Starting
with Mary Poppins as a character, Disney changed the imagery that P.L Travers
book gave to me of this old, stern, nasally congested constantly sniffing, magical
nanny. We are introduced to this “rosy cheeked”, beautiful, and young Julie
Andrews. She flies with so much grace and prowess that she truly just seems
like perfection. In addition, Disney still kept Mary Poppins vanity, as she
literally is seen checking out her face in her mirror right as movie begins. And
although she still may come off a little direct, Disney’s Mary takes the children
and the audience on this magical sing-along, creating songs that through their repetition
create a lasting legacy that so many people can still remember them. As well,
we did get a hint of Mary Poppins romantic life in Travers’ novel. Talk about Disney
licking his chops and rubbing his hands to get a hold of this one. This connection
with the Match man setup Disney’s formula of romance perfectly as Bert serves
not only as humor relief (1 tally) in the start of the film as the one-man
band, but also seems to have a loving, romantic connection with Mary Poppins
(100 tallies). What is a Disney film without a boy to be a part of the women’s
life!?
Aside from Mary
Poppins as a character, it is also worth mentioning that the youngest two
children didn’t exist in Disney’s film. Could it have been the image of the nuclear
family being a husband, wife, and two children? No, it couldn’t have been… “he
says sarcastically”. As well, Mr. and Mrs. Banks could have a whole essay dedicated
to their relationship between each other, themselves, and their family. Mrs.
Banks who is so passionate and such a courageous woman who only finds herself
going to the suffrage movement to sing and then come back to the house is such
a moving image!... ”he says sarcastically”. Disney really took this real-world
issue of woman equality and tried to have a character portray it all. However,
Mrs. Banks is still subjected to the power of Mr. Banks and really doesn’t seem
to know the cause and passion as to why she chooses to support woman suffrage.
This could work as a call to action for some to actually understand the
movement, but I think it was more intentional to make sure gender roles were
continued as Disney wanted them to be portrayed.
Lastly, big
props to the animation and technology used in this film at the time. It was very
entertaining and creative to watch this spectacle unfold before my eyes. The only
thing is that if they made this movie today, they may need to fix the black face
on the chimney sweepers (yes I know that is what can happen when they are on
the job, but it is very accentuated in the film) and just like Lady and The Tramp and its issues with ethnicity/origins,
the oh-so-similar Notre Dame fighting Irish fox thing in the merry-go-round. There
are a couple more things, but those ones did stand out the most to me.
Overall, I don’t
know how much P.L Travers was consulted to earn the title in the credits as
Consultant, but this transformation and Disneyfication of Mary Poppins is real and present. Though it changes the original
story, I must be honest, it sorely needed this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment