"Mary Poppins" Returns
I could rant and rave for eons about how Mary Poppins Returns (2018) takes the original Mary Poppins (1964) and turns it into a formula where one can simply substitute A for B, or how the creators can’t seem to realize that a children’s film can survive without a tangible villain, or how the songs are just about the most forgettable tunes I have ever heard. Yes, there are a million sins that make the Mary Poppins Returns a “bad” movie in my eyes, but there is only one unforgivable sin that trumps all and makes the film an indisputable affront to the original.
In the original Mary Poppins, tuppence serves as a powerful symbol for small acts of kindness. Michael (Matthew Garber) starts out with the tuppence, wanting to give them to a poor bird woman in order to feed the birds. His father, Mr. Banks (David Tomlinson) wants him to put it in the bank so that it can be saved and earn interest. At the end of the film, when Mr. Banks is on the brink of losing his job, Michael give the tuppence to his father, the person that he feels needs it most. This act changes Mr. Banks, who gladly accepts his professional fate and vows to better appreciate his family and life in general.
However, in Mary Poppins Returns, Michael (Ben Whishaw) is losing the Banks’ family home due to financial troubles and he has to find a certificate showing that his father owned a share of the bank. Michael’s spirits become more and more dashed, and his focus more and more on money as the film progresses. Though a predictable and saccharine solution, I was fully expecting (and hoping) that they would eventually open Mr. Banks’ safe deposit box and find Michael’s original tuppence, perfectly and sentimentally intact, reminding Michael of what’s really important. But I gave the creative teams at Disney far too much credit. Instead, the movie explains that Mr. Banks in fact did invest that tuppence on Michael’s behalf, and it has grown into enough money to save the family home… This had to be a joke, right? Were they telling me that Mr. Banks learned so little from his experience in the first movie that he did the very thing that the original Mary Poppins had indicated was the negative, self-serving choice to make? With the very tuppence that had showed him what was important in life – helping the helpless, plus looking beyond yourself and your own legacy?
To prove just how much of a sin this plot element is, I need to share an anecdote from Richard Sherman, the song-writer who, along with his brother Robert, wrote the music for the original Mary Poppins. Sherman states that the song “Feed the Birds” was Walt Disney’s favorite song, and that Disney would call him into his office, time and time again, simply telling him to “play it”. Sherman would play and sing the tune while Disney listened, looking out the window. When Sherman was done, Disney would turn to him, every time, and say, “That’s what it’s all about.” Reversing the role of the tuppence in Mary Poppins Returns goes against Disney’s own personal values – ideas that he believed were central to human good. This being the case, how can Mary Poppins Returns be called a Disney movie at all?
What are your thoughts on Mary Poppins Returns? Is it a harmless sequel, or a movie that takes the message of goodness away from its predecessor? What do you think of the music? The actors? The cameos? Share your comments below!
Copyright © 2019 Bailey Lizotte
