I made a point to rewatch the 1964 Mary Poppins first. Good thing I did, because judging from my memory, I must have dozed off during "Stay Awake" and missed all the rest as a kid. Pity: It seems more enjoyable to an immature mind with little idea how actual adults behave. I feel like I got more out of Saving Mr. Banks. Still, there was enough of merit in MP to keep me interested in the sequel.
In 1934, some 24 years after Mary left the Banks estate, her former ward Michael (Ben Whishaw) is a flaky banker and widowed father of three on the verge of losing their old house if he can't find a share certificate. His sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) lives elsewhere in London but pays frequent visits to help. Michael's two oldest kids, tweens Annabel (Pixie Davis) and John (Nathaniel Saleh), have had to grow up a bit in the year since their mother died, and youngest Georgie (Joel Dawson) can be a handful. Before long, the titular event happens, and the ageless mage (Emily Blunt) intends to do the Bankses a good turn once again.
Lest you think that this time will be quite different because Michael and Jane already know Mary, I'm afraid they've convinced themselves that they imagined all the "impossible" aspects of her prior visit. Michael, in fact, is dangerously close to becoming as stodgy as his bygone father used to be. In his financial crisis, he wouldn't accept Mary's present help without Jane overriding him. The kids aren't immediately convinced they need a nanny either.
Indeed, the overall structure is so familiar that a less generous reviewer would call MPR a retread. Many details haven't changed; the insane neighbor (David Warner) even remains inexplicably unbarred from firing his house-shaking cannon on an hourly basis. This sameness creates, among other things, an old-fashioned aura beyond the setting. We don't get many screen musicals in this style anymore. The largely animated segment even employs similar artwork, tho I detect a slight computer assist. I could almost have believed that the film was made in the 20th century.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It certainly shows an affectionate fidelity to the spirit of the '64 MP, if also an apparent disregard for the wishes of P.L. Travers. I will say that Blunt's casting was, to quote Mary, "practically perfect in every way."
OK, one reason for my mixed reaction to the original is that Mary frequently acts like a jerk. Exceedingly arrogant, hypocritically rude, blatantly dishonest...not someone I'd care to meet under ordinary circumstances. But she's not one for ordinary circumstances, is she? Like Willy Wonka, she introduces wacky fun, whether under her own power or another's; and unlike Wonka, she ultimately benefits all parties (assuming she didn't kill all those nannies who got blown away back in 1910).
I acknowledge a few key departures from before. First of all, the stakes are higher, with more than family values riding on Mary's influence. Furthermore, instead of just some miserly fogies, there's a straight-up antagonist (Colin Firth). And on the whole, I get the impression that this version of London has gotten a little less surreal, Mary aside.
The closest thing to Bert is Jack the lamp lighter (Lin-Manuel Miranda). Yeah, the actor's no more British than Dick Van Dyke (herein playing an elderly chair), but his Cockney talk is no worse. I'm afraid he doesn't provide the same clownish antics, and I don't recall any great dance moves, but at least he sings well. Jack also has a budding romance with Jane, and he and his buddies glorify a less hazardous occupation than the chimney sweepers.
The other character of note is a repairwoman with a ludicrously long name, nicknamed Topsy (Meryl Streep in another Rob Marshall musical, seemingly poking fun at her habit of collecting accents). The most surprising thing about her is that she's Mary's cousin -- I had presumed that Mary had no family even distantly. Topsy is the only character who can criticize Mary and not get taken down a peg for it. And yes, she sings. Other than that, she's pretty much an Uncle Albert substitute.
The songs are difficult for me to measure against the predecessor's, because I haven't heard any of them plenty of times. Nevertheless, they are cut from the same proverbial cloth, and I could picture them enjoying similar popularity if only they were of similar vintage. "The Place Where the Lost Things Go" deserved its Oscar nomination for sure; for all its kiddieness, it moved me more than anything else in the movie.
Honestly, I prefer MPR to MP. It reduces some of the weaknesses while preserving the greatest strengths. I suspect the main reason it's not rated higher on average is that the voters weren't kids when they watched MPR. Well, that and it has the same problem as all sequels: It works best if you don't start there.
No comments:
Post a Comment