Review of Mary Poppins (1964) by Inta K — 18 Jan 2011

This movie is perfect, whichever way you look at it. It is simply brilliant, and one of the best, if not THE best magic Disney has ever come out with. It's a film that applies to everyone, and though everyone may not "get it" equally in the end, it's a movie that will inspire and those down and dreary. What makes me sad is how Disney truly doesn't make movie's life this anymore, they just don't. This one was absolutely perfect: The animation, the acting, the score and songs, the story, the symbolism, the special effects, EVERYTHING in this movie was meticulously and beautifully crafted and made one heck of universally entertaining motion picture.

From the very start, you'd expect a film like "Mary Poppins" to fall victim to the other clichà (C) Disney movies before it--sacrificing story for style, and showing way too many talented actors and actresses onscreen. Julie Andrews does happen to show numerous times(being as the title IS the name of her character), but her performance is drop-dead awesome. She doesn't hide her feelings or ham-up her rosy cheeks, it's all sincerity that shines in her character. As an upright and "almost perfect" Nanny, Mary Poppins is hired(more like chosen, or gifted), to tame two wild children Jane(Karen Dotrice), and Michael(Matthew Garber), with her magical and God-like ways. With the assistance of Bert(the town "Fool," or Jester), the two stir up one of the most fun and exciting adventures ever to hit the movie screen. Her lessons range from riding horses in a portrait, to swiftly bouncing from London's rooftops. Now it may all seem like fun and games, but trust me when I say that there is truth behind every little thing seen in this movie.

I know for some people "Mary Poppins" just looks like a silly musical mixed with animation, using the animation as an alibi to break into songs and show off their dazzling special effects. Well, first of all, there are two things I'd disagree with in that last statement. The first is that yes, there are silly and over-the-top fun moments in this movie, everyone sees it. But if you happen to be someone who liked this movie along with Disneyland as a kid(like me), then you'll have to find yourself tapping your foot along with the catchy songs and dance numbers. It's a film you sort of grow into, see as a kid, maybe not fully understand. But as time goes on, you look back on it in a sad sort of note, discovering the true meaning you found in Mr. Banks and how he lost his childhood through work and money. Mary Poppins is like the angel sent out from the Almighty to put things back in their working order. Proving that there's a little fun behind anything and everything you do-including work. Mr. Banks fails to see this the whole stretch of the film, but Bert(Dick Van Dyke), opens his eyes with just one little rhyme(A Spoonful of Sugar). Bert and Banks are complete opposites. While Banks lives life on a tight schedule, ready for disaster if he barely teeters off it, Bert tends to make the best out of every job he has when we see him with a new one every time. It can be implied Banks doesn't even like his job, but does it because he has to live up to this "British working man" stature that his father implanted in his brain, robbing him of his childhood. His kids are a reflection of that, and while Mary Poppins opens them up to that, she doesn't force them to love their grumpy old father. Yet all it takes it a simple discharge from employment to light the candle that was blown away long in his soul. In this sense, Mary Poppins job was more about curing Mr. Banks of his unhappiness then it was of taming the children. We can clearly see she gets their up-most respect within the first few fun outings that prove to be entertaining but at the same time instructive.

This brings me to my second point-the special effects. To speak as bluntly as possible, the special effects are dazzling and even "amazing" 1964. Combining animation with humans(like we saw Roger Rabbit do several years later), and making real-life objects movie into place with the literal snap of a finger. These are the effects that captivated audiences, and in some cases are far more impressive then the CGI crap defecated by Hollywood today. But that is beside the point. The effects are used to show the magic in the world, magic only Disney can express. Contrasting the every day dull and orderly life of a British family, with adventurous and rousing excitement. This method is particularly useful on the character once again, Mr. Banks, who sees little or no fun at all the whole film. By the end the odds meet, with a glorious dance number "Step in Time," led by Bert, who invade the house(with good cause of course). So we all KNOW the effects are great, but the point I'm getting across here is that they're not just a copout excuse for a bunch of songs and glamour-they have meaning. Everything in this movie does. The script was damn well written and the movie and pieces so naturally sung I don't see how it could have gone wrong. And I couldnâ(TM)t see anyone else portraying Mary Poppins other then Julie Andrews.

This movie is magical, probably Disney's best. I liked it as a kid, and love it as a teenager. But who couldn't love every minute of it? The only people I could see not liking this movie, were those robbed of a childhood-not getting the silly songs and dances and how they contrast almost EVERY bleak scene in London. It's one of the best films to immerse yourself in, escape reality. Realize that their is some fun in all and every little thing we do. And maybe, just maybe, when we can't speak at all and are at a loss of words at a terrible situation or circumstance that may be dealt with us, we can weave ourselves out with just one word...supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.