Mary Poppins Returns -- New Trailer

Cue the "practically perfect in every way" and "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" puns. 

This morning was...rough, for a variety of reasons. But, then this trailer dropped and things got a little brighter:

First--that cast! I knew Emily Blunt was playing Mary Poppins (and that the iconic Dame Julie Andrews gave her her blessing); I knew that Lin-Manuel Miranda was playing Jack -- not Bert!!! -- I even knew that Dick Van Dyke was playing/reprising the role of Mr. Dawes (again, not Bert). 

But Angela Lansbury! Colin Firth! Julie Walters! And Meryl Streep!!!

Second--this is probably uber-nerdy even for an uber-Disney-nerd, but I love the film-specific castles in the front of each film:

But I also left a piece of my heart in London, so there's that. 

Third--the old-school 2D animation!!! 😍😍😍

ScreenRant has a really cool article on the attention to detail in this sequence -- how it's not just an homage to the original film or a remake of it, that's worth a read. (For example, how the characters' clothes look they were drawn/animated, which you can kinda see above!) 

Fourth--the CGI. When it came out in the 1960s, Mary Poppins was a technical innovation for its time (something that can always be said of Disney) -- but with the advances in CGI, the magic is going to seem so much more...fluid. 

I'm sure this film will be filled with Easter eggs and nods to the original film -- the kite, the original house with the infamous bannister, the chimney sweeps dancing, the 2D animation, Jane campaigning for women's rights, just like her mother -- which makes my heart happy on so many levels. There's even a questionable Cockney accent from LMM, continuing Dick Van Dyke's terrible accent tradition. 

Look, I'm sure P. L. Travers -- author of the original Mary Poppins book -- would probably hate this film too. I've blogged about Disney's Mary Poppins and Distory before, with the end result being my decision to both love the books as one of the cornerstones of children's literature and the Disney movie as a cornerstone of my own childhood. (Julie Andrews was one of my grandmother's favorite actresses and we watched this movie together a lot.) I know that the Disney movie(s) are Disneyfied versions of the books and while I wish Disney would reflect that in this film -- especially given it's setting during the Depression, a less cheerful, more no-nonsense Mary Poppins would fit -- I'm not expecting them too. The trailer reflects that -- it looks a magical concoction about the wonder and purity of childhood -- and I can't wait to see it. 

Disney Working on Mary Poppins Sequel (Of Sorts)

The news that Disney is basically remaking every one of it's animated classics into a live-action film isn't new.

What is new is reports that they're pursuing Emily Blunt for the role of Mary Poppins -- but not in a remake.

(c) Entertainment Weekly / Getty Images

The news comes from a Variety report and indicates that Rob Marshall (Chicago, Into The Woods) would direct. 

The most important information of the report -- at least to Disney/children's lit scholars/fans -- is this:

"Insiders confirm the new film will take place in Depression-era London 20 years after the first film and will take story lines from P.L. Travers’ children books focusing on Poppins’ continued adventures with the Banks family."

First--it  does confirm the reports that this would not be a remake of the 1964 live-action/animated film starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. (In other words, Emily Blunt would not be replacing Julie Andrews, but rather stepping into her (albeit rather large) shoes.)

This is key, I think, namely because Julie Andrews is so beloved, and this was an iconic role for her.

What's interesting though is the decision to fast-forward 20 years. Jane and Michael will have (presumably) grown up at this point, so I'm assuming that perhaps Mary Poppins will come to deal with their children, the next generation. (Although Jane and Michael would have had to get married rather early in life to have children the same age they were when Mary visited them...but details.)

I'm also curious to see whether Emily-Blunt-as-Mary-Poppins will be more faithful to Travers' original vision of Mary. While Disney romanticized the relationship between Travers and Walt in the film Saving Mr. Banks, the true account is much more...contentious. Travers and Walt fought over almost every aspect of the film, and she left the premiere in tears. (Which apparently led to her reluctance to give the rights for the Broadway musical, but that Mary is much more in line with the literary version: sterner, less "spoonful of sugar.")

Of course, all speculation at the moment, since nothing is set in stone, but interesting nonetheless.

Revisiting Mary Poppins

(c) Gali_miau @ DeviantArt

Mary Poppins has always been one of my favorite movies. I remember watching it as a child and, strangely enough, being terribly frightened at the bank scene, when the mob of people start clamoring for their money. And, you know, Julie Andrews. Who, like Mary Poppins, is practically perfect in every way.

The songs are so delightful and the choreography for "Step in Time" still blows my mind -- and makes me wish I was a dancer.

So tonight, The Hubby and I rewatched it. ABCFamily conveniently aired it last night -- it can't be a coincidence that they air the film on TV two days before Saving Mr. Banks opens nationwide. And it was very interesting to watch it as an adult/scholar.

I can't help but be interested in "the truth" -- if we can ever know such a thing -- behind Saving Mr. Banks. So I'm reading the book and reading all the related stories on the Interwebz. My favorite, so far, is this one from D23: Why Emma Thompson Doesn't Wear Red. Apparently, P.L. Travers was quite..."demanding" to Uncle Walt, periodically insisting on random things for seemingly no reason. Emma Thompson says that, apparently, one day she showed up and said, " ‘I’ve gone off the color red and you can’t have any red in the film." And Disney was all, "What? It's England! You have red EVERYWHERE." So he gave in--temporarily. Because if you watch the film, there's little splashes of red scattered throughout the film. Apparently, while Disney gave P.L. Travers script approval, he eventually clarified that he didn't give her "final draft" approval. Which seems a bit of an uncool move to me, and we all know how much I love Uncle Walt.

Distory at Its Finest...but I don't care.

I'm not sure if Stephen Fjellman is the person who coined the term "Distory," but he's the man who wrote the book Vinyl Leaves in which there are two chapters devoted to the concept. He initially describes it as "Disney's Norman Rockwell view of history." But it's a passage on the next page that truly defines "Distory":

"The phrase "Disney realism" was meant to be ironic, although it is not so in a simple way. Disney people clearly knew they were not telling the truth.[...]But the Disney designers ("imagineers") were also Pollyannas. Many of them actually believed, in a relatively uncynical and optimistic fashion, that the world would be a better place if history could be rewritten, leaving in only the parts that "should have happened." 

People complain about the way Disney portrays the past at the theme parks -- claiming that it's a rose-colored glasses view of history. Which seems a bit of a silly complaint to me. After all, theme parks are vacation spots, where people go to smile and laugh and spend time with their families. They're not focused on historical veracity, and if Main Street in the Magic Kingdom is an idealized version of the past that smells like vanilla and apple pie, I don't see anything wrong with that. Disney World is not Colonial Williamsburg, and people don't go there to learn history.

Now, I'll admit that Distory can be problematic at times in the films. See Pocahontas, which clearly does not tell the true story. And here's where the discussion takes an interesting turn. Yes, Disney butchered the historical narrative of Pocahontas. But it's a children's film--would we want to expose them to the truths of that story? The response might be, "Then don't adapt that story. Pick another fairy tale."

And that's the thing that really bugs me: people picking on Disney (both the man and the company) for not only which stories they tell, but the way in which they tell them. Walt Disney was a storyteller and, like many before him, he was drawn to specific stories for specific reasons and he told them the way he wanted to them. (There is SO much more that can be said on that topic, but I'll leave it be.) And he had his reasons for rewriting them, and for focusing so heavily on that "happily-ever-after."

There's a line in Saving Mr. Banks where Tom Hanks-as-Disney says essentially just that: he's talking to Emma Thompson's P. L. Travers and trying to explain just why he wanted to adapt Mary Poppins and why the promise to his daughter meant so much to him. He explains to her that he's a storyteller, and he asks her, "Aren't you tired of remembering it that way?"

And in that moment -- in the context of the story they told -- I didn't care that I knew P. L. Travers hated the film. I didn't care that I knew the story ended another way. And it's not out of any disrespect for P. L. Travers or her story; as a children' lit scholar, I certainly value and recognize the importance of her story and her version of the story.

But if there was any truth to it -- any truth to the psychological sadness she suffered as a result of her childhood -- then I have to applaud the message. Because remembering the bad -- focusing on the negative -- blaming yourself for things out of your control: they can all be exhausting and damaging things. And if you have the power to retell your story and change the ending to one you want, then why not? Perhaps I should clarify: both Travers and Disney retold their stories in an external medium. Mary Poppins left when the Banks family no longer needed her, when they were whole and happy. Every story that Walt retold ended happily because he could end it that way. There's a difference, I think, between telling a happy story and pretending that your own life happened in a way it didn't.

And that's the beauty of fiction, isn't it? You can't change biography. Things happened the way they did: Elias Disney wasn't the most supportive, encouraging father; Travers Goff died when P. L. Travers was a little girl; and the working relationship between Disney and Travers was tenuous at best. We can't change that. But Disney can give other children happily-ever-afters and Travers can give other children the happy family she never had.

Dumbo First Reactions -- Burton Is Back

Y'all know I've had my reservations about Tim Burton's Dumbo. (Check out my past thoughts here.)  But apparently, this film is surprising people:

via EW

There are some negative first reactions, of course, but on the whole, people seem to have enjoyed it and are calling it Burton's best film in years. When Burton is good, he's very, very good. The thing is, he kinda hasn't been for awhile. But maybe that's about to change?

DUMBO stole my heart. I'm totally cool with it. Congrats to everyone behind this beautiful, surprising & visually mindblowing film. pic.twitter.com/cekRIzTOcc

— Julia Hart (@juliahartowitz) March 12, 2019

Our reporter @minkus saw #Dumbo. “It’s absolutely wonderful - a beautiful story, quite different than the original, that won’t leave a dry eye in the theater. The cast is kismet together on screen. It’s one of Tim Burton’s best in a long time.” Full review on the 26th. pic.twitter.com/1VvhDU9dbl

— Attractions Magazine (@Attractions) March 12, 2019

I really enjoyed #Dumbo⁠ ⁠. It’s a beautiful and whimsical movie, starring a CGI elephant with so much heart. It’s also a rather simple tale, so don’t expect tons of character septh. But I still had a blast with the ride it took me on and it’s the best Burton’s been in years. pic.twitter.com/tKu6eHfKlM

— Chris E. Hayner (@ChrisHayner) March 12, 2019

I know I don’t sound too enthused about this movie but it was enjoyable, and it is certainly worlds better than Beauty and the Beast and Mary Poppins Returns. For reference, the only Disney live action remakes I liked were Jungle Book and Cinderella.

— Peter Sciretta (@slashfilm) March 12, 2019

Okay, I don't really understand this one because I thought Mary Poppins Returns was fantastic and so creatively and subtly tied to the books.

New Wreck It Ralph Trailer

It's a big week for Disney-related things -- new trailers for Mary Poppins Returns, Captain Marvel and now Ralph Breaks the Internet:

Fewer princesses, more details about the plot. I was wondering what the motivation was for Ralph and Vanellope to leave the arcade and go explore the Internet, and now we know: Vanellope's game is broken and they need to find a piece on Ebay. (Where else?) 

We also get a glimpse of Gal Godot's character, who seems to be a racer, albeit in a much different game, like Vanellope and there seems to be some female bonding going on. (Will she be a bad guy though? I'm skeptical of all secondary characters in Disney movies though...no matter how wondrous they are in real life.) 

I'll end with these screenshots from the trailer that just make my heart happy. 

Saving Mr. Banks -- Another Example of Distory?

So a couple of my friends have posted this review of Saving Mr. Banks from LA Weekly on Facebook: "Saving Mr. Banks Is a Corporate, Borderline Sexist, Spoonful of Lies." A bold title, for sure.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about LA Weekly -- or its reputation. Wikipedia tells me it's a "tabloid-sized alternative weekly" -- whatever that means.

I didn't read much of the review -- just the first few paragraphs -- but it was more than enough to get the gist of it. Basically, Tom Hanks' Disney is glorified, and P.L. Travers is vilified. She is completely unsympathetic and the audience has no choice but to hate her.

My favorite line might be this one:

Saving Mr. Banks, a fictionalized account of two weeks Travers spent on the lot in Burbank, is proof that Walt has thawed and secretly reclaimed Disney's reins.

Strongly worded the review may be, but I do appreciate the reference to the Walt-is-cryogenically-frozen myth.

Now, like I said, I didn't read the whole review because I'd like to wait and form my own opinion. I'm currently reading Valerie Lawson's Mary Poppins, She Wrote -- the book on which Saving Mr. Banks is (loosely) based. That way, I can go and see the film knowing the truth -- or, at least, both sides of the truth -- and form my own opinion.

I do know that when the first trailer appeared, I was a bit confused. I knew that P. L. Travers didn't like the Disney movie, but I didn't know the specifics. And the trailer(s) make it seem as if the heart-warming tale has, in true Disney fashion, a happy ending.

So is this another example of Distory -- another example of Disney's convenient repackaging of the truth where historical accuracy gets lost? I'm sure I'll find out in a week or so.