Mary Poppins Returns is a sequel to the 1964 classic Disney film. The mantle of P.L. Travers’ iconic governess is passed on from Julie Andrews to Emily Blunt for this ‘return’. The movie is set 20 years after the original, in depression-era London, and now follows the lives of Jane (Emily Mortimer) and Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw), as well as Michael’s children. All of whom are accompanied in their journey by Mary and Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), a charming lamplighter who helps the kids light the way as they try to aid their father in keeping their family home through bad times.
Surprise. It’s a sequel
We are going through tough times when ten out of ten top grossing films of 2018 can be categorised as a sequel, spin-off, reboot, or remake. Out of the 50 top grossing films of 2018, only 17 don’t fit into that category. By ranking, the top grossing film of 2018 that doesn’t include a character previously introduced by other movie, is Bohemian Rhapsody.
Once upon a time, releasing a ‘second part’ to a movie wasn’t something all too usual, and directors would attempt to bring something different to the screen while keeping enough of the spirit of the original to tie them together. Gone are the days of The Godfather II or The Empire Strikes Back.
Sequels are the norm these days and they have become formulaic, they try to live up to material that resounded with a different audience in a different time. And that’s when we’re faced with certain things that have become “musts”, like cameos, fan service, easter eggs and so on.
Within those remakes there’s always a feeling of ‘the studios is clearly appealing to nostalgia’ first, of winking to the audience and fill the film with superfluous four wall references and easter eggs.
The Return of Mary Poppins. A charming film.
The movie is a charming piece of entertainment, an unapologetic movie that tries to capture the essence and feelings of the original. This is a film that retains most of the elements of its predecessor: The pace of the film is definitely slow, and the stakes aren’t high by Hollywood standards. The protagonists may lose their house, but as in life, it’s not the end of the world. Yet, we are reminded that for a child, the idea of losing a family home can mean so much more.
Very much following the heart of Disney classics. Silly dance numbers, bright colours, a bit of cheeky humour it has been called a “Faithful tribute” by others more adept at cinema critique than myself.
While entertaining and charming, there’s almost nothing unexpected, which in a way represents a mental comfort similar to watching the same movie or tv show for a calm rainy afternoon.
There’s more to this film that shows its a product of it’s time without losing the connection to what made the first one unique. There’s more representation of ethnicity, the children have a bigger role, and more characters are given autonomy. The kids and secondary cast actually move the story forward, as opposed to the original, where it felt like the children were just there to make sure the movie was a ‘kid’s movie’.
This sequel gives out a feeling few do, it makes it feel like they’re more invested in telling a story and creating their own characters than they are at winking at the audience, something lacking in many Disney properties of late.
It feels unashamed in the way it tells its story. There is no “that only happens in movies” lines, no feeling of talking to the audience, no gratuitous cameos, no fan service (Julie Andrews making a cameo would’ve checked both boxes). The movie itself isn’t worried with winking at the audience, and it very much busies itself with telling a straightforward story.
The biggest omission (as far as I’m concerned) is the lack of information given about Jane Banks. Her story is reduced to a love bit that could’ve very well been omitted, changed by more relevant scenes like her role in protests. She could’ve been more active as far as screen time is concerned, yet the story is very much the story of the children. As the (seemingly) feisty daughter of another feisty woman, she could’ve made more noise.
My only note on casting is, that although I love Lin, I do think he’s a miss as far as casting is concerned. Only time will tell, but his accent threw me off for the first half of the film.
Time will also tell as far as the music numbers are concerned. Neither seemed particularly remarkable, YET, that’s not necessarily bad. The movie doesn’t seem to be trying too hard to achieve “a better movie than the first”. While it very much follows the same formula, it doesn’t seem too concerned with creating “a hit song”.
The movie feels concise and to the point, a film that manages to be charming and at the same time achieves to bring the spectator back to feeling like a child, (spoilers!) the very message Mary herself has come to teach Michael Banks and his children. Without carbon copying the first, it achieves what the first movie did. To teach us that being young is in our hearts, and not in our age.
At the end of the day, Mary leaves without any obvious setup for a sequel, which is refreshing (even though it has since been confirmed that one is likely on the table), and she leaves us with something that rings true both of the depression era showcased in the movie as well as the times we’re living on: We can all use a little more imagination, we can all use a child’s naiveté and ingenuity when facing our monsters.
We are all aware that problems cannot truly be solved only with a spoonful of sugar, but if we trip a little light, maybe we’ll be able to find the light at the end of the tunnel.
*All images are the property of the Walt Disney Co.
PinkAiz 