I've told my husband many times, movie Mary Poppins is all well and good, but literary Mary Poppins is an eldritch god, and it's best not to cross her.
The recent movie "Saving Mr. Banks" discusses the production of the film and goes into detail exploring the difficult relationship between Disney and Travers.
I haven’t seen it, but the N.Y. Post article I link to in the piece mentions that Disney tried using it to massage the untruth that she came to appreciate the movie, that when she was weeping at the premier it was tears of joy. That’s a lie. She hated the movie.
I enjoyed ‘Saving Mr Banks’ even if some aspects were conflated, misconstrued or made up. Emma Thompson was great; Travers had her meetings with the Disney staff recorded on tape, one of which is played alongside the end-credits. Literally a voice (and tone !) from the past. I’m currently reading ‘Making Mary Poppins: The Sherman Brothers, Walt Disney, and the Creation of a Classic Film’. A fun book to read for anyone of a certain age. Due for publication in November.
Well, obviously she would. Authors tend to be protective of their characters and hate rescinding control for any reason. But it was very glaring in this case- Disney adapted Mary into a character that suited his worldview and the desires of his audiences, not Travers and hers, since the way Travers made her she isn’t a completely “likable” enough person to be a protagonist in a Hollywood movie.
Travers was writing abot a British nanny...Walt Disney portrayed a fantasy valley-girl baby-sitter. There's a hemisphere's difference. Julie Andrews could have told him so. So could Eliza Doolittle.
I grew up reading the books and didn't see the movie till later. I loved the books! They're weird and bizarre in such great ways. I always remember in one of the sequels, Mary and the kids visit...poss Mary's maiden aunts? And they break off their fingers and suck them like barley sugar! Somehow I, a notoriously squeamish child, found that thrilling and deliciously creepy and funny. I much prefer the books to be honest! So much more interesting
Same. My favorite thing about the books was that anything in ordinary life could suddenly become a magical encounter, like when Orion came down from the night sky in the park. Or when Michael’s porcelain cat came to life.
I was going to make my own comment, but this so much reflects my own feelings that I'll just reply. I loved the book Mary Poppins and her cranky, adventure-denying ways. I've always found the movie Mary Poppins to be insipid. It's possible you have to meet the book as a child, without movie preconceptions, in order to love it the way we do. My very favorite chapter, by the way, is the terrifying Bad Wednesday.
I haven't read this yet, but wanted to share that I saw the title before coffee/glasses this morning and read it as "Mary Poppins, that Joyless Squid." And that actually made sense to me! I imagined myself calling people "joyless squids." I'm still going to.
*Mary Poppins* was the first movie I ever saw in a cinema theater. (The second might have been *The Sound of Music* - and perhaps I thought that Julie Andrews was always at the movie houses living behind the big screen, the way Captain Kangaroo hid inside the television box, which I was harshly forbidden from unscrewing open).
I read all the Mary Poppins books (that had been published at that time) as soon as I was old enough to read chapter books. The one thing that struck me (and stayed with me) aside from her tartness was the mysticism (a word I probably didn’t know at the time) regarding newborns and where they came from and the *knowledge* they had to shed before they could make their way in the world.
Around the same time, my mother kept me and my siblings from murdering each other on a road trip from New England to Florida, reading Roald Dahl books (Chocolate Factory, Great Glass Elevator, and Giant Peach come to mind). What stings with me is a joke about the name he gave to the Chairman of the Chinese Commie Party so that the insufferable US president could say to him <<Chew on that, Chow En Dat!>> (I remember my mother blanching at some other racist or provocative elements, but her audience was quite demanding…)
Parents, perhaps since Victorian times, but definitely since the post-WWII period in the US (and perhaps England too?) want children’s stories to be wholesome, but kids want (and need) varying degrees of challenge as well as comfort. Watching the Disney Mary Poppins, I took an instant dislike to her as soon as she ordered the kids to clean their room, but I loved the color and the whimsical fantasy of the imagery, and resented the catchiness of much of the music.
Whether it’s entertainment or education, too much comfort is cloying or boring. (This goes for adults as well.) Too much challenge (harshness, suspense, fear, loathing, danger) can shut one down. A male counterpart to the literary Mary Poppins was Mr. Belvedere, as played by Clifton Webb in black and white movies. He was delightfully challenging and dismissive of most adults while also having little tolerance for children and none for spoiled brats, winning me over when he dumped a bowl of oatmeal over the head of a tantrumming child.
I think that her crankiness and rigid adherence to propriety and non-sentimentalism conceal her magical qualities. She needs the crankiness and Victorian propriety as a front for her witchiness.
So interesting that Naomi loved the book but hasn’t seen the movie. I wouldn’t count the film as a favorite (though I love Andrew’s, Dick Van Dyke, and the perfect, essential Glynis Johns) but I don’t suppose anyone raised on the film could love the book or vice versa. They are so essentially different.
I only read the book as an adult, and I didn’t mind the crankiness. And I get that a lot of it is informed by the culture of Nannies in England. But I really didn’t like the meanness and pettiness of Mary Poppins in the book. Crankiness is funny; meanness is small.
I’m with Naomi. I ate this up as a kid. Maybe the surliness gave her more street cred as some sort of doorkeeper to worlds beyond. I’m not sure. Read her the rest of the books, too; the whole series is magical.
We’re planning on reading the rest. It was helpful seeing Travers in an interview compare her to a goddess, even Kali. Maybe overstates the point, but it does help explain her aloofness and that “doorkeeper” thing you describe.
Admittedly, I haven't read the book. But I spent many years caring for children and it takes more than a "spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down." As you know from being a dad there are times when a fairy land is a good and right thing to have, and there are times when the line must be drawn and reality emphasized. I'm going to seek out a copy of Travers book and see how it strikes me.
I had heard this was the case which has kept me from reading the book. Mary Poppins the movie is one of my favourite childhood memories and I prefer not to mess with it.
I had exactly the same experience with my daughter when she was small. We finished reading the Little House on the Prairie books and thought Mary Poppins would be fun. We never got past the first couple of chapters.
What we did end up loving were Walter R. Brooks' Freddy the Pig books. They are set in upstate NY, and they are hilarious while illustrating the importance of being a loyal friend, honest, respectful, and resourceful. It's too bad they aren't as popular as other children's books these days. He's kind of like P. G. Wodehouse for kids.
Roald Dahl also hated the movie adaptation of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Another relevant fact I once read: the actor who played Jesus in the Passion movie used an expletive when the whip accidentally actually hit his back. Not at all like the real Christ, who suffered meekly, as prophesied by Isaiah and later testified authoritatively by the Gospel accounts. Another reason not to watch or support any blasphemous portrayal of our Lord.
I don't really like or approve of any acting. It's inherent hypocrisy. I think a book is more real to life in all character development and conversation, although the setting has to be furnished by the readers' or listeners own imagination. (I have a vivid imagination from reading voraciously with little exposure to TV). I only watched Sound of Music for the first time recently and was disappointed, unsurprisingly. For one thing, it was a travesty to Americanize these stories which are so very British or Swedish. Julie Andrews had a flawless face with large eyes which somehow we humanly associate with genuine goodness and innocence, but...screens are a deceptive form of media. She was a good actress but not someone I truly want to be like. And Disney has both influenced and capitalized on the public's desire for idealized characters and happy-ever-after endings. The book is always better.
My wife read the book aloud to our children a number of years back, and I was also surprised to see how different the book was from the movie. Often I'm bothered when a movie departs significantly from the original, but in this case I have to say I don't mind. The book is its own thing. And the movie is still a great movie, even if it's not the book.
I tried reading 'Mary Poppins' as a child, but couldn't get into it. I never saw the film as a child, though we had an old record of the music and the album pictures intrigued me. When I finally saw the film, it did not live up to my childish expectations - I actually found the character of Mary Poppins in the film something of a joyless scold (and I like Julie Andrews in other productions). I much preferred 'Nanny McPhee', which had a British cast and director, although, ironically, Nanny McPhee is considerably altered from the Nurse Matilda literary character which inspired the film.
I understand what Travers meant by wishing the British had made the film. British productions of British literature are generally much better, simply because they understand the cultural references better - watching a Hollywood production of Jane Austen or Charles Dickens is downright painful.
I've told my husband many times, movie Mary Poppins is all well and good, but literary Mary Poppins is an eldritch god, and it's best not to cross her.
You are not kidding. No one tangles with Mary Poppins and survives unscathed.
The recent movie "Saving Mr. Banks" discusses the production of the film and goes into detail exploring the difficult relationship between Disney and Travers.
I haven’t seen it, but the N.Y. Post article I link to in the piece mentions that Disney tried using it to massage the untruth that she came to appreciate the movie, that when she was weeping at the premier it was tears of joy. That’s a lie. She hated the movie.
I enjoyed ‘Saving Mr Banks’ even if some aspects were conflated, misconstrued or made up. Emma Thompson was great; Travers had her meetings with the Disney staff recorded on tape, one of which is played alongside the end-credits. Literally a voice (and tone !) from the past. I’m currently reading ‘Making Mary Poppins: The Sherman Brothers, Walt Disney, and the Creation of a Classic Film’. A fun book to read for anyone of a certain age. Due for publication in November.
That sounds great. I’d love to read more about that.
I’ll put the review on my Substack soon. Almost finished reading; then I need to choose my words (and tone !) carefully for the review.
Well, obviously she would. Authors tend to be protective of their characters and hate rescinding control for any reason. But it was very glaring in this case- Disney adapted Mary into a character that suited his worldview and the desires of his audiences, not Travers and hers, since the way Travers made her she isn’t a completely “likable” enough person to be a protagonist in a Hollywood movie.
I agree.
Travers was writing abot a British nanny...Walt Disney portrayed a fantasy valley-girl baby-sitter. There's a hemisphere's difference. Julie Andrews could have told him so. So could Eliza Doolittle.
I grew up reading the books and didn't see the movie till later. I loved the books! They're weird and bizarre in such great ways. I always remember in one of the sequels, Mary and the kids visit...poss Mary's maiden aunts? And they break off their fingers and suck them like barley sugar! Somehow I, a notoriously squeamish child, found that thrilling and deliciously creepy and funny. I much prefer the books to be honest! So much more interesting
Same. My favorite thing about the books was that anything in ordinary life could suddenly become a magical encounter, like when Orion came down from the night sky in the park. Or when Michael’s porcelain cat came to life.
I was going to make my own comment, but this so much reflects my own feelings that I'll just reply. I loved the book Mary Poppins and her cranky, adventure-denying ways. I've always found the movie Mary Poppins to be insipid. It's possible you have to meet the book as a child, without movie preconceptions, in order to love it the way we do. My very favorite chapter, by the way, is the terrifying Bad Wednesday.
I haven't read this yet, but wanted to share that I saw the title before coffee/glasses this morning and read it as "Mary Poppins, that Joyless Squid." And that actually made sense to me! I imagined myself calling people "joyless squids." I'm still going to.
LOL. Perfect.
*Mary Poppins* was the first movie I ever saw in a cinema theater. (The second might have been *The Sound of Music* - and perhaps I thought that Julie Andrews was always at the movie houses living behind the big screen, the way Captain Kangaroo hid inside the television box, which I was harshly forbidden from unscrewing open).
I read all the Mary Poppins books (that had been published at that time) as soon as I was old enough to read chapter books. The one thing that struck me (and stayed with me) aside from her tartness was the mysticism (a word I probably didn’t know at the time) regarding newborns and where they came from and the *knowledge* they had to shed before they could make their way in the world.
Around the same time, my mother kept me and my siblings from murdering each other on a road trip from New England to Florida, reading Roald Dahl books (Chocolate Factory, Great Glass Elevator, and Giant Peach come to mind). What stings with me is a joke about the name he gave to the Chairman of the Chinese Commie Party so that the insufferable US president could say to him <<Chew on that, Chow En Dat!>> (I remember my mother blanching at some other racist or provocative elements, but her audience was quite demanding…)
Parents, perhaps since Victorian times, but definitely since the post-WWII period in the US (and perhaps England too?) want children’s stories to be wholesome, but kids want (and need) varying degrees of challenge as well as comfort. Watching the Disney Mary Poppins, I took an instant dislike to her as soon as she ordered the kids to clean their room, but I loved the color and the whimsical fantasy of the imagery, and resented the catchiness of much of the music.
Whether it’s entertainment or education, too much comfort is cloying or boring. (This goes for adults as well.) Too much challenge (harshness, suspense, fear, loathing, danger) can shut one down. A male counterpart to the literary Mary Poppins was Mr. Belvedere, as played by Clifton Webb in black and white movies. He was delightfully challenging and dismissive of most adults while also having little tolerance for children and none for spoiled brats, winning me over when he dumped a bowl of oatmeal over the head of a tantrumming child.
I think that her crankiness and rigid adherence to propriety and non-sentimentalism conceal her magical qualities. She needs the crankiness and Victorian propriety as a front for her witchiness.
You might be right!
So interesting that Naomi loved the book but hasn’t seen the movie. I wouldn’t count the film as a favorite (though I love Andrew’s, Dick Van Dyke, and the perfect, essential Glynis Johns) but I don’t suppose anyone raised on the film could love the book or vice versa. They are so essentially different.
I only read the book as an adult, and I didn’t mind the crankiness. And I get that a lot of it is informed by the culture of Nannies in England. But I really didn’t like the meanness and pettiness of Mary Poppins in the book. Crankiness is funny; meanness is small.
Right?! She is mean. Kind of wild.
I’m with Naomi. I ate this up as a kid. Maybe the surliness gave her more street cred as some sort of doorkeeper to worlds beyond. I’m not sure. Read her the rest of the books, too; the whole series is magical.
We’re planning on reading the rest. It was helpful seeing Travers in an interview compare her to a goddess, even Kali. Maybe overstates the point, but it does help explain her aloofness and that “doorkeeper” thing you describe.
I remember the first time I read the book and thought she was a total bitch. I couldn't believe anyone wanted a follow up of that stuck up sourpuss. 😂
A tricky but almost appropriate term.
Admittedly, I haven't read the book. But I spent many years caring for children and it takes more than a "spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down." As you know from being a dad there are times when a fairy land is a good and right thing to have, and there are times when the line must be drawn and reality emphasized. I'm going to seek out a copy of Travers book and see how it strikes me.
I had heard this was the case which has kept me from reading the book. Mary Poppins the movie is one of my favourite childhood memories and I prefer not to mess with it.
I had exactly the same experience with my daughter when she was small. We finished reading the Little House on the Prairie books and thought Mary Poppins would be fun. We never got past the first couple of chapters.
What we did end up loving were Walter R. Brooks' Freddy the Pig books. They are set in upstate NY, and they are hilarious while illustrating the importance of being a loyal friend, honest, respectful, and resourceful. It's too bad they aren't as popular as other children's books these days. He's kind of like P. G. Wodehouse for kids.
Roald Dahl also hated the movie adaptation of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Another relevant fact I once read: the actor who played Jesus in the Passion movie used an expletive when the whip accidentally actually hit his back. Not at all like the real Christ, who suffered meekly, as prophesied by Isaiah and later testified authoritatively by the Gospel accounts. Another reason not to watch or support any blasphemous portrayal of our Lord.
I don't really like or approve of any acting. It's inherent hypocrisy. I think a book is more real to life in all character development and conversation, although the setting has to be furnished by the readers' or listeners own imagination. (I have a vivid imagination from reading voraciously with little exposure to TV). I only watched Sound of Music for the first time recently and was disappointed, unsurprisingly. For one thing, it was a travesty to Americanize these stories which are so very British or Swedish. Julie Andrews had a flawless face with large eyes which somehow we humanly associate with genuine goodness and innocence, but...screens are a deceptive form of media. She was a good actress but not someone I truly want to be like. And Disney has both influenced and capitalized on the public's desire for idealized characters and happy-ever-after endings. The book is always better.
My wife read the book aloud to our children a number of years back, and I was also surprised to see how different the book was from the movie. Often I'm bothered when a movie departs significantly from the original, but in this case I have to say I don't mind. The book is its own thing. And the movie is still a great movie, even if it's not the book.
I tried reading 'Mary Poppins' as a child, but couldn't get into it. I never saw the film as a child, though we had an old record of the music and the album pictures intrigued me. When I finally saw the film, it did not live up to my childish expectations - I actually found the character of Mary Poppins in the film something of a joyless scold (and I like Julie Andrews in other productions). I much preferred 'Nanny McPhee', which had a British cast and director, although, ironically, Nanny McPhee is considerably altered from the Nurse Matilda literary character which inspired the film.
I understand what Travers meant by wishing the British had made the film. British productions of British literature are generally much better, simply because they understand the cultural references better - watching a Hollywood production of Jane Austen or Charles Dickens is downright painful.