Will Mary Poppins Returns Be Good?

Wind’s in the east… mist coming in. Like something is brewing, about to begin. Can’t put me finger on what lies in store, but I feel what’ll happen, all happened before…

Since the last time I added a post on this blog, Disney finally acknowledged they need to actually respect their cast members and pay them decent wages, the battle for 20^th Century Fox is nearly won, Bud Luckey passed away, The Incredibles 2 came out, and James Gunn has been fired from Marvel Studios. With all those mixed feelings, let’s talk about something a bit more positive yet questionably unnecessary.

Mary Poppins is perhaps the most beloved and popular of Disney’s pantheon. It universally loved (unless you are called P.L. Travers), highly regarded as Walt Disney’s magnum opus, bringing together the best creative minds in Disney to create something amazing. The careers of Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, David Tomlinson, and well, everyone else, have been defined by Mary Poppins. Everything about this movie, from Mary Poppins’ entrance, to the dancing penguins are iconic and well remembered.

Now, fifty-four years later, a sequel, Mary Poppins Returns, is coming to cinemas in December. The longest gap between a live action film and its sequel ever. The film is set thirty years after the 1964 film, and will star Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins, with Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Winshaw, Emily Mortimer, Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, Julie Walters, David Warner, Angela Lansbury, and Dick Van Dyke in supporting roles. Dick Van Dyke is the only actor from the first film to return, though he is now playing Mr. Dawes Jr. (played by Arthur Malet) in the film. Winshaw, Mortimer, Walter, and Warner are inheriting the roles of Michael and Jane Banks, Ellen, and Admiral Boom.

Julie Andrews was initially invited to make a cameo, but she declined, wanting the film to be Emily Blunt’s movie. No doubt people will compare the two performances once this sequel comes out. Now, when the film was announced, my first reaction was “Why?” Does Mary Poppins really need a sequel? Mary Poppins stands alone. Its reputation, popularity, and timelessness allows it to stand on its own two feet. P.L. Travers did write a number of novels, so Disney did have at least some resources to use, which they claim they are for this new movie. But, the question stands – does Walt Disney’s magnum opus need a continuation?

It’s no secret that Mrs. Travers despised the film and cried at the premiere out of despair, demanding Walt re-edit it. When Cameron Mackintosh approached Mrs. Travers to adapt the books into a stage musical, she agreed, but on the condition no one from the film was involved. However, the songs from the film were allowed to be used. Mrs. Travers’ hatred didn’t cover the whole film. She approved of Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins, and even liked “Feed the Birds”. In 1977 interview, she remarked that she had seen the film again, and described it as “glamourous and it’s a good film on its own level”, though barely like her books.

Perhaps Mary Poppins Returns is a good opportunity to adapt the books a bit closer. The 1964 film did have a lot of magic and charm to it, but at its heart, it was about Mary Poppins coming to mend a broken family, headed by a troubled father committed to his job at the cost of caring for his children. It does look like the sequel will be following a similar story, with a grown up Michael Banks implied to be a widow, struggling to raise his children despite help from Jane, and is working in the same bank his father once worked in. I am only going to assume that Mr. and Mrs. Banks are both dead, though Ellen and Admiral Boom are still alive.

The lone teaser trailer is charming enough, slowly building up the return to Cherry Tree Lane, Michael’s fixed kite blowing around the neighbourhood until picked up by his children and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s character. They launch it into the sky, and cue the world’s greatest nanny descending from the clouds. This did boost my excitement for the film, and the cast looks pretty good, but that lingering concern remains. Is this film necessary?

If there is one thing that encapsulates the last few years of Disney, and particularly CEO Bob Iger’s time in charge of the company, it has been fuelling the nostalgia of consumers. Disney purchased The Muppets, Pixar, Marvel, and LucasFilm during the past ten years. Star Wars has made a comeback, and while the fatigue has started to set in, Disney still plot to milk this cow for all that its worth. The likes of DuckTales and Kim Possible have returned, all of Disney’s greatest classics are getting live action remakes, and even Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was brought home (and completely underused).

It is obvious Disney are cashing in their chips with all of these reboots, remakes, and revivals. Mary Poppins is Disney’s most renowned live action film, so it makes sense to revisit the property. Perhaps Saving Mr. Banks was meant to test the waters and renew interest in Mary Poppins?

My concern is that Mary Poppins Returns will simply be a repeat of its predecessors greatest hits, and not try telling a different story. Michael is now a troubled adult and parent, implied to be working at the same miserable bank his father worked at, now run by Colin Firth’s character. I wonder if Michael’s accidental run on the bank will hover over him like the sceptre at the feast. Dick Van Dyke is playing Mr. Dawes Jr., and his character will likely be a nod to Mr. Dawes Sr. from the first film. Admiral Boom is back too, so the classic “Posts, everyone!” gag will return. No complaints there. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s character is a lamp lighter who just so happens to have been Bert’s apprentice, operates on Cherry Tree Lane, and likely knows the Banks family as well.

And while I will reiterate that the teaser trailer was charming, it was obvious that it was using nostalgia as a major selling point. The phrases used in the trailer let us know we are visiting a world that is a big part of the imaginations of multiple generations. We are in the same location, with the same characters, a similar plot, and familiar elements. Mary Poppins is seen flying through the clouds, the characters are flying a kite in the park, Lin-Manuel is dressed exactly like Bert, we see a gentlemen reading a newspaper in clothes very similar to Mr. Banks’, and the trailer ends with the iconic mirror scene where Mary Poppins’ reflection stays behind.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am fired up for this film, and plan on seeing it shortly after it comes out with my family. the movie will most likely be a huge success. Disney are playing their cards right. Still, I at least hope they are. Mary Poppins is one of Disney’s most sacred of cows like Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh, but it is also a milestone in childhood family favourites, nostalgia and cinematic history. If the film bombs at the box office, this will likely have huge repercussions for Disney and their long line-up of live action remakes. The planned Mulan remake has already been pushed back to 2019.

Mrs. Travers did write many books, so there is plenty of material to choose from, but Disney’s version is the most well known version. The sequel will hopefully use new ideas, and the setting of the Depression will bring a new dynamic and atmosphere on Cherry Tree Lane. We probably will see many nods and homages to the original film, and hopefully a couple of cameos from the surviving cast, but the film should and must stand on its own and develop an identity of its own. To be a worthy successor to one of the greatest family film of all-time, and not just a nostalgic-based cash grab.