When I've really enjoyed a book or film, I approach its sequel (if I approach it at all) with excitement and trepidation.
"Excitement" because I'm anticipating a similar enjoyment.
"Trepidation" because sequels often, well, you know, stink.
But when I saw a trailer for Mary Poppins Returns earlier this year, I mentally, albeit cautiously, bookmarked the film for possible viewing.
When it was released, I carefully read the reviews and watched a second trailer. Last night, five of us went to see it.
First, a side note about sequels and remakes.
Audiences often approach these with unfair comparisons to the original (especially when the original is iconic), increasing the odds of poor reception. One example of a well-done sequel 1985's Return to Oz, which was outstanding on its own and retained the dark qualities of the books, while departing greatly from the 1939 movie.
My feeling is that a remake should take a fresh and original approach to the story line. Sequels should do likewise, while connecting the viewer to the original.
I feel Mary Poppins Returns did both. Here's why.
1) It kept the "feel" of the first movie and movies of its era without mimicry.
The opening tinkling. The long opening credits with full orchestral sounds. The look of Cherry Street Lane and the Banks' home twenty years later. The casting of Jane, Michael, Ellen and the admiral to look like older versions of the original actors and actresses. The story construction. The use of 2-D, hand-drawn animation. The wolf/bank CEO. (reminiscent of the movie Pinocchio). Of not hinting at a new grimy "love" interest for Mary Poppins, but instead making the lamplighter someone who knew Bert as a child and who is infatuated with Jane. The appearance of Dick Van Dyke, now old enough to play the type of character he played in the original movie, making the audience feel they've stepped back into time and Dick stepped out of it. (If the movie just doesn't grab you, Dick's dance moves on top of the desk is worth the ticket price).
2) The outstanding portrayal of Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins.
While some critics felt Emily was portraying Julie Andrews' version of Mary Poppins instead of Mary herself, I say, "So what?" And also possibly, "Good job!" Having read the Mary Poppins books as a child, I feel Emily did a great job of blending P.L. Travers' character with Andrews' version (which most people recognize) while not imitating it since the story has moved forward by twenty years.
And kudos for Julie Andrews for refusing a cameo role. Here's why.
3) The Easter Eggs
Not giving those away. You'll have to find them for yourself. But they are subtle and contribute to the sense the sequel is a genuine sequel.
But here's a non-object one: Karen Dotrice. Which none of us caught while watching it. And I don't want you to miss it, either.
4) Excellent story construction.
Yes, we know how the story will progress, and we know how it will end. But the way in which the viewer goes from A to B, the moment by moment unfolding of wondering what might happen in the next instance, brought a sense of wonderment and magic to the entire experience.
5) The colors.
The use of color in Mary Poppins Returns was stunning and contributed to the atmosphere that we were watching something old, something new. The big screen is the really the only way to fully appreciate it.
Mary Poppins Returns was, by far, the best film I've seen in a long time, and one of the few I'd like to experience again.
One element many critics panned is the music, so I kept expectations low. And it's true the score doesn't approach the variety and mastery of the Sherman brothers in the 1964 film.
But in several spots, you can hear subtle melodies to the original music (sorry, one of the Easter eggs).
And, if you let the new songs just be the new songs, you'll appreciate them more.
Even now, my mind keeps wondering "where the lost things go..."
Furthermore, Bertrand enjoyed it immensely, a good choice for an imaginary mouse's first movie theater experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment