This Section Of Mary Poppins Returns Ruins The Film
I’m not talking about the accent.
When you think about Mary Poppins, what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?
Is it the face above…or maybe this one:
One thing that we can rely on when it comes to this iconic character is her look. She’s staunchly committed to a button-up shirt, a hat of some sort, and sensible heels. There’s a little bit of whimsy in her clothes, though, as there’s always a fun personal touch that makes her different from a regular nanny.
(Of course, her umbrella and her carpet bag are also important accessories, but she doesn’t bring them absolutely everywhere.)
Her brunette locks are neatly curled, and she sticks to a specific, defined makeup style, that runs opposite to her sidekick (Dick Van Dyke in the original, Lin-Manuel Miranda in the sequel, both with atrocious English accents).
That’s immensely important, especially since the sequel, with another actress in the role, came out 54 years after the original.
An easy way to ease us into thinking that Emily Blunt and Julie Andrews look (and sound) alike, is through the costumes.
The costume designer speaks a lot about it in this Slash Film article:
The integrity of this fictional character is hence maintained through her look, as well as her general demeanour (proper governess with a fun streak) and voice (as clear as a whistle). And Emily Blunt does a splendid job, except in one sequence.
This isn’t her fault; the entirety of the sequence was bizarre; it was as if we were watching Mary Poppins’ evil twin.
I’m talking about the song-and-dance sequence, ‘A Cover Is Not The Book’.
Mary Poppins has the ability to conjure up fantasy (or are they reality?) sequences with the Banks children (both sets).
However, in that particular sequence, the film goes a little too far in the ‘Mary Poppins can do anything’ direction.
This sequence happens within a ‘dream’ conjured up by Mary Poppins within a porcelain bowl. They go to a music hall, and the audience cheers and convinces Mary Poppins to perform a number. This number:
Regardless of how good Emily Blunt is, she’s still an actress who can play a multitude of roles. That means that, with one quick swap, she can become a completely different person.
Why, then, would the producers decide to have her change her hair, her singing style, and her demeanour in one fantasy sequence?
The entire sequence was bizarre; her singing voice was coarser, her hair cut completely changed, and she seemed to be doing a Cabaret-style performance.
Mary Poppins, doing Cabaret?
Yeah, it made no sense. I felt like I was in a nightmare (which was bolstered by the scene right after, where the children almost get kidnapped by a wolf).
In fact, the sequence made me suddenly very aware that this is Emily Blunt, not Mary Poppins.
And regardless of how good the rest of the movie was, I couldn’t recover from it.
I mean, when it comes to Mary Poppins, would you rather have this:
Or this?
