Adaptation Month - Mary Poppins

We conclude adaptation month with a film that’s loved by everyone, except the writer of the book. Mary Poppins

Mary Poppins is a children’s book released in 1934 and written by P L Travers, a film adaptation was released by Disney in 1964, with a screenplay by Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi, both of whom had previously worked with Disney, in particular in their animation department and had written Son of Flubber. The Sherman Brothers also deserve some credit for the songs in this movie, which they had written.

PL Travers objected to the use of musical numbers and animation, but Disney overruled here, so it’s not hard to see why she was sour on the project. But does it do justice to the book’s story? No, I’m not going to even pretend that it does, so here’s my thoughts on the book just as a book.

The Book

Mary Poppins is a children’s story, it’s filled with a sense of magic and weirdness that kids are likely to be drawn to but lacks any real nuance or narrative, or really much in terms of character for adults to enjoy reading on their own.

The Film

This film does have its problems, in particular in regards to the ending, but I think they did a marvellous job. Considering the technology that made this film possible was very new around this, the animation/live action integration is impressive. The songs are fantastic and the film provides wonder for kids whilst also providing the depth and narrative the book oh so desperately needed to appeal to adults.

Please note, I am only looking at the first Mary Poppins Book, if ideas are taken from its sequels, that’s great but I haven’t read those, so I’m judging this purely as an adaptation of the book it’s named after.

What they kept

The Banks live at number 17 Cherry tree Lane (+10) with Admiral Boom as their neighbour (+10). Mr Banks working at the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank (+10). Katie Nanna abruptly leaves the household leaving the Banks family requiring a new nanny (+10) one arrives with the strict and vein Mary Poppins (+10)

The visit to Uncle Albert and the tea party on the ceiling are from the book (+10), that laughing is what causes the floating and sad thoughts causing them to descend (+10). Mary Poppins dismissing all of their adventures after the fact (+10) Mary Poppins promising to stay until the wind changes and leaving when it does (+10)

OK, that’s about it for the major plot points, other small details included are Mary Poppins sliding up the stair rail (+5) Mary Poppins’ bag that’s seemingly empty but isn’t (+5) the medicine she forces the kids to take and the favourite flavours it tastes as to them (+5) the idea that she can get people to jump into pavement pictures (+5), her requesting every second Tuesday off (+5) and that Mary can talk to animals (+5), they also kept the old woman requesting money for bags of breadcrumbs to feed the birds (+5)

We’re at 115 adaptation points here, how were things changed, let’s take a look

What they changed

It was Mrs Banks who interviewed Mary Poppins in the book, when she asked about references, Mary said she considered them old fashioned, and got the job on the spot. (-5) Mrs Banks hated the idea of seeming old-fashioned.

Burt is not with them on the Uncle Albert visit (-5) and is just a street artist, not holding multiple jobs (-5). Mary got an invitation to join him for tea and it just so happened to be his birthday, hence his happy laughter (-5). There’s no long goodbye in the book, Mary just up and leaves without saying a word (-5) much to the frustration of everyone except the children.

Mary Poppins herself is a bit sterner in the book but the children, Michael in particular give her more cause to be as I’ll explain in the next section (-5)

30 points lost there, bringing the total to 85

What they added

Yes, for the first time, so much of this film is film only, I’m adding the full section here, with -10 deductions for each element

Mr Banks’ character arc of learning to be less up-tight and distant is film only (-10) that said, it’s a well-done character arc. I hear a lot of trouble went into preventing Mr Banks becoming the villain and they succeed in that effort. The sad scene in the climax as he walks back to the bank is fantastic. That said, after that the Bank are petty, destroying his stuff rather than just saying ‘you’re fired,’ Mr Banks basically has a mental breakdown that lasts the rest of the film and that he gets his job back for telling a joke that kills someone is kinda stupid.

Mrs Banks’ suffragette activities are film only (-10) I can’t remember what she does in the book that means she couldn’t take care of the children herself. The musical numbers are film only, in fact PT Travers didn’t want musical numbers at all but Disney overruled her (-10) Mary using the first of said musical numbers to help them tidy their rooms is therefore also film only.

Admiral Boom’s cannon firing is film only. I get that they wanted Admiral Boom to do something but honestly, it’s not especially funny (-10), all the stuff inside the chalk pavement pictures is film only, again PT Travers didn’t want animation but Disney overruled her (-10)

The trip to the bank which results in pandemonium because Michael wants his money to feed the birds is film only (-10) as is the scene that follows with everyone on the rooftops dancing about (-10)

70 points lost here, bringing the adaptation score to 15

What they left Out

Jane and Michael aren’t the only Banks children in the book, they have twin baby siblings, John and Barbara. They have an entire chapter dedicated to them. They can understand each other, birds and the wind as Mary Poppins can, until they turn 1. God I never thought I’d be thinking about Baby Geniuses with Mary Poppins (-10)

Whilst Mary and Burt do head into a chalk picture, the context is so wildly different, it doesn’t feel justified to just call it a change. Mary and Burt go out for tea on a Sunday afternoon but since Burt can’t afford it, they jump inside one of the pictures to have it in there, and they get it for free. (-10) There’s a cute little running joke about elements in the picture they couldn’t originally see showing up and claiming to be minor background details

Mrs Lark and Andrew are characters from the book but the plot revolving around them is entirely cut. Andrew is a pedigree dog that hates his life of luxury and longs to be like other dogs. He runs off and meets a dog he likes, sending Mrs Lark into a panic until he returns. Mary Poppins translates that he’ll only return if she allows his friend to live with her, to which Mrs Lark is forced to accept (-10)

In another chapter, Jane is ill and Michael is describing the going on on Cherry Tree Lane. He sees a cow coming down the road and Mary Poppins explains it’s a friend of her mothers’. We transition into a story where the cow, the Red Cow is hit with a star that causes her to dance, she dances for over a week, barely eating until she sees the King, eventually getting the star removed. Over time she grows to miss it, which is how she Mary Poppins’ mother, and now goes out looking for it (-10)

Michael's day of continued misbehaviour, bad Tuesday (-10) and the trip around the world via magic compass (-10) leading to Michael later stealing it and having to confront shadowy demon figures of the people he met. I say people, in the original they met ethnic stereotypes but in subsequent reprints it was changed to local animals because of racism. I don’t really get this one, but, in case you haven’t worked it out, this book is episodic, with each chapter covering a different adventure.

Chapter 7: The Bird woman features the woman wanting tuppence for feed bags that did appear in the film, but once again the context around her appearance is very different. Mr Banks actually decided to have the children come along and take him to tea. Yes, the way this is phrased is weird in the book but yeah, this is something that could not happen in the film because of Mr Banks’ character arc (-10) they encounter the bird lady, where Michael laments that he hasn’t the money to buy a bag and Mary Poppins calls the birds sparros because ‘they all look alike to her.’ (-10) I’m sure there’s plenty to say about that, but not for this review, moving on.

Chapter 8 revolves the Banks children and Mary Poppins going shopping, it’s alluded to slightly as in the film, this is what they were going to do before Andrew came about Uncle Albert. Each of the sellers is disappointed that Mary didn’t ask for more, for some reason and then they go and get gingerbread. Annie and Fannie (insert obvious joke here) and their bossy mother Mrs Corry run the shop and Mrs Corry is exceptionally rude to her, presumably adult, daughters. She seemed curious about what kids did with the stars that came with the gingerbreads and they admit to collecting them for some reason and later that night they’re stolen and Mary is helping them ‘stick the stars to the sky’ (-10) I’m out of patience for this book now so I’ll briefly summarise the other adventures.

Chapter 10 revolves around the kids wondering about what happens at the Zoo after it closes for the night, turns out this one night they’re celebrating Mary Poppins’ birthday (-10) Chapter 11 involves the Banks’ children doing Christmas shopping and helping a ‘star’ pick out presents for its 6 siblings. (-10)

110 adaptation points lost bringing the total to -95

Mary Poppins is only barely an adaptation of the book. It took the concept of a nanny that makes magic happen and went in their own direction with it. And all for the better if you ask me, this is one of those rare occasions where the film is far far better than the book. As it expands on the characters, giving them more personality and depth, and allowing for there to be more than the bare bones of an actual narrative. The film is not faultless but its faults are drowned out by the fantastic musical numbers and inventive set-pieces. Its effects don’t hold up but I doubt any film made in the 60's does, so you can’t count that against it.

That said, I have no love for its sequel, and we’ll be taking a look at that very soon.