One of the movies on our "must see" holiday list is the new "Mary Poppins Returns" from Disney. The realization then hit me that I had never - as in NEVER - seen to original 1964 film version that starred Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, and that earned Andrews an Academy Award for Best Actress that year. Marilyn had seen it, but her memory tells her that she probably saw it with her mother when it was first released all those years ago.
So, we obtained a Blue-ray edition of the movie and watched it last night, and were perfectly delighted with it. The mix of live action and animation was so perfectly done, and you have to think that such an accomplishment had to be mind boggling back in 1964. Andrews was perfectly delightful in the title role, and she surely deserved that Oscar. (The nominated actresses she beat out that year were Anne Bancroft, Sophia Loren, Debbie Reynolds, and Kim Stanley. Not bad company.)
I was also somewhat surprised to see that the movie was just as much a showcase for Van Dyke as it was for Andrews. He is of course remembered for his singing of "Chim Chim Cher-ee" (which won the Oscar for Best Original Song), but "Step in Time", the dance number that he led with the other chimney sweeps on the London roof tops, was spectacular.
A word about that Oscar for Julie Andrews. The Best Picture winner, beating out "Mary Poppins", "Becket", "Dr. Strangelove", and "Zorba the Greek", was "My Fair Lady". Andrews, of course, created the role of Eliza Doolittle on Broadway, but was famously bypassed for the movie part in favor of Audrey Hepburn. Many were outraged at this bit of casting, presumably even Miss Andrews herself, but while "My Fair Lady" won the Best Picture Oscar, she, Andrews, had the ultimate revenge, winning the Best Actress Award, an award for which Miss Hepburn was not even nominated. Some claim that Andrews' Oscar win was some kind of sympathy/backlash for her not being cast as Eliza. Who knows?
I have also been asked, how is it possible that I have never seen this movie, and I have put some thought into that question, and here is how I figure it. When it was released in 1964, I turned thirteen years old, and "Mary Poppins" was not in the sweet spot for a thirteen year old boy, at least not this one. I was also too young, or, more likely, too socially awkward to have had a girlfriend, so seeing this as a date movie was not in the cards for me. Time marched, I grew up, got older, and never had children with whom I would no doubt have enjoyed watching "Mary Poppins". So, it took the release of a sequel fifty-four years later to prompt me to watch this thoroughly delightful classic. I figure not to make the same mistake twice, and I plan on seeing "Mary Poppins Returns" before the calendar turns to 2019.
On the down side, I have been singing "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" to myself ever since I woke up this morning.
I have also been asked, how is it possible that I have never seen this movie, and I have put some thought into that question, and here is how I figure it. When it was released in 1964, I turned thirteen years old, and "Mary Poppins" was not in the sweet spot for a thirteen year old boy, at least not this one. I was also too young, or, more likely, too socially awkward to have had a girlfriend, so seeing this as a date movie was not in the cards for me. Time marched, I grew up, got older, and never had children with whom I would no doubt have enjoyed watching "Mary Poppins". So, it took the release of a sequel fifty-four years later to prompt me to watch this thoroughly delightful classic. I figure not to make the same mistake twice, and I plan on seeing "Mary Poppins Returns" before the calendar turns to 2019.
On the down side, I have been singing "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" to myself ever since I woke up this morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment