The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Mary Poppins is stuck in fantasy-land

When the fantasy is in service of opening people’s eyes to the reality in front of them, it works well. But Mary Poppins Returns descends quickly into sentiment and escapism.

Emily Blunt stars in a scene from the movie "Mary Poppins Returns." (CNS photo/Jay Maidment, courtesy Disney)

Mary Poppins was once a character in a children’s series written by P.L. Travers, starting in 1934. Then, in 1964, she became the protagonist of the most successful Disney movie up to that point. Disney’s Mary Poppins made more than $100 million dollars (against a budget of just six million) and garnered an astounding 13 Oscar nominations, of which it won five, including one for star Julie Andrews. This made Andrews’ film career—she was immediately cast in another musical where she again played a nanny to children whose father is distracted by the concerns of adult life. The Sound of Music was also successful and won Andrews a second Oscar nomination.

Now, a Poppins sequel is in theaters. Mary Poppins Returns stars the beautiful Emily Blunt, whose performance is the best thing about the movie. Disney is certainly betting on a blockbuster—the studio reportedly spent $130 million on it, and that’s before advertising or marketing costs.

The British-American cast is also quite impressive: Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer play the all-grown-up versions of the Banks children whom Mary Poppins had graced with her presence in the original movie. Jane is now a labor organizer and philanthropist, Michael’s a widowed painter with three kids—they’ve recently lost their mother and are now in danger of losing their house to the very bank where Michael has taken a job to make ends meet.

Lin-Manuel Miranda fills the position Dick Van Dyke had in the original film, and he does a good job of it—he’s got all the Disney storytelling in song and dance down to an art. Colin Firth plays the smooth-talking but lupine banker threatening to take the house. Then there are cameos: Meryl Streep is in it, Julie Walters too, Angela Lansbury, and Dick Van Dyke himself. You’ve got prestige, nostalgia, and everything in-between, in short.

But what purpose will it serve? In Disney’s hands, Mary Poppins turned from a rigorous nanny who gets kids to do as they ought, reminding them of their manners constantly, to a creature of pure fantasy. Propriety is gradually overwhelmed by sentimentality. Indeed, the movie encouraged the view that the way to deal with children is to appeal to fantasy. This, you could say, is Disney’s entire faith, business model, and therefore contribution to American entertainment.

The new Mary Poppins finds three kids who try their hardest to be self-sufficient, helpful to their bereaved father, and a comfort to each other, all while growing up in the midst of the Great Depression—and she immediately decides that they need to start fantasizing more feverishly. They have a deficit of credulity, apparently, and are trying too hard to act like civilized human beings. Instead, the solution to their heartbreak and other difficulties is more entertainment!

The climax of this insane idea is a song in which she tells them not to worry that their mother is dead, because she’s actually just in “the place where lost things go”—which is either a new Disney park, a non-religious idea of heaven, or just a pathetic attempt at playing with the feelings of the audience. So there is no surprise that their mother is actually completely forgotten halfway through the story, and that the only thing the kids had from her is dropped off for repairs, and never made mention of again. I’ve never seen something as foolishly cruel in a children’s movie.

The good parts of the movie are all about how not to be caught up in entertainment and fantasies—how to wake up to reality. When the fantasy is in service of opening people’s eyes to what’s in front of them, neglected, and reminding them of what good things they already have, it works well—there is love, friendship, and family in these scenes, and they could have amounted to great story about dealing with unhappiness and bereavement. But the ideology of fantasy fixing everything (which itself derives from a fear of admitting tragedy into our lives, even when our loved ones die) would have to be abandoned for that to be possible.

I, for one, think we’ll get better (and more memorable songs) when we have artists working on them who aren’t trying to lie to children about life and death, love and loss, and why we need each other in the first place.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Titus Techera 25 Articles
Titus Techera is the executive director of the American Cinema Foundation and a contributor to National Review, The Federalist, Law & Liberty, and Modern Age.


  1. From what I have heard, this version changes Mary poppins from the sweet, nice, inoffensive person in the original to a slightly offbeat, slightly weird person who says and does odd things. Mary Poppins ceases to be a nice character in a kids movie and instead changes into a slightly dark person, perhaps a little insane, a fantasizer who is even a tiny bit menacing. Certainly the stuff about forgetting that their mother has died and instead living is a fantasy world is along those lines. Disney has very much going down the tubs. They have put homosexual characters now in their most popular movies, because childrens movies should, of course, always introduce young innocent children to sexual topics! Disney has become a very gay company. We cannot expect wholesome entertainment from them any longer. Lin Manuel Miranda is a bit of a weirdo as well, a guy who took the historical Hamilton and twisted him into a pro open borders advocate, because Miranda is Hispanic. Yuk.

    I’m very sorry to say that modern enternatment people are, for the most part, nuts.

    • “the sweet, nice, inoffensive person in the original”

      Actually, in the original books she’s not all sweetness and light – she’s rather tart and snappish.

    • This lovely fantasy movie is a blessing to counter all the “crap” that Hollywood is producing with horrible fantasy characters that look unnatural, satanic and plain disgusting. This Mary Poppins movie gives hope and love to today’s children where many are homeless (we saw hundreds of homeless folk all over Hollywood lately) and
      live in broken families. God bless Disney!

  2. I loved Emily Blunt in “A Quiet Place”, and she does fine work in the Mary Poppins sequel. While Walt Disney was an astute businessman and far from perfect, he had a vision/ethos that transcended mere commercialism and profit. That vision inspired many of his animated films, the original Mary Poppins, and Disneyland. That’s all gone now. Still many talented people working for Disney, but everything’s now driven by stock price and the analysts. More’s the pity.

  3. The essence of this movie lies in the star – either you have the je-ne-sais-quoi to pull it off or you don’t. Julie Andrews had it, but Emily Blunt, for all her exquisite beauty and talent, just doesn’t. Maybe it’s the times we live in that makes me say this, but Miss Blunt just can’t pull it off, which is sad.

    I remember the movie ‘The Aristocats’, a true masterpiece. The two spinster English Aunts – remember them ? Just thinking of them makes me laugh, and then I remember recently seeing ‘The Call of the Wild’ , and how terribly disappointing that was. They could have done the book justice, but to me it seems they didn’t even try – they ‘Disneyfied’ it (not my creation) in order to get a PG rating and the result is little more than silly.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Mary Poppins is stuck in fantasy-land -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.