The other DrC and I saw the newish Mary Poppins sequel today. Filmed by Disney, it is set at a time when the son of the first film is grown, married-but-widowed and has young children of his own. His unmarried sister lives with them in the house inherited from their parents. Like his father he works for “the bank” and, like his father, his employment there is problematic.
As far as I’m aware, only one member of the first film’s cast acts in this sequel, Dick Van Dyke. There are also cameos by Angel Landsbury and Meryl Streep. All three are pros and do their brief turns well.
Emily Blunt does a believable Mary Poppins, but she’s no Julie Andrews. Blunt’s Mary is more stern, less loving, and ever so slightly capricious. Magical to be sure, and effective, but less likely to be missed by the Banks family (and the audience) when she leaves. In that characterization, perhaps she is truer to Travers’ creation than was Andrews.
Lin-Manuel Miranda plays lamplighter Jack, this film’s version of Van Dyke’s chimney sweeping foil. I’m certain we’re supposed to find him wonderful, for me the character didn’t work nearly as well as Van Dyke’s Bert. He kept popping up and moving the story forward. He was okay, but no stand-out. I can’t say whether to blame Miranda or the scriptwriters.
The other main character was Ben Whishaw playing Michael Banks. Where his father was a would-be tyrant who mellowed at film’s end, Michael is a wimp/loser who half-way redeems himself by film’s end. I suppose the audience wasn’t supposed to like either much, and Whishaw certainly succeeds in portraying Michael as hapless.
Michael’s sister Jane, played by Emily Mortimer, is a chip off her mother’s old block - another do-gooder - and for all the character adds to the plot, could have been omitted. Her mother’s role in the original was important, if minor. Jane’s role here is, it seems, to enhance parallels with the original.
The 3 child actors did decent jobs. One hopes they don’t suffer the tragic sequellae many former child actors experience, Ron Howard and Shirley Temple being rare exceptions.
One thing that troubled me was that Michael and Janes’ magical nanny shows up again 25 years later without having aged a year and they take her arrival entirely for granted. Would you be blasé about it? I wouldn’t in their shoes.
Okay, did I enjoy the film? Yes. Is it as memorable as the first Poppins? Not even close. I did not leave the theater humming any of the songs.
There is talk of a third Poppins film with Blunt. If it breaks new ground and leaves the played-out Banks family behind, it could be an entertaining way to spend an afternoon.
