Mary Poppins
-
Mike Kelly
- Temp
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne, FL, USA
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Mike Kelly
- Temp
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne, FL, USA
Anybody here have the DVD of Sweet Smell of Success? If you do, take a minute to go to chapter 6 time 37:18 to 37:22. It's a scene with Tony Curtis and David White at one of the NY nightspots. A stunning brunette walks by their table causing Curtis to ogle for a minute. Is it Julie Andrews? Sure looks like her and she was appearing on Broadway in My Fair Lady when SSOS was filmed. Could have easily agreed to do a walk through. She isn't listed in the credits.
I have to admit, I would have loved to have seen Julie play Eliza just once. I would think she could play the ugly duckling who turned into a beautiful swan. I have seen lots of still photos of Julie playing Eliza both before and after her transformation by Professor Higgins and, to me, she has the look and atitude of the bedraggled Cockney flower girl down much better than Audrey could hope to do. Audrey was a good actress who gave it a good try, but she was just not right. I have the original cast recording of My Fair Lady and I know I would have been laughing out loud at the banter between Julie and Rex Harrison. Julie just sounded more natural in those brief lines of dialogue on the soundtrack album. And, of course, there is no comparison between Julie's and Marni Nixon's versions of those great songs.FilmFan720 wrote:Well, call me the odd man out here, but I would say the one who lost out here is the film of My Fair Lady, which has to deal with Audrey Hepburn giving such an atrocious performance of dubbed singing, screeching over acting and uncomfortable stiffness as ever I have seen. It brings the whole level of the film down.
If Julie could have done My Fair Lady, Mary Poppins and Sound Of Music...
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Well, call me the odd man out here, but I would say the one who lost out here is the film of My Fair Lady, which has to deal with Audrey Hepburn giving such an atrocious performance of dubbed singing, screeching over acting and uncomfortable stiffness as ever I have seen. It brings the whole level of the film down.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
What a wonderful turn of events for everyone, even Jack Warner. Julie was turned into a very sympathetic victim by Warner's decision to cast Audrey Hepburn, which was not an outrageous decision since this was a very expensive production (on top of the five million dollar film rights) and Audrey was one of the biggest movie stars in the world during the early 1960s. In hindsight, he should have gone with Julie but it is easy for me to understand his reasoning. And, while Audrey was, IMO, way too beautiful to play Eliza Doolittle she gave a performance I always enjoy watching.Big Magilla wrote:While Julie Andrews could have won the Oscar for Mary Poppins soley on the strength of that performance, she really won for:
b) proving Jack Warner a fool by not casting her in My Fair Lady.
c) proving to be an even bigger sensation in The Sound of Music, released at the peak of the 1964 Oscar voting season.
And, it seems to me that if Julie had been cast as Eliza, she may not have gotten the chance to play Mary Poppins or, depending on everyone's schedules, Maria Von Trapp. What a shame that would have been for film fans and for Julie. And she got to be Eliza Doolittle. She played that role thousands of times to great acclaim on Broadway and in London. She has to be happy with how everything worked out, even though she probably got lots of sympathy calls.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
While Julie Andrews could have won the Oscar for Mary Poppins soley on the strength of that performance, she really won for:
a) her one-two punch in two very different 1964 films, The Americanization of Emily being the other one.
b) proving Jack Warner a fool by not casting her in My Fair Lady.
c) proving to be an even bigger sensation in The Sound of Music, released at the peak of the 1964 Oscar voting season.
a) her one-two punch in two very different 1964 films, The Americanization of Emily being the other one.
b) proving Jack Warner a fool by not casting her in My Fair Lady.
c) proving to be an even bigger sensation in The Sound of Music, released at the peak of the 1964 Oscar voting season.
I agree Julie gave better performances in Sound Of Music and Victor/Victoria, and those were much better films than Poppins. But I have no problem with her Oscar. I have not seen Seance On A Wet Afternoon or The Pumpkin Eater since I was in college, but I have seen the other Best Actress nominees recently. I give the nod to Julie. The only other performance I would consider ranking ahead of Julie is Debbie Reynolds in Molly Brown.
I never read the Mary Poppins books but I understand her character in the book is far more cold than Julie's character and is even somewhat cruel at times to the children (but, arguably, for their own good.). There is an example of this in the play. She catches the children breaking their toys and locks them in the nursery so the abused toys can come to life and frighten the children as punishment. No way would Julie's character do something like that. But I do think Julie did so some of the vinegar of the books. But, this was a Disney film, so she had to be sweet and loving toward the children and her goal is the well-being of the family. She is a no nonsense nanny but still loving. And Julie, of course, did an outstanding job of showing her love of the entire Banks family and her sweet nature. That beautiful singing voice doing a great job on those very good songs is a bonus. I have no problem with her Oscar, given her competition.
The song "Spoonful Of Sugar" as it was used in the film was a loving nanny helping the children find fun in cleaning their room. I understand the sentiment in the book was Mary telling the children you had better clean your room and you better figure out a way to motivate yourselves to get it done. Not the same sentiment at all.
The Mary Poppins character in the film came to the Banks family to use her magic to improve their lives. I understand the Mary Poppins character in the book, while having the ability to use magic, had no such goal at all.
From what I have read, P.L. Travers, the author of the eight Mary Poppins books, would have wanted Julie's character to be much more of a b***h than she was in the film. No way was that going to happen in a Disney film.
I never read the Mary Poppins books but I understand her character in the book is far more cold than Julie's character and is even somewhat cruel at times to the children (but, arguably, for their own good.). There is an example of this in the play. She catches the children breaking their toys and locks them in the nursery so the abused toys can come to life and frighten the children as punishment. No way would Julie's character do something like that. But I do think Julie did so some of the vinegar of the books. But, this was a Disney film, so she had to be sweet and loving toward the children and her goal is the well-being of the family. She is a no nonsense nanny but still loving. And Julie, of course, did an outstanding job of showing her love of the entire Banks family and her sweet nature. That beautiful singing voice doing a great job on those very good songs is a bonus. I have no problem with her Oscar, given her competition.
The song "Spoonful Of Sugar" as it was used in the film was a loving nanny helping the children find fun in cleaning their room. I understand the sentiment in the book was Mary telling the children you had better clean your room and you better figure out a way to motivate yourselves to get it done. Not the same sentiment at all.
The Mary Poppins character in the film came to the Banks family to use her magic to improve their lives. I understand the Mary Poppins character in the book, while having the ability to use magic, had no such goal at all.
From what I have read, P.L. Travers, the author of the eight Mary Poppins books, would have wanted Julie's character to be much more of a b***h than she was in the film. No way was that going to happen in a Disney film.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
I've always thought David Tomlinson and Glynis Johns were the real stars of Mary Poppins the movie. Tomlinson, in particular, shows some wonderful comic timing, and is astonishingly moving in the scene where he loses his job.
Magilla is right, he's a treat in Bedknobs and Broomsticks, too.
I never agreed with Andrews' oscar win for Poppins. While I'm happy she has an Academy Award, I do wish she'd picked it up for The Sound of Music, Victor/Victoria or another role where she was required to show more range and charm. Poppins the character, face it, is a one-note cold, miserable b**ch.
Magilla is right, he's a treat in Bedknobs and Broomsticks, too.
I never agreed with Andrews' oscar win for Poppins. While I'm happy she has an Academy Award, I do wish she'd picked it up for The Sound of Music, Victor/Victoria or another role where she was required to show more range and charm. Poppins the character, face it, is a one-note cold, miserable b**ch.
It was a beautiful here in D.C. last week, kaytodd. I'm glad you guys had a good time.kaytodd wrote:My ten year old son and I were in Washington D.C. last week on a school trip.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
I have not seen Bedknobs And Broomsicks since I was a child but I remember enjoying it. Good story.
Daniel Jenkins played George when I saw the play and he was very good. I am not surprised he is getting some recogntion. I guess my main problem with the play is that, unlike The Lion King, I did not like the changes they made from the film.
Some changes made no sense to me. In the film, Mary Poppins herself precipitated the crisis that caused George to lose his job. She manipulated events so that George would be forced to take a fresh look at his entire life and spend more time and pay more attention to his family. It was an example of the wonderful magic Mary brings when she takes a family under her wings and helps us undrstand why she is so special. As a bonus, the scene where Mary tricks George into bringing the children to his bank and the scene at the bank that leads to George's dismissal are both very funny.
In the play, Georges professional crises had nothing to do with Mary or her magic. He loses his job because he makes decisions on loans that show he is more intersted in doing the right thing than in making money for the bank. It appears they wanted to make his character a little more complicated but I do not think they made the experience more enjoyable for the audience.
Another thing I missed was Winifred Banks, the mother, as an advocate for voting rights for women. Glynis Johns character was a lot of fun. Rebecca Luker has a nice singing voice but her character was rather dour. Her signature song, "Being Mrs. Banks", is a pretty song with nice lyrics about her love for her husband and family and how she wants to really help her husband. But I'll bet Luker would love to have something like the fun "Sister Suffaragette" to sing every night. The women's rights subplot also gave George an opportunity to show comic exasperation. I know they did not want to simply redo the film on stage. But this as another change that made the stage production less fun than the film.
I apologize if I am spoiling things for any of you who have not seen the play. But I suspect very few of my fellow posters here would go see this play unless, like me, hey had to
Daniel Jenkins played George when I saw the play and he was very good. I am not surprised he is getting some recogntion. I guess my main problem with the play is that, unlike The Lion King, I did not like the changes they made from the film.
Some changes made no sense to me. In the film, Mary Poppins herself precipitated the crisis that caused George to lose his job. She manipulated events so that George would be forced to take a fresh look at his entire life and spend more time and pay more attention to his family. It was an example of the wonderful magic Mary brings when she takes a family under her wings and helps us undrstand why she is so special. As a bonus, the scene where Mary tricks George into bringing the children to his bank and the scene at the bank that leads to George's dismissal are both very funny.
In the play, Georges professional crises had nothing to do with Mary or her magic. He loses his job because he makes decisions on loans that show he is more intersted in doing the right thing than in making money for the bank. It appears they wanted to make his character a little more complicated but I do not think they made the experience more enjoyable for the audience.
Another thing I missed was Winifred Banks, the mother, as an advocate for voting rights for women. Glynis Johns character was a lot of fun. Rebecca Luker has a nice singing voice but her character was rather dour. Her signature song, "Being Mrs. Banks", is a pretty song with nice lyrics about her love for her husband and family and how she wants to really help her husband. But I'll bet Luker would love to have something like the fun "Sister Suffaragette" to sing every night. The women's rights subplot also gave George an opportunity to show comic exasperation. I know they did not want to simply redo the film on stage. But this as another change that made the stage production less fun than the film.
I apologize if I am spoiling things for any of you who have not seen the play. But I suspect very few of my fellow posters here would go see this play unless, like me, hey had to
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Glad you and Cody enjoyed the trip. I've heard of schools in the San Francisco bay area doing the same thing albeit flying to DC, then busing it to NYC.
Have you never seen Bedknobs and Broomsticks, in which Tomlinson stars opposite Angela Lansbury? That's the film in which he really shines. I don't recall any talk of his being nominated for an Oscar for anything, though, certainly not Mary Poppins in a year rich in great character performances that included British nominees Peter Ustinov (Topkapi), Stanley Holloway (My Fair Lady) and John Gielgud (Becket) as well as fellow Britishers Cyril Delevanti (The Night of the Iguana) and Wilfrid Hyde-White (My Fair Lady). Tomlinson would have been well down the list. The role, though, is quite charming. Daniel Jenkins is nominated for an Outer Critics Circle Award for his performance in the play. I haven't seen it, but I do have the London cast recording. It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious even without Julie Andrews.
Have you never seen Bedknobs and Broomsticks, in which Tomlinson stars opposite Angela Lansbury? That's the film in which he really shines. I don't recall any talk of his being nominated for an Oscar for anything, though, certainly not Mary Poppins in a year rich in great character performances that included British nominees Peter Ustinov (Topkapi), Stanley Holloway (My Fair Lady) and John Gielgud (Becket) as well as fellow Britishers Cyril Delevanti (The Night of the Iguana) and Wilfrid Hyde-White (My Fair Lady). Tomlinson would have been well down the list. The role, though, is quite charming. Daniel Jenkins is nominated for an Outer Critics Circle Award for his performance in the play. I haven't seen it, but I do have the London cast recording. It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious even without Julie Andrews.