Mary Poppins, a Christmas Movie!?

Mary Poppins and Christmas!? You might wonder what Mary Poppins has to do with Christmas, other than Mary being a christmasy name. If Die Hard fans can claim it to be a Christmas movie, then Mary Poppins fans have a much better standing! I saw Mary Poppins Returns on the opening day, and it occured to me that there is a way to see Mary Poppins as depicting the essence of Christmas, especially comparing and contrasting the new and the original Mary Poppins movies.

The new Mary Poppins Returns has the same preposterously endearing silliness of the original Mary Poppins, but without the mushy core that made the original endearing and enduring. If you are someone who liked the original Mary Poppins' cartoonish Disney buffoonery, then you will love the new one even more. But if you are someone who found yourself tearing up when the little Michael, with a look of mature empathy, hands over the 2 tuppances to his Dad, "Will this help you", and if you want more of those moments, you will likely be disappointed with Mary Poppins Returns.  

After watching Mary Poppins Returns, I was asking myself why this sequel did not speak to my mushy center the way the original Mary Poppins does. In the original Mary Poppins has a point of moral reckoning that is poignant and plausible. This moral reckoning the dad, Mr. Bank’s. In the original Mary Poppins the dad is a rather detached, unloving, self-congratulatory figure who is stuck in his world of traditions, managed to the precise minutes - come home at 6pm, then 6:01 for gin and tonic, 6:02 to pat his kids on head, send them to bed. But he does not even know that his kids need help flying kites. He is too stuck in his banking world to make time to play with his children. 

Turning point of the story is seeing Mr. Banks having a change of heart, becoming present to his kids needs for his love and attention. This transformation starts with Mary Poppins, played by the amazing Julie Andrews, suggesting he take his kids to the bank with him, so that they would learn from him. Little Michael had saved 2 tuppences. On the way to the bank he wants to give the 2 tuppences the homeless lady on the steps of the cathedral feeding the birds. His dad wants him to invest the 2 tuppences in the Bank.. Michael resists giving his 2 tuppences to the bank. This starts a inconceivable sequence of events which ends up with a hilarious run on the bank, putting his dad's job in jepordy. This sets the stage for the transformation that is to happen in 3 stages.

1.Bert, the playful chimney sweep, the moral spine of the movie, suggests to the dad, Mr. Banks, that his kids are more important than the bank, and, that they are yearning for his love. The camera focuses on the dad's face, one can see the reckoning of his missteps. 

2.This is when little Michael, moved by seeing his dad suffer, offers back the 2 tuppences. Mr. Banks is called back to the bank at 9pm. 

3.Seeing Mr. Banks walking alone to the bank, through the misty landscape, one feel transported to the Christmas Story like setup, facing one's own mortality. He passes in front of the cathedral and he does not see the old homeless lady anymore, presumably dead, regrets not allowing Michael to give his 2 tuppences to her. He reckons love and connection is more important than money.

Upon reaching the bank, Mr. Banks learns he is fired. But he comes out a happy man as he knows he values his children. Seeing this transformation in Mrs. Banks is satisfying because we all go through life sometimes valuing material things over relationships, then regret later on for valuing the wrong things.

The new Mary Poppins Returns lacks any form of satisfying or plausible life transformation. I think the reason is this - the depiction of evil in the new Mary Poppins is rather facile. The new Mary Poppins locates the good and evil in different persons. In the new Mary Poppins the dad is a good person, the only thing he can be accused of, if any, is being inefficient. The Director of the Bank who is intent on forcelosing on Bank's house, even using dishonest means, is all evil. In contrast, in the original Mary Poppins the potential for good and evil is in in the same person, Mr. Banks. Mr. Banks is very unempathic and unloving to his kids. Though he desires to be a good father, he keeps allowing his own materialistic needs supersede the needs of his kids. This is an rather mundane everyday evil that most movie goers identify with, which is why seeing Mr. Banks transform by the experience of love from his kids, is deeply satisfying. 

On the other hand, in the new Mary Poppins the dad does not need to have a character change, because he is basically a good person. He just needs a lucky break, as in needing to move time back, which Mary Poppins is there to provide. This reduces the new Mary Poppins, played by Emily Blunt, into a magician providing platitudes as, “nothing is impossible.” Seeing someone struggling get lucky breaks is fun, but is not as moving as seeing a person renounce their faults and have a change in character to become more loving, which is the fulcrum on which the original Mary Poppins moves about.

The  new Mary Poppins locates evil in people having power, in this case, the dishonest director of the Bank. The original Mary Poppins was more nuanced - the amazing Dick Van Dyke played the role of Bert, and, also, the director of the Bank, Mr. Dawes Sr.. Bert was the moral core of the movie. The director, Mr. Dawes Sr, was a miserly killjoy, who couldn't see past his nose. In this sense the original Mary Poppins was more poignant in locating the ability for good and evil in the same person, the dad, Mr. Banks, and also Bert as Director of the bank. At the end of the movie the son Mr. Dawes Sr says that his dad died laughing at Mr. Banks’ joke, and that he had never seen his dad happier. Mr. Banks gets his job back. Most human beings can identify with Mr. Banks’ who in valuing work over the love of his kids, risks losing his kids. In fact, the very first scene of the original Mary Poppins is the kids getting lost in London try to fly a kite themselves. 

In locating good and evil in the same person, the original Mary Poppins is closer to biblical anthropology - meaning that the Bible describes human nature as have the potential for both good and evil. We all are made in the image of God, so we have the potential to do good. But in rejecting God's love we are prone to the opposite of goodness. The fact of the human condition is to live in the tension of the good versus evil, both inside and outside oneself. The original Mary Poppins locates evil inside one of the protagonists. Seeing the protagonist struggle and change gives the movie a mushy core.

The movie Mary Poppins also depicts a form of biblical pathway of redemption in the sense that Mary Poppins comes down to earth as an incarnation to instigate transformation. In a superficial sense Mary Poppins serves as the Christ figure who comes from the heavens to the earth to save people, as in helping people to see that relationship matter more than material things. Mary Poppins, as in Mother Mary, births new life. Though we have the potential for both good and bad in us, we often need help from the outside to change. The idea of God incarnating into the world as Jesus Christ in order to redeem humanity is the essence of the Christmas story. Using this incarnational lens, it is possible to see Mary Poppins as a Christmas movie in its essence. Mary Poppins like Jesus, comes down to earth to save the broken lives of people, making Mary Poppins a Christmas movie.

Ps:  Of course, Mary Poppins does not fully embody the multifarious aspects of life of Jesus. All analogies break at some point. Hopefully Mary Poppins gives a another way to be grateful for the incarnation of Christ into the world.