I now look through the original book only for the purpose of comparing it with the movie, without reading it carefully. However, based on my current impression of the original work, I can generally understand why the original author is dissatisfied with the film: to be honest, most of the plot of the film can be found in the original work (although the changes are large, its significance It has also changed), it is basically certain that the film is still filmed according to the original, not in the name of the original. However, several main characters give people the impression that they are completely inconsistent with the original. One of the major differences is the protagonist—Aunt Mary Poppins. It can be said that the role played by Julie Andrews is really a bit different from the original. Not like it. Secondly, it may be the original author who cared the most. The Banks and his wife in this film are completely different from the original: perhaps because of the dramatic conflict, the film portrays Mr. Banks as a very authoritarian and unreasonable person at the beginning. In the original book, Mr. Banks is relatively easy-going, and the author used her father as the prototype for the character in the original work, but the film is made like this, which makes the author seem likely to be unforgivable. The other thing is that the author himself did not accept the style of Disney's animation film very much. This was the biggest obstacle to the negotiation between Disney and PL Traverse at the time. Even if the film was taken, the author was still unwilling to accept this style.
Regardless of the original work, this film is still a very good work for Disney. The film has developed something that is impressive, but does not exist in the original, such as the long term "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" that I can’t read (but PL Traverse may not have a good impression of these. ). The film’s Aunt Mary Poppins is also one of Julie Andrews’s most successful roles. She also won the Oscar for Best Actress for this, and then she played Maria and the film in "The Sound of Music" It's almost exactly the same (and that's why she didn't want to play Maria at first). The theme song of the film "Chim Chim Cher-ee" is one of the tracks that Disney won the best theme song of the Oscar. However, the song that impressed the original author is "Feed the Birds", which happens to be Walt Disney's favorite song. Although the two have great differences, they are exactly the same.
Generally speaking, this film is only suitable for people who love Disney animation style. Regardless of the setting or plot setting, the film can only be regarded as a Disney animation rather than a movie version of the original.
In addition to this film, the former Soviet Union also launched a TV movie version of "Mary Poppins" in 1983. After watching it, I feel that the characters in this movie are closer to the original, and the set is more British (although more modern). However, the plot of this movie is completely different from that of the Disney version (I can’t find a reference in the original work. Judging from the evaluation of the film, it should be impossible to make up the whole story. However, according to the news I have received, the film is from the follow-up. This "Mary Poppins" may be based on materials). After watching, I think if these two films can learn from each other, the effect should be better, and PL Traverse may also be satisfied.
PS: PL Traverse is very similar to JK Rowling. If you put it now, PL Traverse can also make "Mary Poppins" a series of movies that are as popular as "Harry Potter". . It's a pity that she had bad luck. She was born in that era. At that time, people were not too keen on adapting such themes. She didn't have much choice in this area. Although she wanted to personally control such a movie, she couldn't control it. Lead to regret. I wonder if anyone is willing to adapt "Mary Poppins" now?
View more about Mary Poppins reviews
