tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post117022689599466845..comments2024-03-24T13:26:57.317-07:00Comments on Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule: In Anticipation of Jim Emerson's Contrarianism Blog-a-Thon: JULIE ANDREWS: GOVERNESS OF GOODNESS or NANNY FROM THE NETHERWORLD?Dennis Cozzaliohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-55971638569446187672010-02-05T13:53:15.963-08:002010-02-05T13:53:15.963-08:00Like Julie Andrews or not, I just think it's h...Like Julie Andrews or not, I just think it's hilarous that anyone still thinks talent has anything to do with the winning of an Oscar! But in Julie's defense, have you ever read any of the Mary Poppins books? That Mary Poppins is downright scary- she literally turns red when she gets angry! So Julie Andrews really, really did an amazing job of mixing the smug/superior qualities with the charming. And Mary Poppins wasn't ever really about women's rights...it was about what happens when someone literally blows into your life and blows away (and some feel the later books are a subtle allegory for all the children of Post World War II London who lost parents in the bombings). The film didn't delve so deep, but I think the woman's place in dealing with children was just a given. Interesting article, though! Sorry it took me two years to come across it!Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-45469238416274812242007-02-16T14:11:00.000-08:002007-02-16T14:11:00.000-08:00Thanks for the kind reply, Dennis! I seem to hav...Thanks for the kind reply, Dennis! I seem to have read too much into your position; I think I understand it better now. I'll definitely keep reading--I enjoyed the critical bite of your take on Poppins, even where I disagreed.C.K. Dexterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991265712089687548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-45341917269265540982007-02-12T01:39:00.000-08:002007-02-12T01:39:00.000-08:00C.K.: You might be interested to know that my wife...C.K.: You might be interested to know that my wife would probably agree with everything you’ve written in your comment! And I’m glad that you took the time to honestly and intelligently engage with my point of view. <BR/><BR/>You write: <B>“It's not obvious that your view should lead us to a negative assessment of the film.”</B> <BR/><BR/>The point of my piece was not so much to lead anyone to a negative assessment of the film. While I understand that my own view of <I>Mary Poppins</I> is a lot less enthusiastic than most people who love it, either based on childhood memories or from having seen it again as an adult and having those good memories confirmed, the basis of my distaste for it lies almost exclusively in my distaste for Andrews as a performer, and as a performer in this role. Therefore, the contrarianism of my piece is more aptly directed at what I perceive as an almost-universal appraisal that she was never better or more aptly cast than in this role.<BR/><BR/><B>“On the one hand, you accuse the fans of gobbling up the sugary tooth-decaying moralism and cutesiness of the film, but on the other hand, you complain about that the true essence of the character is her icy, severe, and frightening authoritarian qualities. If the latter is a bad aspect of Andrew's performance, does that mean the failure is that she didn't make the character saccharine enough?... It is to the film's credit that it has, unlike most films aimed at wholesome family entertainment, conscientiously undermined its purported wholesomeness.” </B><BR/><BR/>Here’s what I wrote: <I>“As Mary Poppins, the glower of the intolerant taskmistress always seems laying in wait just beneath Andrews' chirpy mask of sunshine, and the movie would be far more compelling if it was the least bit interested in letting us have more than the occasional and fleeting glimpse of its shadow,”</I> and that Andrews’ performance is <I>“an armor-plated template of rosy-cheeked indefatigability, insistent moral superiority and tight-lipped, ever-so-slight shadings of haughtiness (the spell of which was designed to be dismantled, as pure defense against any suggestion of darkness, by that gleaming, multi-toothed smile).”</I><BR/><BR/>My feeling is that while Andrews and the movie seem to think her portrayal is evenly pitched between sugared acceptance and stern obedience, I think what the film intends, and what the undoubtedly eager-to-be-loved Andrews would prefer, is that the diabolical underpinnings of Poppins’ character remain but a shadow, and that we’re to be charmed by her not just so the medicinal aftertaste of her reinforcement of the father’s values might be dampened, but because Andrews’ own saccharine qualities as a performer are far more powerful than whatever instincts she might have had to create a more ambivalent character.<BR/><BR/>That ambivalence may in fact be more apparent in P.L. Travers’ book (which I have not read), but I don’t think it’s there to any great degree in this production, which may, as you suggest, have intended to create ambiguity in that Poppins serves the father’s cause even as she undermines his authority, but which I suggest ultimately succumbs to Andrews’ bright-eyed, chirpy insistence on being perceived as “practically perfect in every way,” however absurd that insistence might be. It is this quality of ramrod insistence on her status as upright and proper and sugary good that led me to term her presence as “demonic,” an ineffectual choice of words that most likely clouded my point..<BR/><BR/><B>“So, should the sadistic, disciplinarian streak have been taken out of her character? How would the film, or her performance, be better without this underlying tension of authority and rebellion, sense and madness, subversion and reaction?”</B> <BR/><BR/>It wouldn’t. My point is, the filmmakers and the actress, were they really interested in exploring this ambiguity, this undercurrent of tension between authority and rebellion, subversion and subservience, should have gone <I>further</I> than the slight shadowing of a scene here or there. But as I said, my main revulsion is pitched not toward the movie, which I find perfectly acceptable entertainment for my own children. My revulsion is reserved mainly for Andrews, whose smarm stands apart from any attempts by the filmmakers to coarsen the movie’s appeal away from straight sanctimony and the learning of lessons into something a bit more challenging. <BR/><BR/><B>"Mary Poppins is a marvelous embodiment of the sado-masochistic seductions of obedience, severity, and discipline. She's the sort of nanny that the children secretly pray believes in corporal punishment. She's diabolically delicious.”</B><BR/><BR/>I’m going to have read P.L.Travers, because what you describe here is exactly the movie, the one directed by Polanski or Bava, that I would be interested in seeing, yet remain convinced that <I>Mary Poppins</I> is not. <BR/><BR/>C.K., thanks again for taking your valuable time and articulating your own views about <I>Poppins</I>. I hope that you’ll continue to read <I>SLIFR</I> and that occasionally something will strike you as less wrongheaded than this piece did. As much as I love validation (and anyone who says they don’t, well, I’m not so sure), it’s also important to me to hear other points of view and to be challenged to clarify or stand up for my own words against someone who disagrees. And when that disagreement comes as even-tempered and thoughtful as yours, I appreciate it all the more.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-71476396718031019052007-02-11T11:23:00.000-08:002007-02-11T11:23:00.000-08:00While I agree with your overall characterization o...While I agree with your overall characterization of the character and of Andrew's performance, I'm not sure your view is as contrarian as you suggest, and it's not obvious that your view should lead us to a negative assessment of the film. <BR/><BR/>On the one hand, you accuse the fans of gobbling up the sugary tooth-decaying moralism and cutesiness of the film, but on the other hand, you complain about that the true essence of the character is her icy, severe, and frightening authoritarian qualities. <BR/><BR/>If the latter is a bad aspect of <BR/>Andrew's performance, does that mean the failure is that she didn't make the character saccharine enough? Should she have been pleasantly, moderately saccharine, so that the "medicine"--that is, the father's puritanical, obey-and-get-a-treat, morality would have gone down better? (The father is, after all, nothing but Poppin's alter-ego, the bad cop to her good cop, the very medicine that her sugar coats). <BR/><BR/>I'm willing to admit that many fans of this movie failed to consciously realize the painfully obvious fact that Mary Poppins is a diabolical character (and symbol). But surely this is an unfair criticism of either Andrew's performance or the film. On the contrary, it is to the film's credit that it has, unlike most films aimed at wholesome family entertainment, conscientiously undermined its purported wholesomeness. <BR/><BR/>Surely it is not an accident that the theme song explicitly tells the audience: "we're tricking you into taking a bitter pill"? The film, and Andrews in her performance, clearly intend to make Poppins an ambivalent character. Why else would they portray the father's work-ethic as villainous, but then still have the purported hero, Poppins, obediently and effectively do exactly what the villain hired her to do: make the children line up straighter than Mussolini's trains, to "step in time" in exchange for kite-flying weekends off?<BR/><BR/>The only characters left unscathed by the film's own implied self-critique are not Poppins--nor the jack-booted little darlings she manufactures. It's the insane, the criminal, the dropouts: the sea-faring crackpots in the next building; Poppins' good-for-nothing, somewhat shady, jack-of-all-trades loafer-pal, and his (clearly chemically assisted) pals, who laugh their way to the ceiling. <BR/><BR/>So, should the sadistic, disciplinarian streak have been taken out of her character? How would the film, or her performance, be better without this underlying tension of authority and rebellion, sense and madness, subversion and reaction? Why would anyone want to receive the movie's treacly family message without the tonic of its bitter medicinal aftertaste? <BR/><BR/>Honestly, whether anyone realizes it or not, Poppins' character seduces precisely because the audience realizes her purity and perfection are a pose. No one can take seriously, or intend seriously, a character who describes herself as "practically perfect in every way." The audience didn't entirely miss all of this, they surely, whether they realized it or not, delighted in it. Mary Poppins is a marvelous embodiment of the sado-masochistic seductions of obedience, severity, and discipline (by the way, surely it's not also a coincidence that the mother mirrors this militant aspect of Poppins whenever she goes about suffragism?). She's the sort of nanny that the children secretly pray believes in corporal punishment. She's diabolically delicious.Donovanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05267644899839359221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170746325431750382007-02-05T23:18:00.000-08:002007-02-05T23:18:00.000-08:00I, too, love Julie Andrews in MARY POPPINS and fel...I, too, love Julie Andrews in MARY POPPINS and fell in love with her in it when I first saw it--so I think you're crazy not to like her/it--but I still enjoyed your essay and loved the SCARY MARY trailer! And, of course, I haven't seen the movie since I was five, so I might well have a different opinion now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170489336360677822007-02-02T23:55:00.000-08:002007-02-02T23:55:00.000-08:00It's been a while since I watched Mary Poppins or ...It's been a while since I watched Mary Poppins or anything else with her in it, but reading this has made me even more glad that Audrey Hepburn got her Broadway part in My Fair Lady.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170350383345673232007-02-01T09:19:00.000-08:002007-02-01T09:19:00.000-08:00I promise never to do it again! But please, Mary P...I promise never to do it again! But please, Mary Poppins, not the castor oil! Not the <I>hot</I> castor oil! <I>No-o-o-o-o-o!</I>Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170341256587318862007-02-01T06:47:00.000-08:002007-02-01T06:47:00.000-08:00Dennis: A big spoonful of castor oil for you. Go t...Dennis: A big spoonful of castor oil for you. Go to bed early. No watching TV, no snacks. You are a naughty, naughty boy.The 'Stachehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03426658288145524160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170292159855164182007-01-31T17:09:00.000-08:002007-01-31T17:09:00.000-08:00Dennis-- I like Julie Andrews a lot more than you,...Dennis-- <BR/>I like Julie Andrews a lot more than you, but that Mary Poppins trailer is brilliant. Speaking of transforming 60s musicals, have you seen this one for West Side Story?<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itJjyVpUGsIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170284714517804572007-01-31T15:05:00.000-08:002007-01-31T15:05:00.000-08:00Oh, wait, I did that already.Oh, wait, I <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2uq2kw" REL="nofollow">did that already</A>.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170282441289085722007-01-31T14:27:00.000-08:002007-01-31T14:27:00.000-08:00Anonymous: I will accept your challenge and rent D...Anonymous: I will accept your challenge and rent <I>Duet for One</I> as soon as possible.<BR/><BR/>As for personal issues with Julie Andrews, other than the fact that I find her <I>on-screen</I> persona very unappealing and downright distracting, I have none, nor am I basing my reaction to her on anything other than her movies, of which I have seen considerably more than one or two. In fact, I applaud all the good work she does for the various charity and relief organizations that you cite.<BR/><BR/>I will say that, while there are other performers who I find more annoying than Julie Andrews, none grate on me in quite this way, and few of those whom I don't appreciate come with such pedigreed status from industry and fans alike, status that seems (for some) to make them above criticism-- even regarding a 43-year-old beloved-by-the-world Academy Award-winning performance. <BR/><BR/>That's why I felt, in the spirit of "contrarianism," I would try to express why I dislike her performance in <I>Mary Poppins</I> probably more than I dislike the actual movie. <BR/><BR/>You don't have to agree with me-- I suspect few do. But I'm hoping more than a few would be able to detect the tongue poked slightly into cheek with which I approached my hyperbolic review. In the future, I promise to save the real gall for more deserving targets, like <I>The Sound of Music</I>.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170281308840954922007-01-31T14:08:00.000-08:002007-01-31T14:08:00.000-08:00I really don't know what makes you such an expert ...I really don't know what makes you such an expert on Julie Andrews, so being that I am a huge fan I am trying to exercising some restrain. I also feel that it is important to be objective. You can dislike ‘Mary Poppins’, but I think you are missing the point. Disney's intent was not to have this highly philosophical film that you seem to think was warranted. Second, I do agree with your some of your thoughts about the Blake Edwards films. I have never been a huge fan of his, but by default I have been exposed to more than usual b/c of my affection for Julie Andrews. Most of those films were done as a F@%k you to the industry as a whole. They were done more to disprove the sweaky-clean image she was type-cast as. That is why she turned down ‘The Prime of Miss Jean Brody’ for which Maggie Smith won an Oscar. It is apparent you have PERSONAL issues against Julie Andrews, but I will leave you with one movie to watch and that is ‘Duet For One’. It is quite simply one of the best dramatic performances I have ever seen or ever will see for that matter. She was actually nominated in 1986 for two Golden Globes…one for ‘Duet for One’ in the Drama category and your so boorish mention of ‘That’s Life’ in the Comedy category. There are others like ‘Hawaii’, ‘The Americanization of Emily’, ‘One Special Night’, and ‘Star’ that display her vast acting range. I was not particularly fond of ‘Star’ but there is not doubt that the acting ability is there. Unlike you, I don’t base my opinions one or two movies. If you can’t see the talent there then you are even blinder then I originally thought. With 3 Oscar nominations and one win; multiple Golden Globes and nominations; Emmy’s awards; multiply Tony nominations as well as A Kennedy Center Honor, BAFTA and SAG Lifetime Achievement Awards the entire film/theater/music industry must be crazy. They must also lack the ability to spot talent when they see it. I will not dare mention her activity as a Goodwill Ambassador to the United Nations, UNIFEM, UNICEF, and co-founding Operation USA which received a Nobel Peace Prize for the help it provided to millions of impoverished all over the world. If you accomplish just one of the things in this long list then your opinion might mean something but until then stick to amateur.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170273899786539932007-01-31T12:04:00.000-08:002007-01-31T12:04:00.000-08:00I've never been a fan of Julie Andrews, though I'v...I've never been a fan of Julie Andrews, though I've never hated her. To me she was a good singer who appeared in a few good movies (I liked Mary Poppins, and I think that The Sound of Music is beyond any doubt the best of the overproduced 60's musicals, super-syrupy or no.) Of course much of the hyperbole lobbed at her at the SAG awards was more due to residual child-hood goodwill then any real love of her acting ability. I agree with you completely when it comes to her Blake Edwards material though.Cerb Chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06322457714456194075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170273761094856862007-01-31T12:02:00.000-08:002007-01-31T12:02:00.000-08:00I would agree, David. The Shining set the standard...I would agree, David. <I>The Shining</I> set the standard, and this is the best one I've seen since then. Good enough to stoke the fires of my dormant anti-Andrews outrage! And thanks for the link to <I>Titanic 2</I>. I'm on my way!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170273476326766122007-01-31T11:57:00.000-08:002007-01-31T11:57:00.000-08:00I love that Scary Mary trailer. It's probably my f...I love that <I>Scary Mary</I> trailer. It's probably my favorite trailer remix since <I>Shining.</I> Although <I>Titanic 2</I> might be its equal: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vD4OnHCRd_4David Loweryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02844946230991009106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1170269589075417042007-01-31T10:53:00.000-08:002007-01-31T10:53:00.000-08:00Mmm! Julie Andrews pulling out David Tomlinson's l...Mmm! Julie Andrews pulling out David Tomlinson's liver while he watches! <I>Now</I> you're talking!<BR/><BR/>I will grant that the songs are infectious, but I find the whole enterprise overbearing, and it starts with her pursed-lip, imperious performance, which I have never been able to warm to, no matter how much the swelling of the Sherman Brothers score tells me I must.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.com