Films are commonly known to
have two or three dimensions in terms of perspective. Animated films were for
decades in the twentieth century in two dimensions—a flat story-world—until the
advent of animated films made to show depth, hence three dimensions. Still
another, third or fourth respectively, dimension is the element of time in the
story-world. Literally, as the still frames are moved one to the next, changes
can be perceived in the story-world; you won’t see any change by looking at a
frame. Then we get to the dimensions that extend outside of the story-world.
One possible dimension is how the narrative or the story-world in a film
relates to the book upon which the particular film is based. This dimension
becomes visible in terms of meaning particularly when similarities exist, but
differences too can prompt attention the dimension itself. In this essay, I
discuss another dimension that involves the content in a film but extends out
into the world of the audience. When made manifest, this dimension can carry
significant meaning for the audience, for this dimension involves both a
society’s “social reality” and what is shown in a film.
Mary Poppins Returns (2018) hit the screens 44 years after Mary Poppins (1964). In that span of
time, a lot can change societally, and this includes the inevitable loss of
seasoned actors. An actor in his or her prime in 1964 may not have been alive
in 2018. David Tominson, who had played George Banks in Mary Poppins, died in 2000. When Mary Poppins Returns was filmed, Julie Andrews, Glynis Jones, and
Dick Van Dyke were all alive, but aged. Glynis Jones and Dick Van Dyke were in
their 90’s. While Andrews could not have played Mary Poppins again, as the good
witch stays perpetually young, she could have played the flower woman, who is
played by Angela Lansbury. Whereas Andrews was in her early 80’s during
filming, Lansbury was about a decade older.
Unknown health issues, however, may have played their own role.
 |
| Dick Van Dyke as Mr. Dawes, Sr. |
 |
| Dick Van Dyke as Bert |
 |
| Dick Van Dyke as Mr. Dawes, Jr. |
Dick Van Dyke is where the “actor” dimension really kicks in. He played both Bert, the chimney sweeper, and Mr. Dawes, Sr., the head of the bank, in Mary Poppins, and played Mr. Dawes, Jr., head of the bank, in Mary Poppins Returns. Van Dyke plays
both Dawes when those characters are very old, though only in the case of
Dawes, Jr. is Van Dyke himself old (early 90’s). That the actor was that old
and could still dance (although a stunt-double probably made the run up on the
desk) was astonishing in itself, which in turn could be sufficient to get the
attention of audiences on the actor. Besides that he is in two films made 44
years apart, the nonagenarian is dancing in both! What tremendous bookends for
a wonderful career. Moreover, this perspective can link together such different
periods in society (or such different societies) and in one’s own life for the
audience members who were old enough to remember the first film in the 1960’s
and 1970’s.
 |
| Mr. Dawes, Jr.(left) and Sr. (right), played by Dick Van Dyke. He was 92 and 38 during the respective filming. |
Dawes senior and junior look so much alike that it is as if age
finally allowed Van Dyke to play the same character, albeit in much heavier “aging”
make-up the first time. Obviously, a character who is very old in the first
movie cannot be alive in a story in which George Banks’ son and daughter are
grown adults, the son with three kids. The senior/junior thing makes this
correction, though this point was lost on me while watching the second film. To
me, an actor who was young in the 1960’s could be fit age-wise to play virtually the very same old character 44
years later. In the field of acting, this is significant, especially given the
dancing.
The dimension itself is the
link between the two Dawes characters and the actor, Dick Van Dyke. His story,
in other words, becomes salient so his acting out Dawes Jr. in Mary Poppins Returns goes beyond the
film itself, including its narrative and story-world, to the world lived out by
the audience. For people who had been aware of Van Dyke’s career, the point at
which the actor could, as an old man himself, still act and dance in his nineties, and, relatedly, be
age-fitting to the character can hold great meaning beyond that in the
narrative concerning that character.
Interestingly, the serious
message that Dawes Jr. gives the Banks family is delivered as if it were the
main point of the film. Namely, if a person is prudent, such as in deciding when
very young to deposit even just some coins rather than spend them, the person
will be rewarded greatly decades later. In the story, this is a lesson not only
for Michael and Jane Banks, but also Michael’s three kids. Such a down-to-earth
leitmotif is at odds with all the flying in the air and, moreover, the
alternative “thesis” contender: that even the impossible can be possible as
evinced by Mary Poppins’ magic. For the magic of compounding interest wherein
money seems to grow is not magic at all, but, rather, a manifestation of the
time-value of money: that a coin today is worth more than one tomorrow because
you can only spend the former today.
