Something about MARY (POPPINS)

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 1:29am

So I have some thoughts and questions having just seen it.
DISNEY made a great memorable Musical Movie from some weird books about a strange Nanny.
He cast the delightful Julie and Dick and it became a JOLLY HOLIDAY for all invovled including audiences.
Then Cameron decides it should be a WestEnd/Broadway Musical but darker and more faithful to the books.
He woos the Old Dyke and gets the rights but needs the Upbeat score of the Movie.
And the show ends up a storyless mess of a few Production numbers, strange costumes and a few "magic" tricks.
How did this Happen?
There is no story till about three quarters of the way thru when Mr. Banks ( a minor character) actually does something.
Poor Mary (and Ashley, a talented singer)
She has no story arc at all, she appears, pulls a few rabbits out of her hat, dissapears, returns and then flies away.
She never gets a song of her own, she has to be stern, and doesn't even get a boy friend. She only lets Bert kiss her on the cheek.
Bert gets to sing and dance and narrate( and Gavin is great at all three) but, again No story or connection to the plot (whatever it is)
The design of the show is all over the place.
The House is great, but it's a house and once you see it, you've seen it.
I did love the steps where FEED THE BIRDS takes place, the drop and the lighting were wonderful there.
(and Cass Morgan sounded amazing)
The production numbers made me a little dizzy, some nice ballet staging and some overwrought spelling and running around.
And the talk about TEMPER TEMPER being scarey, well yes because that gay clown should get letters from GLAAD.
I guess most theatre goers will find stuff to like in this show and it looks expensive but there is no heart and no actual story line.
According to the grosses each week the show is selling well, but I still hear guys hawking tickets out on Braodway for $20.
I think the producers have let a talented cast and idea down.
Am I wrong?

Updated On: 3/19/07 at 01:29 AM

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 3:48am

sortve overwhelming to respond to your post cuz its all over the place but i think the story begins with how the kids keep driving their nannys away because theyre unhappy, it may not be the most thrilling plot but its there. Also, I think Mary gets a fair amount of fun, in the park and in Superlongestwordever, I dont necessarily feel like all the stiffness is written into the character but Ashley's take on the role, still shes an authority figure and is trying to teach them. I think its cool that the design concept is a bit all over the place because a lot of it is imaginery- a statue come to life doesnt have to look like a words shop you found in your house. i was underwhelmed by temper temper too but when i was a kid the idea of a doll coming to life (chuckie) scared the hell outta me. *shrug* it certainly isnt for everyone but i enjoyed it.

[mallardo]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 4:04am

You're not wrong. It IS all over the place. There is no magic.

[steveshack]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:13am

I had a conversation with one of the original composers of the songs in the film. He told me that the author of the books HATED HATED HATED the film because of how warm then made Mary Poppins. She also HATED HATED HATED the mother's fighting for women's suffrage -- added in order to woo the actress who played the mother. So, the creators of the stage musical were ham strung by the fact that they were contractually obligated to make it all drier, darker. Still, I found the show dull as dishwater on just about every level -- except I loved the evil nanny.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:19am

Problem is that, with the exception of Gavin, Rebecca, and Ruth, the cast is so extremely bland.

The show in London is magical, I've heard.

[D2]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:27am

Perhaps because I went in with such low expectations, I didn't find MARY POPPINS to be awful. It's not great by any means, and I agree with almost everything that's been said about it in this thread. But of all the Disney franchise shows I've seen, I'll damn this one with faint praise: for me it is the best of the lot. And the child I took to see it was enchanted with it - if it could keep a 4 year old focused for nearly three hours, it must be working on some level.

[Julian2]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:59am

I definitly agree. When I saw the show it was a collosal mess book/structure wise. The cast was very talented though (most of them). The only part I felt it might turn around was from Supercal- to Brimstone and Treacle 1. It didn't.

[Sant]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 9:06am

"The show in London is magical, I've heard"

Then don't believe everything you hear. I saw it in London and left the theatre with mixed feelings. The story was totally unmoving, you don't feel for any of the characters as they are as one-dimensional as can be. The book was extremely weak. A few big production numbers to get guaranteed applauds and awfully extended songs from the film. Visually the show was great, except the "Jolly Holiday" scene which was almost completely gray - only Mary's costume and Bert's jacket had some color. But I think they have changed that by now.

When a show runs for almost 3 hours you'd think there'd be a decent story and characters in it. But not in this case. Unfortunately.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 9:41am

It is strange. They have all the touch stones from the movie for the life lessons, the bird lady, the trip to the bank, the father (almost losing his job), the mother trying to find relevance in a male dominated society, the children appreciating what they have and having respect and sympathy for others, but somehow the play seems to just gloss over them, without slowing down to give them emotional impact. They even added another one with the fathers' nanny, but didn't make good use of that. You had to read between the lines to take meaning from that (btw, what happens to her after she disappears? I saw a lawsuit coming). Just flying by on the way to the next big dance number. (I saw the bway version) I did like the ensemble dance numbers. The new song arrangements and the singing was fine. So, overall, it was ok entertainment.

[WishingWells]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:26am

I saw Poppins as soon as it came out in London, with Laura Michelle Kelly. I had heard such great things about her and it was still a big secret about how they were going to do the flying scenes and make it "magical". But, I was bored. I expected something memorable and to be honest, the only thing I remember about the show is that Gavin Lee was a great. Laura wasn't anything spectacular, I didn't come away singing, and the show itself seemed to drag on. I wished it was better, but i agree, it was bland.

[zerodanny]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 10:35am

I only saw it in London several times and with defferent actresses playing Mary each bringing something new and exciting to Mary, I found the show to be magical!! From the new songs to the staging and costumes..I grew up with the film but I find that since I have seen the show and heard the new songs I much prefer it to the movie!

[Julian2]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 3:21pm

It is strange. They have all the touch stones from the movie for the life lessons, the bird lady, the trip to the bank, the father (almost losing his job), the mother trying to find relevance in a male dominated society, the children appreciating what they have and having respect and sympathy for others, but somehow the play seems to just gloss over them, without slowing down to give them emotional impact.

Agree. And most of the touchstones wouldn't have worked anyway! Bert singing Spoonful to Mr. Banks worked in the movie because it was something like Mary's theme song. But that dosen't work anymore when its in a ridiculous and pointless kitchen scene!

[cubanpab]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 3:40pm

oh thank god someone else agrees! we saw the show last week and i was SHOCKED at how boring and bland it was. the movie is so magical, engaging, heartwarming... i love the movie.

so we walked into the theater expecting to be wowed.

i'm sorry... no offense to the fans of the show... but it was just so dreary and boring. the only things i liked were the "evil nanny"... i thought she was quite good! i liked "step in time"... that was fun... and i think thats it.

i didnt even like "supercali"... ugh. just underwhelmed by the entire thing.


Updated On: 3/19/07 at 03:40 PM

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 4:00pm

Although i agree it is not the best, it was a fun expierance and on one of my favorite shows.
Updated On: 3/19/07 at 04:00 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 4:03pm

Hey Purp,

What did you find magical?

The wires in the flying or the fold up props coming out of her bag?

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 4:07pm

And the talk about TEMPER TEMPER being scarey, well yes because that gay clown should get letters from GLAAD.

If anyone has a pic of the dear Tyler Maynard in his gay toy get-up, I'd love to see it again. I adore that guy, but in that costume and make-up, he scared the HECK out of me.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 4:10pm

Someone had it on their avatar not too long ago WannaBe.

I saw his gay understudy.
(sorry, I don't know if the guy is really gay, it just comes off that way on stage)

[Norah3]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 7:16pm

I LOVE the show! I saw it with Ashley Brown and had a little problem with her take on Mary, but this past weekend I saw her understudy, Catherine Walker. She was AMAZING! I REALLY LOVED her take on the role! Natural and graceful with a gorgeous voice! I believed the whole story and that "Anything Can Happen If You Let It!!

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:44pm

I think it would atually benefit from being darker. It would be a big step for Disney. I mean Beauty and the Beast is pretty dark, for a Disney show. Kids enjoy stuff like that too, they dont just love bright colors.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:47pm

The show in London is magical, I've heard.

I saw it with the OLC at loved it. It really was a magical show.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 8:48pm

i have no problem with it being "darker"... my problem was that there was no connectivity... one scene ended and another completely random scene would follow... it felt like the story was all over the place. one minute u were in the kids room talking about their issues with their dad, next minute you're in some ladies store (was it even a store) singing supercali... it was just... a very mediocre experience.

maybe i've just been spoiled by other shows like avenue and drowsy?

[murron]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 9:59pm

You have to have a really strong cast to feel the magic. Something the London show has to offer these days

[Elphie3]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:08pm

I don't have a problem with it being darker either, or even with them changing the story - I'm all for source material. The problem was they seemed to loose what the heart of the show was. It felt like every song was just inserted in a "oh, we need a song here, how 'bout "Supercalifragalisticexpealidocious" and there was no point - as a result, so much of the magic got drained out of it. It just makes the point - you need to start with a good story, and a strong sense of what you want the audience to take away from the show - then write the show around that. If they had really done that, I don't know if I would have minded not having any of the stuff from the film in the show (though the disney girl in me might have been a bit sad.) I just wasn't affected at all, and that's a problem .

I got especially mad when I thought about how good the show COULD have been. I mean with books like "The Nanny Diaries", and shows like "Nanny 911" such brilliant, and truthful portrayals of our society (at least part of it) "Mary Poppins" might have been a very important, yet fun show, if they had dared to really use it to it's full advantage.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:34am

I'll come when called.

My avatar has the freaky-ass-Tyler Maynard picture in costume.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:43am

Thanks Kelly2