Mary Poppins* (1964)

Those who know me well know that I do, in fact, have a soft spot for cheerful good fun. It’s hard to get more cheerful than Mary Poppins. It’s vibrant, playful, and even a little daring in the filmmaking. Some films lose their luster over time as special effects become more dated and obvious. This does not hold Mary Poppins back at all. Full of sass and wit, this one charms its way almost to the top of my rating scale.

The Banks children are quite a handful, going through nanny after nanny. They have a no-nonsense father and a flighty mother who seems more interested in women’s suffrage than child-rearing. Enter Mary Poppins- a lady-like young woman who insists on proper behavior from children but also knows when to throw the rule book away (and how!). She introduces the Banks children to etiquette, manners, and brand new ways of having fun that are sure to make their parents freak out.

Let’s get the few and largely meaningless quibbles out first. Some of the special effects (like when Mary has the kids cleaning their room) do show their age and may look hokey. Many of the prim and proper adults set bad examples for their kids- a workaholic father and an absentee mother? Where’s child services? Finally, Dick Van Dyke delivers a noticeably poor Cockney accent.

But who cares? Julie Andrews is delightful as the spirited, firm-but-fun Mary Poppins. Dick Van Dyke’s Bert is warm and inviting. The kids aren’t even very annoying. All the principle characters are a perfect fit and help the story unfold naturally.

Other than a handful of dated special effects, the filmmaking is remarkable in every way. The songs are great, the hybrid live action and animated sequences are darn near perfect, and there are plenty of other practical and special effects shots that still look great. This film is nothing short of a textbook example of how to make a family movie. All the ingredients complement each other in just the right ways. It is a time-honored classic that still pleases children and parents alike. Naysayers be darned, Mary Poppins is a classic.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

To date I have met zero people who hold this as their favorite Disney film and I do not think I will ever meet anyone who does. It is very hard to create an animated film that is less than ‘okay’ on my rating scale. There is always talent and craft evident in any animated feature. Sadly, that is about all I can say for The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

In 1482 Claude Frollo, a powerful Parisian judge, has a gypsy woman murdered in the streets but is stopped by the archdeacon of Notre Dame before he can kill the woman’s deformed child as well. Frollo agrees to care for the child, calling him Quasimodo, but keeps him secluded in the bell tower of the cathedral. Years later, Quasimodo falls in love with Esmeralda, a gypsy street performer he watches from above. This puts him at odds with Frollo, who is determined to eliminate the gypsy presence in Paris.

This is exactly what it sounds like- bold, dramatic stuff. There are plenty of heavy religious and emotional undertones at play and they drag the film down at times. The ultimate goal of this film was to return to the glory of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King- lush animation and a powerful dramatic story. For the most part, Disney accomplishes both of these goals. What they fail to do, however, is make the film enjoyable to watch.

The animation does hearken back to the quality of Beauty and the Beast. There is a vibrant color pallet for the people of Paris, especially the gypsies, juxtaposed against the drab colors of some of the architecture and the religious zealot bad guys. There is a fair amount of detail in the background and a few attempts at camera trickery. Some of the CGI works but the grandest uses of it (including Quasimodo swinging from the bell tower down to the crowd below) shows that Disney still hasn’t figured out how to blend the two styles together convincingly all the time.

One of the chief problems is that the characters of Hunchback do not translate well to a family-friendly film. Quasimodo is a fairly vanilla protagonist, more of a curious and awestruck man-child than a tormented soul longing for acceptance. Esmeralda fits the spirited norm-challenging outsider well but adds a dash of sexuality not normally found in a Disney film.

Finally, the film suffers from a weak villain. Frollo himself is spooky looking but is not inherently intimidating or threatening. His power comes from his position. He can make things happen because of his stature. Take all that away, and I could probably take him in a fight. His internal conflict over Esmeralda is poorly developed and rushed over.

Essentially, The Hunchback of Notre Dame tries too hard. It has the feel of a Broadway musical drama but it gets forced into the confines of a children’s movie. It’s dark and feels far from appropriate for kids at times. As a musical, it bombs- I cannot recall a single song from this film. Add on top of this the fact that the comic relief falls largely flat on its face and you are left with The Black Cauldron: Redux. It’s got its game on in the animation department but the other ingredients weren’t added in the proper proportions.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Citizen Kane* (1941)

Is this film really the granddaddy of them all? For me the answer is no, but Citizen Kane did elevate its stature on my ratings list this latest time through. I’ve seen it three or four times now but this is the first I’ve taken it in for quite some time. There is a lot of excellent stuff in this film to lend credence to its unofficial status as the greatest American film of all time but I can pinpoint at least one thing that holds it back.

Technically speaking, this film is a masterpiece. Music, cinematography, direction, structure- it’s all there and it all works astoundingly well. The acting is sharp and a testament to Orson Welles’s attention to detail. He demands daring shots, scandalous content, and an edginess rarely seen in cinema. In short, Citizen Kane is on a completely separate level from just about everything that came before it.

The only problem with the film? Partway through the film, Charles Foster Kane becomes a very unlikeable man. He is corrupted and consumed by the very things he set out to defy. As masterful as it all is, it is hard to continue caring about someone who pulls such a harsh 180. There is no final-reel turnaround which, while possibly being more realistic, saps the fun out of what was building up to be a through-and-through triumph of good. Maybe it’s all intentional and just part of the unparalleled genius of Orson Welles. Perhaps future viewings will elucidate that for me.

Hollywood was too cowardly to embrace Citizen Kane when it came out because it was loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst. At the time of its release, Hearst was still the most powerful name in print media and was prepared to ruin anyone who came out in support of the film. After Hearst died and Citizen Kane ran on television in the 1950s, its stature was raised.

I think that some of the gushing fervor for Kane was initially a release of pent-up admiration by those who were too afraid of Hearst to get behind the film upon its release. Over time, this love became institutionalized among film historians and teachers of motion picture making. That’s not to say it wasn’t warranted. Orson Welles (in his early years at least) was a national treasure. He was a powerful force in theatre and radio. That Citizen Kane was Welles’s first film boggles the mind because he was an outsider and didn’t know much about how to make a film, yet he created something unlike anything the world had ever seen.

Maybe I’m just being ornery and trying not to jump on the Kane bandwagon. Or maybe I still don’t fully appreciate just how revolutionary this film was. I know it was groundbreaking because it defied Hollywood convention. Welles was not content to fit the mold. He was an experimenter, a tinkerer, an iconoclast. Citizen Kane is technically majestic, bold beyond all measure for going after Hearst, and stunning when you realize that Welles was only 25 years old when the film was shot.

The unlikeable turn of Kane still bugs me to this day and I cannot shake the thought that its hype is slightly false because Hollywood wanted to make up for past indiscretions. I have to wonder what is really being praised with Citizen Kane-is it the film or the filmmaker? I respect both immensely but I can’t elevate it to my highest rating just yet. Maybe it will get there someday.

Original Rating: 4.25 out of 5

New Rating: 4.5 out of 5