We are putting on warpaint over here at BC/HF for a series of upcoming "VS" posts, dealing with some of the most controversial subjects we've held cooped up our lives over. Today's fight:
This is a toughy.
Angela Lansbury or Julie Andrews? Ladies, ladies, calm down. I simply cannot choose, therefore, the fight will be based on the other factors of the film.
What is most curious is that the same company would release two highly similar films within only a year or two, with the same animation style and dealing with such similar subjects. However hunky-dory they both appear to be, one is definitely more dramatic than its fluffy counterpart.
A prominent issue to address with both films is the inclusion of animation. Both are executed in the same style and really only include one continuous scene of animation apiece. In mary Poppins, it is a dandy day trip to a farm, a bistro, and then to the racetrack. But in Bedknobs, it is undersea and then up to the Isle of Naboomboo, where they duel the animal king in soccer in order to win for a trophy the Star of Asteroth, a critical artifact in the successful execution of powerful spells.
Here we see the children taking a fieldtrip to Portobello Road, where they see a proletariat market with dancing and a magic show.
Here Jane and Michael Banks receive tutelage in birdsong about how to straighten one's toys. All previous attempts at order had failed until they employed magic and Julie Andrews. I have no sympathy for these protagonists.
Both pictures contain elaborately choreographed dance numbers, often even involving animated characters. The numbers often involve large groups of real-live humans dancing, as well and both are renowned for their music.
Mary Poppins was famous for the at-the-time preposterous and quirky song "Supercalafragelisticespialidocious," (sp?) but ol' Bedknobs used existing "big words" to describe magic, with "Substitutiary Locomotion." What the former possessed in bedazzles gypsy ensembles the latter made up for with fine beat and elaborate puppetry. Dancing nightgowns and armor, for God's sake.
There is then also the matter of the enchanted props which are employed to travel to worlds away, the cases with these films being a bed and a parrot umbrella. Not that I have anything against parrot umbrellas, but if we are to suspend our disbelief so much as to allow for magical transportation at all, a bed would be a far better instrument. It holds more people, and is much more comfortable.
My main thinking here is that, while in Mary Poppins, Jane and Michael struggle with the lack of parental attention, they are not impoverished orphans, and they take walks in the park as opposed to fighting Nazis. It is really the Nazi occupation that sets these two apart the most, and you just can't compete with that for sympathy. While the rich kids have to have a whole musical number devoted to them ceasing to be pussies and drink their tonic already, the siblings in Bedknobs are waging actual warfare. Substitutary locomotion comes to their aid in the form of reanimated suits of armor, bewitched to march eerily towards the enemy.
And the winner is:
Mary Poppins V. Bedknobs and Broomsticks
{ding ding}
Both Disney films were released in the early 70's. Both contain musical numbers, gravity-defying magic, live action and animation interaction, David Tomlinson, and childcare.This is a toughy.
Angela Lansbury or Julie Andrews? Ladies, ladies, calm down. I simply cannot choose, therefore, the fight will be based on the other factors of the film.
What is most curious is that the same company would release two highly similar films within only a year or two, with the same animation style and dealing with such similar subjects. However hunky-dory they both appear to be, one is definitely more dramatic than its fluffy counterpart.
Both pictures contain elaborately choreographed dance numbers, often even involving animated characters. The numbers often involve large groups of real-live humans dancing, as well and both are renowned for their music.
Mary Poppins was famous for the at-the-time preposterous and quirky song "Supercalafragelisticespialidocious," (sp?) but ol' Bedknobs used existing "big words" to describe magic, with "Substitutiary Locomotion." What the former possessed in bedazzles gypsy ensembles the latter made up for with fine beat and elaborate puppetry. Dancing nightgowns and armor, for God's sake.
My main thinking here is that, while in Mary Poppins, Jane and Michael struggle with the lack of parental attention, they are not impoverished orphans, and they take walks in the park as opposed to fighting Nazis. It is really the Nazi occupation that sets these two apart the most, and you just can't compete with that for sympathy. While the rich kids have to have a whole musical number devoted to them ceasing to be pussies and drink their tonic already, the siblings in Bedknobs are waging actual warfare. Substitutary locomotion comes to their aid in the form of reanimated suits of armor, bewitched to march eerily towards the enemy.
And the winner is:
Bedknobs and Broomsticks
For being accessible at every turn, humbly fantastic, and brimming with beautiful beatz.
No comments:
Post a Comment