Reviews

This high-budget, well-acted entry into the horror genre fails in its attempt to generate chills, and its self-conscious directorial choices keep the viewer completely outside of the story. The conceit that this is documentary footage seems to be an attempt at realism, but it has the opposite effect. Every shot is perfectly lit so that we always see exactly what we need to see, we always hear exactly what we need to hear--but of course there isn't a single significant shot of the evil entity wreaking havoc on the character. We are supposed to be scared by the shaking cameras, flickering lights and spooky noises, evidently. And sometimes, such as in the final scene on the bow between Lincoln and Tess, we SHOULD be able to see the cameras filming the characters--as we cut back and forth between two angles--but they are nowhere to be seen. In my opinion, the choice to make this a pseudo documentary completely ruins the show because it never stops drawing attention to itself.

I found the film engrossing, but only because it was overflowing with striking imagery and plenty of skin. If we, the viewers, are to have a meaningful emotional connection with characters who risk their lives and lose them for the sake of their country, those characters must convince us they are, in effect, real people. In "300", realism is wholeheartedly jettisoned for the sake of artificial, though striking, imagery. As a result, it is a film for the head, not the heart. The characters are one-dimensional archetypes, hardly distinguishable from each other. In fact, if one thinks about some of the choices made by the director and/or production designer, it's almost laughable. (Capes?!!!!) The movie will be remembered only for its unique visuals, not for its impact on the heartstrings.

Although I loved this film upon first seeing it at the theater in '64, it wasn't until I was an adult that I began to appreciate and be amazed by the sophistication of the writing. Sure, the special effects and the music and the visuals are what grab the attention, but the script itself and the lyrics offer just as much brilliance. I would even assert that this isn't a "children's film" at all, but a film aimed at adults under the guise of a kids' film. And that type of subversion is exactly what you'd expect from Mary Poppins. Her method from day one is to use reverse psychology on anyone she is trying to manipulate--in a good sense, of course. She teaches the children to give money to the poor by suggesting they "feed the birds". She gets them to fall asleep by sweetly singing "Stay Awake". She gets Mr. Banks to take the kids with him to work by acting as if it was his idea, and complimenting him for thinking of it. (A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.)

The film's main character, dramatically speaking, is not Mary, nor the children. It is the father, George Banks. After all, he is the one who makes the film's primary transformation brought about by the presence of Mary Poppins. She is there to show him that his children are more important than money or his job, and once she has completed her task, she moves on. And that is the sort of message that the adults in the audience need to learn, not the children.

As further evidence that this is a film aimed at adults, take a look at this line from "Jolly Holiday", when Mary sings to Bert:

"You'd never think of pressing your advantage. Forbearance is the hallmark of your creed. A lady needn't fear when you are near. Your sweet gentility is crystal clear!"

In these days when studios tend to pander to young audiences, desperate not to add anything that might bore them or be over their heads, it's refreshing to return to the days when films like "Mary Poppins" trusted in the integrity of its material.

The production values leave much to be desired, as this was apparently a B-movie with a very low budget, but several things make it worth watching. There's the legendary Bette Davis, before she was legendary. She always owns the screen whenever the camera sees her, and this early performance is no exception, even in a smaller role. Plus, Junior Dirkin as Jimmy Mason, the teenager, is wonderful in a simple, unaffected performance, as is Frank Coghlin playing his buddy Shorty. Also, there's Charles Grapewin, prior to his role as Uncle Henry in "The Wizard of Oz". And if you have an affinity for reform school movies, as I do, add this to your list. Don't know why, but there's something about the incarceration of youth that appeals to me.