Mary Poppins

What's that? Something about "one month later"? I hear you. I never actually promised consistency, but... see, I was just beginning to fall into a nice little pattern of watching movies when I got home from work. But then an American friend of mine -who shall remain nameless- introduced me to this old, niche NBC show that you most likely won't have heard of but I subsequently binged (am still binging) because baby Brittany Snow is too precious for this world. (And also, in general, it's a really good show that tackles issues like racism and integration, police brutality, women's liberation and politics. But this post isn't about American Dreams. Maybe in the future)

No! Right now we're talking about Mary Poppins, or, more specifically, Disney's recently announced sequel to the 1964 classic. If you know me at all, you'll know that Mary Poppins is one of my favourite movies of all time- it's my go-to film if I'm feeling sad, or sick, or happy, or anything, and it's been one of my favourites for as long as I can remember.

Comforting as hell tbh

Fast forward to my adulthood and Disney announce a sequel to Mary Poppins, set 20 years after the original. My initial reaction to this was just sort of, "what??" followed by "why??" and then a few hours of processing. I may as well have set up a google alert with the amount I was searching for new information about the project. And my opinions may well change over the course of its production, but for now I'm mostly baffled by its trajectory and potential?

First things first, if you know me but at all, you'll know that I harbour a deep affection for Julie Andrews. As does the whole world, to at least some extent, but I've watched... most of her movies (they're mostly bad) and, my good friends, even paid to see her live in concert on two separate occasions (tears were shed.) Thus! The idea of someone else filling Mary's boots is a little hard for me to stomach. I assume they're planning to play it off in a James Bond kind of way, with no mention of her sudden facial transformation? That, or have a Doctor Who crossover and reveal Mary Poppins's true Time Lord genetics.

Either way, it's bound to be a little weird. And, allegedly, the bookies' favourites to take over the umbrella and carpet bag are Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick, or Meryl Streep? First of all, ♫ one of these things is not like the others ♫. So, we need to address the question: Does Mary Poppins age? Because if she ages at a human rate, then none of these actresses are the correct age? However, they can all sing, so that's cool. And- full disclosure; in recent years, growing wary of Disney's penchant for needless remakes, I've thought about this eventuality. And, in fact, came to the conclusion that if Disney had to remake Poppins, I'd want Anne Hathaway to take over the role. Since then, however, I've heard Anne Hathaway's English accent, and, well, that would need help. By a different dialect coach than Dick Van Dyke had, preferably.

Love you, Bert

Once again, if you have ever heard me talk ever, you'll know that I'm a huge fan of Anna Kendrick and will basically watch her in anything (this, too, does not always work out well) however. Even with the amount I love Kendrick, which is a lot, I'm not sure about Anna Poppins. And I've never even heard her attempt an English accent- which is clearly a very important factor for me. I think Blunt would probably be the best choice here- and I believe I saw her answer a question about it at a film premiere, so that's promising- but I still just don't really see why it's necessary.

If they're planning the sequel to be a true sequel, that really follows the first movie, then it's going to be somewhat jarring, in terms of the vast difference in quality. The first movie was an experience that wasn't being offered by many other films; the animated sequence was sort of revolutionary. That sort of energy is going to be difficult to recapture for an audience who are used to seeing entire films made of CGI.

Ultimately, though, I'm expecting, and praying that I'm wrong, that this "sequel" is going to be along the same lines as Oz: The Great and Powerful turned out to be. Disney further expanded the already vast Oz universe, going overboard with the graphics and subversive themes, resulting in a prequel that looks nothing like The Wizard of Oz in terms of its narrative, aesthetic, or just anything really. I don't like being pessimistic- I'm sure Mary Poppins wouldn't stand for pessimism, but until we hear more details about the project, I'm going to remain...

The ~birds~ of The Birds

Cute pun, title, but this post is not just going to be about the women in the film. I just couldn't think of anything funny.

So, I have this habit of going into CEX on a very frequent basis, and buying things with complete abandon. On one such occasion, probably about a year ago, I bought The Birds, Hitchcock, you know- on DVD. Which I'd never seen before, save for a few clips in one of our film lectures in the first year of uni. And last night I finally got around to watching it- and, yeah, it was good!

(This post is also, despite how much it pains me, not going to be about the fact that the character of Annie Hayworth is clearly of the lady-loving persuasion, which is not an unpopular theory- I could literally cite published works that also make this claim- and is something that was screaming out of the television at me. Moving on!)

dat smirk tho

There are 52-year-old spoilers ahead. Consider yourself warned. 

I spent a good deal of the movie yelling at the characters, making up songs about how they were all going to die because of their actions, and in turn muttering "Americans", not dissimilarly to Giles from Buffy any time anyone did anything. We follow Melanie Daniels, and I'd like to say here that Tippi Hedren was pretty badass, generally speaking, in this movie, save for the initial following this creepy mysterious bloke she only just met 60 miles away to give his sister some birds. That was all a little strange, motive-wise. But you do you, Melanie. So we follow her follow this dude to his mum's house for his little sister's 11th birthday (poor Veronica Cartwright. At least she survives this one #RIPLambert) and then all aviary hell breaks loose.

No one knows why all the birds in the vicinity suddenly take a vendetta out against all humans, but everyone just sort of accepts it and really, no explanation is given. I also want to give a shoutout to the special effects of 1963 for providing me with extra entertainment. I don't want to make light of this movie, because it was good, and I'm sure it was absolutely terrifying if you didn't grow up in the age of entire movies being computer generated. And the actors did a very impressive job of overcoming the lack of any actual birds being near them, most of the time. I'm totally cool with the wideshots of bird attacks being full of painted-on birds. That's fine. But there were so many close-ups of main characters' hands getting mauled by birds and there are just, no visible injuries whatsoever and a bunch of red liquid on their skin? Is this what Psycho would have looked like in Technicolor? Because if so, praise the good Wasserman for Universal's budget constraints on that movie. Although, despite the effects of The Birds being GCSE-resemblant, I think the proposed remake reportedly floating around Hollywood would be a huge mistake. The movie totally works in spite of its SFX limits, and the story itself, of birds randomly terrorising a town, would look absolutely ridiculous in today's entertainment climate. It would have to take itself far too seriously, also need I mention the 1998 remake of Psycho?

This was probably the most frightening part

Unfortunately The Birds centres around the most annoying, Oedipal family, rather than the mysterious townsfolk and lesbian schoolteachers. In fact, they kill off the lesbian schoolteacher (of course they do) and then we're stuck with the overbearing, overcaring, hugely overreacting mother, the hero-complex-ridden manchild and the whiny little sister who is exactly as whiny in the face of bird attacks as she is in the face of alien attacks. So we've killed off the interesting characters and isolated ourselves with this little family- Melanie becomes a mother figure to baby Lambert and a figure of care for Oedipus's mother, and a chaste lover for Oedipus himself, and then for some reason goes poking around in the attic and nearly gets pecked to death. And I was watching her in her uncomfortably long battle against the birds, convinced she was going to be okay, then slowly getting more and more convinced that she was going to die (very nicely done, Hitch.) This was when I was most vocal at my television, angry that they were killing off all the interesting female characters. But my anger was unwarranted because The Oedipuses (Oedipi?), manage to retrieve her from Bird Hell, dress her wounds- also I totally thought she died in this part; she was talking and then just went completely limp. So don't be fooled like I was!- and then, it is implied, took her to a hospital.

And that's how the movie ends, with me screaming at Oedipus because he decided to venture outside, walking through swarms of birds, and then the twisted little family quite literally drive off into the sunset. (At which I said "Oh. That's the end? That's the end. Okay then.") Maybe they survive. Maybe no one survives. Honestly I don't care if any of them do. But it is a good movie.

Let's start again

Heeeyyyy! You're looking great! Have you done something different with your hair...?
Okay, it's been a while. Let's not pretend it hasn't. I'm sure we're both in vastly different places right now to when I last posted just over two years ago. For example, back then I had just finished my first year of my media degree, and was trying very hard to be a model student and follow the advice given to me to blog alongside my studies. But it didn't work. For some reason I decided to focus on reviewing films (I have left these sub-par reviews up, for posterity) but this proved to be extremely limiting, not least because I have no idea how to review films.

But that's okay, because instead I focused all my energy into my studies (definitely not into Netflix) and ended up graduating with a first, which is pretty cool! Except now I find myself workin' for the man every night and day, which leaves me with an academic hole that needs to be filled. Thus, my return to the blogosphere.

With this previous failed venture into reviewing in mind, I've decided to be a bit more... versatile with my blogging this time around. I still will most likely be discussing movies, primarily, but in less of a review sense and more of a... discourse. If you follow. Like, I wrote my dissertation about Orange Is the New Black. But it wasn't a review of OITNB, it was a discussion of the LGBT themes and its place in the broader timeline of LGBT narratives in TV. So, expect wank like that, broadly.

I'm not going to begin a new topic here, because... well I'm just not. But I promise to come back soon with some kind of rant. (Walking home from work today, in broad daylight at 6pm, some guy stopped me in order to inform me that he was "looking for a prostitute". So perhaps a discussion fuelled by this can be expected soon. We'll see.) For now, please enjoy the transformation your loving author has undergone in this hiatus. From black bob to blonde... short hair. The glasses have gotten bigger, and the selfies are now taken on phones rather than webcams. Other than that, I'm still a big idiot, so. Talk soon.

This was supposed to be a Princess Mia cosume.

Really the cereal bowl deserves all the attention here