Saving Mrs. Banks

Home , Mary Poppins (character)

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Department of Gender Studies

Saving Mrs. Banks

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts

Degree (M.A)

Almog Naveh

Under the Supervision of Prof. Catherine Rottenberg

October 2019

Abstract

"Well done! Sister Suffragette!" sings Mrs. Banks in Disney's 1964 major motion picture

Mary Poppins. It is not a song that one can easily forget, since it is not often that you can hear such a rallying cry for feminism, an endearing and catchy cry at that, in one of Walt

Disney's most beloved films. The charismatic and musically inclined suffragette in this scene is Mrs. Banks, the wife of Mr. Banks, and the mother of the Banks children whom

Mary Poppins arrives to look after, in what becomes a tale of magical and surprising events.

Both Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks are beloved and memorable characters in the Mary

Poppins film, but both appear significantly changed from their initial introduction to audiences in the books written by P.L. Travers in 1934.

Due to Disney's immense popularity, and the amount of book-to-film adaptations that the

Disney studio has produced in the 20th century, it is therefore not surprising that Disney and its movie adaptations process, are at the center of an impassioned academic discussion.

This discussion relates to the norms and values promoted within Disney's most famous films and the manner these values are presented to children and adults, but more specifically, young girls and women. While some scholars claim that historically, Disney purposely promoted conservative values within his films, others claim that Disney was, in fact, a revolutionary, swaying public opinion and championing liberal values such as diversity, acceptance, and feminism. Despite their ideological disagreement regarding the nature of these values and norms, scholars agree that changes made to characters and plotlines, in book-to-film adaptations, provide the means with which new values, differing from those found in the original work, are embedded within Disney film adaptations.

III

Notably, many of these discussions regarding values and norms relate to noticeable characteristics, physical attributes, and plotline developments, that are commonly taken at face value. Furthermore, these discussions do not address the method with which these values are implemented and the manner this method may affect the perception of the new embedded values and characteristics. Therefore, at first glance, witnessing the charismatic newly added "Sister Suffragette" musical number, in the opening scene of Disney's Mary

Poppins film, sang by actress Glynis Johns, while she is wearing a Votes for Women sash, might lead viewers to believe that this was, in fact, Disney's way of embracing and promoting feminism, equality, and women's rights.

However, as argued in this study, the Disney induced changes made to the Mary Poppins plotline and characters were introduced to promote conservative models of femininity, and to reaffirm the patriarchal family model with its traditional, gendered division of labor.

Moreover, these changes were in direct response to historical, cultural changes brought on by the Woman Movement and the fluctuating gender norms throughout the 19th-20th century.

Following Jack Zipes's "Well-Made Disney Fairy Tale Model", this thesis brings forward and retraces the model schematically used by Disney to embed specific norms and values within the adapted material, while guiding the plotline and character adaptation process.

This model, based on the guiding attributes of fairy tales, was methodically used by Disney in both fairy tale and non-fairy tale material, as is shown through the overview of the changes made to the Mary Poppins plotline as well as to the two leading female characters.

This argument is further supported by the analysis presented in this study, providing a historical overview of shifting gender norms and femininity, as well as an examination of

female representation in Disney films. Demonstrating the correlation between the values embedded in the Mary Poppins adaptation via the fairy tale model, and Disney's conservative ideology, emboldened by the fluctuation gender norms of the 20th century.

This thesis provides an account of the method, reason, and significance of the changes made to both Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks within this film adaptation and the manner these characters were reintroduced to reaffirm models of traditional femininity and rebuke the perceived feminist rejection of femininity and motherhood.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and deeply thank my supervisor, Prof. Catherine Rottenberg, for taking a chance on a very excited, yet incredibly unsure, inexperienced, somewhat disorganized, and naïve student. You have instilled such a passion in me, a kind of passion that has pushed me forward and led me on a path I never dreamed of pursuing, but I am now so happy and proud that I did. This was a challenging process, made more difficult due to geographical changes, and I can't thank you enough for patiently remaining by my side, not giving up on me, and continuously pushing me to do better. I'm thankful for your guidance, I have learned so much from you. Thank you for inspiring me.

I would like to thank the Gender Studies Program, for providing me with the opportunity and the tools to continue on this path. Special thanks to Dr. Amalia Ziv and Dr. Sarai

Aharoni, for your guidance and support.

I am thankful for my family, my amazing parents, who remained understanding and patient throughout this process, as I was absent and not as attentive on the many days that I spent writing, reading and mostly not answering my phone. To my brother, Ravid Naveh, I apologize for the Hand-Ball games that I missed, I'm so proud of you and I promise to make it up to you now, thank you for always being so patient. I want to thank my incredible sister, Sapir Naveh, for agreeing to read this thesis in its entirety, writing notes, and openly discussing aspects of my study, giving me all the support I needed and always looking out for me, especially during this final month, you are my angel. To my best friend, Inbar

Solomon, for encouraging me, believing in me, and for telling me I have a voice that is interesting and worthy of being listened to.

To my studying partner, Ofir Arnon, for the comradery and all the Saturdays spent in almost complete silence, sitting in front of each other, each of us separately focusing on our own work. Honestly, I'm so happy and thankful I had you by my side during these last two years of our degree.

Finally, thank you Maayan Padan, for always being so kind, attentive and willing to help.

VII

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Retracing the Mary Poppins Transformation 7

Mary Poppins Timeline 9

Chapter one- Adaptation and Disney Fairy Tales 11

Adaptations 11

Fairy Tales and The Disney Well-Made Fairy Tale Model 14

Chapter Two- Gender Norms, Disney, and The Classic Period 18

Gender Norms and Femininity in the 19th -20th Century 19

Reintegrating Motherhood Femininity and Womanhood Between 1930s-1960s 24

Disney Fairytales, Femininity and The Classic Period 28

The Female Disney Villain 30

Femininity and Motherhood in Disney Fairy Tales 32

Chapter Three- Getting to know Mary Poppins 35

Mary Poppins as Written by P.L Travers 35

Mary Poppins and the Banks children 41

Mary Poppins & Bert the Match Man 48

Mary Poppins- Negotiating Gender Norms 51

Mary Poppins in the 1964 Film Adaptation 53

Mary Poppins- From Text to Silver Screen 54

The Fairy Tale Model- Problem and Problem Solving 64

Chapter Four- Mrs. Banks 67

Mrs. Banks as written by P.L Travers 67

Mrs. Banks in the 1964 Disney film 72

The Fairy Tale Model- Problem and Problem Solving 78

Chapter Five- Conclusions 82

Bibliography 84

Introduction

Background

On December 2018, The New York Times published an online review of the new Mary

Poppins Returns movie, written by Manohla Dargis. The movie, directed by Rob Marshall and starring Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins, is set twenty-five years after the original Mary

Poppins film and is loosely based on the plotlines and adventures featured in the second installment of the Mary Poppins series Mary Poppins Comes Back written by P.L Travers in 1935.

Mary Poppins Returns received mixed reviews by Dargis. The online article states that the movie emanates "a whiff of contemporary desperation that signals an endeavor reaching for honest nostalgia and trapped by bloodless marketing."(Dragis, 2018) This notion of nostalgia points toward the love and reverence that the original 1964 Disney Mary Poppins movie generates within the hearts of many adults today. Simply put, the original Mary

Poppins movie tells the tale of a magical and strict nanny who has flown into the Banks household in order to care for the Banks children while taking them on magical and exciting adventures. A closer look into the movie adaptation in 1964, shows, however, that Mary

Poppins does more than take care of children with the help of her magic. Mary Poppins saves the Banks children from emotional neglect and reforms the dysfunctional Banks family. She does so by helping Mr. and Mrs. Banks reevaluate their roles and behavior as parents. Mr. Banks is cold and stern with the children while Mrs. Banks is simply absent and presented as unintentionally foolish. Therefore, Mary Poppins' presence is needed.

Many Mary Poppins enthusiasts will quickly point out, as Dargis Manohla did in her review, that the Mary Poppins film, as well as its sequel, are both based on the books written by P.L Travers. Dargis also points to the noticeable differences between the books 1

and their cinematic adaptation as well as the author’s feelings towards these changes. For instance, in the new film, Mary Poppins returns to the Banks family after staying away for twenty-five years. The original Mr. and Mrs. Banks have passed away, and the “new” Mr.

Banks, is Michael Banks, the child from the original film who is all grown up and now a widowed father himself. This change diverges quite significantly from the original books.

In the original second installment, there is no mention of a long absence, especially not a twenty-five-year absence by Poppins. The original tale simply depicts Poppins' return to the same household she left a short while ago, namely, to the same exact Banks family she left at the end of this first installment. This significant plot change creates a completely new plot trajectory where there is, once again, an emphasis on the need for Mary Poppins to save a dysfunctional family. This different plotline, I argue, helps shape the manner in which Mary Poppins is viewed within the film.

With these changes in both the new Mary Poppins film as well as the original film adaptation in mind, Dargis concludes by stating: "So, once again, Mary Poppins glides in to save the day and, more specifically, to take care of some gently neglected if unquestionably loved Banks children…… Notably, in the 1964 movie, the mother is a distracted parent but also an attractively vibrant suffragette who opens the film warbling about equality — “We’re fighting for our rights, militantly!” — in the cheeky, rousing

“Sister Suffragette.” (Travers, who died in 1996, didn’t write her that way and did not approve of this improvement to the character.)" What is made clear in this paragraph by

Dargis is that even though there is much nostalgia for the original Mary Poppins film, enthusiasts of the books know that the original characters underwent many changes in their adaptation to the world of cinema, many of them disliked by the author herself.

In this last instance, Dargis is specifically referencing the way in which Mrs. Banks, a character who appeared in the earlier movie, was transformed in the original adaptation.

Indeed, viewers of the 1964 movie know that Mrs. Banks was the wife of Mr. Banks and the mother of the children whom Mary Poppins arrives to look after. At the beginning of the original adaptation, Mrs. Banks is seen cheerfully dancing and marching her way into the house while singing "Well done! Sister Suffragette!" As Dargis intimates, this is not a song that one can easily forget, since it is not often that you can hear such a rallying cry for feminism, an endearing and catchy cry at that, in one of Walt Disney's most beloved films.

This was a very memorable change made to Mrs. Banks as the character moved from book to film. Indeed, Travers did not depict Mrs. Banks as a suffragette, nor did she give any indication that her Mrs. Banks was supportive or even aware of the cause.

Dargis’ interest in and mention of the original Mary Poppins film is not surprising since, as mentioned before, the original Mary Poppins film was hugely popular. But this interest also raised some new questions regarding the true origins of these beloved characters. As the buildup around the new sequel Mary Poppins Returns grew, many articles addressed the various changes that Disney had made, both in terms of the characters as well as to the plotline. Commentators such as Eliana Dockterman in her TIME article, and Megan Garber in her review in The Atlantic, focus on the character of Mary Poppins and her demeanor and what her presence symbolized for the viewers as well as P.L Travers herself. Both

Dockterman and Garber also address P.L Travers' legitimate concerns regarding selling

Poppins over to Disney. Dockterman references P.L Travers' hesitation, writing: "Her trepidations were founded: Disney’s 1964 movie added a dose of sweetness to Mary

Poppins to make her more palatable to children". (Dockterman ,2018) Similarly, Graber writes about how Disney strayed from Travers's vision for Poppins: "The 1964 version

of Mary Poppins—a film which, after Travers finally gave Disney the rights to it, took the character Travers had imagined and transformed her into Julie Andrews, warbling sweetly about the affordances of sugar and dancing with animated penguins. This was not, fully, what Travers had envisioned for Mary". (Graber ,2019) The constant reference to Traver's hesitation to sell the film rights, her ultimate dislike of the film, as well as Disney’s insistence on making Poppins a more likable character suggests that Disney’s changes were very significant and that anyone who had prior knowledge of the original narrative would have recognized them.

The growing interest regarding the changes made to Mary Poppins' character in the new movie had initially been sparked as a result of another famous film that debuted in 2013,

Saving Mr. Banks, which is a biographical drama that brought to light the author P.L

Travers’s troubled childhood and her problematic relationship with Walt Disney. This movie depicts the hardship of Travers' childhood and the different process of adopting the

Mary Poppins book to film. It underscores how frustrating the process was to both the

Disney-appointed producers and writers as well as to Travers. This film goes on to show the artistic conflicts and tension between both sides and shows Travers' ultimate disdain for the finished product.1

Traver's biography and her troubled past has consequently become the subject of many articles, such as Martha Sorren's Refinery29 article “The Life Of Mary Poppins Creator

P.L. Travers Is Stranger Than Fiction” as well as Setareh Janda’s article in Ranker “True

1 Valarie Lawson wrote the biographical story of P.L Travers Mary Poppins She Wrote- The Life of P.L

Travers, upon which the script for Saving Mr. Banks was based.

Stories About The Real Woman Behind 'Mary Poppins,' P.L. Travers”. However, even though, there has been increased interest in many aspects surrounding the Mary Poppins phenomenon--from changes made to the characters to the real life of the reclusive author-

-one aspect that commentators have not emphasized enough is the common theme that connects all three movies. Indeed, what all three movies: Mary Poppins, Mary Poppins

Returns and Saving Mr. Banks have in common is their portrayal of the ability to compensate children for absent mothers by mending these children's relationships with their fathers, therefore reaffirming a father’s place within the family model. This theme is maintained by portraying Poppins as the embodiment of the missing, natural, feminine touch, one that helps guide and "soften" the patriarch, while underscoring the positive, moral impact such a feminine presence can produce within these dysfunctional households.

As I will argue in chapter three, Poppins' character became the savior of families with absent mothers, and this serves the very clear ideological role of reinstating the patriarchal family.

Poppins’ initial appearance as the savior of families takes place during the first Mary

Poppins Disney adaptation. In the 1964 Mary Poppins film, the Banks children suffer from an absent mother who is always busy with her work with the suffragette movement, while they also have a very strained relationship with their strict and stern father. It is Mary

Poppins' actions and effect on the Banks family that help Mr. Banks mend his relationship with his children- Jane and Michael. This process also leads Mrs. Banks to follow in her husband's footsteps. In the 2018 Mary Poppins Returns film, the new Mr. Banks (Michael

Banks from the original film) is suffering after the death of his wife. He loves his children dearly, but their relationship is crumbling under the pressure, responsibility, and sadness he feels. Enter Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins, who, when asked what made her return,

declares "The same thing that brought me the first time. I came to look after the Banks children". Once again Mary Poppins saves the day by helping the patriarch of the family when the mother is absent from their children's lives.

In Saving Mr. Banks, the narrative suggests that only by writing the story of Mary Poppins and specifically creating the character of Mary Poppins could P.L Travers make peace with her alcoholic father whom she adored and admired (who was also a banker like Mr. Banks).

Moreover, it details how her father's untimely death due to alcoholism spiraled her already struggling mother's depression out of control. Saving Mr. Banks presents a narrative suggesting that by writing the story of Mary Poppins in this manner and allowing Disney to bring her story to film in the way that it eventually did, Travers was able to witness what felt like her own father's redemption arch. The movie thus intimates that with the help of

Mary Poppins, Travers subsequentially found peace. However, more importantly, this film reestablishes that a healing female presence is not, in fact, enough, as every "family" requires the guidance of a strong, male presence. This film appears to portray Walt Disney himself, as a patriarchal figure that, with the help of Mary Poppins' character, helps guide

Travers. As her own father was unable to do so, Disney's character compensates for the missing patriarchal authority in Travers' life, just as Mary Poppins counterbalances the missing feminine, maternal presence in Travers life. This, then, creates a pseudo patriarchal family model. This is quite clearly a romanticized version of Travers' reaction to Walt Disney and the changes Disney made to the plot and characters, since, as I have pointed out, Travers was not pleased with the final product. Nonetheless, Saving Mr. Banks revived public interest in Mary Poppins and set the stage for adapting Mary Poppins

Returns.

Retracing the Mary Poppins Transformation

As a longtime Mary Poppins fan, these recent discussions regarding the changes made within the plotline, as well as my own curiosity, led me to read the original Mary Poppins books. I read the entire Poppins series in the hope of ascertaining what the main cinematic changes were, how crucial these changes are and what they mean. Reading the original works left me bewildered. Firstly, there was no emphasis on any kind of "salvation process" for either the Banks family or the Banks children. Secondly, Mary Poppins did not excite me but rather frightened and annoyed me. Furthermore, Mrs. Banks no longer interested me in any way, while Mr. Banks barely registered as an active character. I could not understand how my favorite film growing up was based on such a cynical tale. How did such a strict and cold Mary Poppins fit in so seamlessly in the famous fairy tale-esque

Disney universe? How did she maintain her status as a beloved character in not only one, but three, successful Disney films? The answer was suddenly clear: the book was not only adapted but was utterly transformed by Disney.

The transformation of the Mary Poppins character alongside the many changes made to the plotline and many of the characters, I argue, were fueled by Disney’s traditional and conservative ideology. As I have previously stated, all three Mary Poppins Disney films have a common theme that revolves around Mary Poppins as the champion of family values, and more particularly, the reinforcement of the traditional family. I argue that

Disney’s Mary Poppins films were shaped by dominant gender norms and a belief in male dominance within the family and this, in turn, drove the adaptation process. Therefore, in order to understand the effects of this common ideological thread on the cinematic adaptation of Poppins' original character, I use the original Mary Poppins Disney adaptation as my case study and present the changes made to the plotline and characters.

As I will argue in chapters three and four, these changes can be traced back to contemporaneous gender norms and dominant images of normative femininity. These changes facilitated the reinforcement of the traditional patriarchal family as well as dominant notions of femininity.

By focusing on the original Mary Poppins adaptation, and trying to understand the appeal and impact the 1964 film had on me, I decided to narrow my focus to two specific characters who appear much changed from their initial introduction to audiences, namely,

Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks. Mary Poppins has been completely modified in the movie.

Mrs. Banks has been noticeably stripped of most of her few responsibilities within the book in order to create more room for Mr. Banks' character. Interestingly, as I have mentioned, she has also been reintroduced and reimagined as a militant suffragette. While focusing on these two leading characters, I then decided to delve deeper into the world of Disney in the 1960s and try to determine how the Mary Poppins books and eventual adaptation fit into the Disney cinematic world.

In what follows, therefore, I examine the significance of these two female characters and the likely reasons for the transformations they underwent as they moved from text to silver screen. I argue that these changes were introduced in order to reinforce the patriarchal family model, and the gender norms this model entails. I will further argue that there were a number of key contributing factors involved in the transformation of these characters.

These factors include the shifting gender norms in the United States, the effects of the women's movement on women and the perception of women in society, popular culture— and, more specifically, the cultural world found within Disney films between 1930 to 1964-

-and the memorable female characters within that world. I will review the manner in which

famous Disney female characters corresponded with the changing gender norms of the time and compare these characters to the representation of Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks.

In order to make these claims, I will first introduce the world of book-to-film adaptation as well as an analysis of famous Disney adaptation model which I believe shed more light on

Mary Poppins’ adaptation process. Secondly, I will provide a historical overview of the phases of the women's movement in the United States and its impact on women's status, image, and gender norms in society more generally. I will then present famous Disney film adaptations from 1930s- 1960s and address the gender norms found within the lead female

Disney characters. Thirdly, I will describe in detail the way in which the two lead female characters are represented, first in the original book and then in the 1964 adaptation. I will suggest that they became such a beloved part of the Disney cinematic world precisely because they had undergone changes to their character, changes that helped position Mary

Poppins as a savior of traditional families and Mrs. Banks as the victim of feminism.

Finally, throughout my thesis, I draw on scholars such as Jack Zipes and Amy M. Davis, in order to show that Disney’s fairy tale films are all built on a particular cinematic model with embedded gender norms, and that the Mary Poppins films must be understood as part of this model, which facilitated the successful transformation of the two central female characters.

Mary Poppins Timeline

Mary Poppins was published to great success in 1934 by P.L Travers. After its international success, the second installment of the Mary Poppins series, Mary Poppins Comes Back was published in 1935. The following installments, Mary Poppins Opens the Door and Mary

Poppins in the Park were each published with an almost ten-year gap between one another, namely in 1943 and 1952. In 1961, after the first four Mary Poppins installments were 9

published, and after many attempts made by Walt Disney and refusals by Travers, Travers agreed and sold the movie rights of the series to Walt Disney Studios. Mary Poppins, the movie, was released on August 27, 1964 to critical acclaim. It is important to note that not only was the production filmed during the 60s, a thirty-year gap from the time it was originally written, but that it was the recipient of 13 Oscar nominations and won five awards, including Best Actress and Best Soundtrack in 1965.

The Mary Poppins film is based on the first Mary Poppins book that was published in 1934 with minor details added to the script from the second installment. The new Mary Poppins

Returns film is based on some of the adventures described in the second installment. In this thesis, as I note above, I will only focus on the first Mary Poppins movie and will, therefore, reference only the first book in the Mary Poppins series. The reason that I decided not to focus on the second movie installment became clear to me only when I finished my initial research, read, and re-watched all the relevant material. The adaptation of the original Mary

Poppins was so successful that it nearly erased any need or memory of the original book.

Indeed, the film became more popular than the books themselves. The new Mary Poppins

Returns film, although loosely based on the adventures in the second book installment, I argue, is a direct continuation of the original movie and not the books. It is an adaptation of an adaptation; therefore, it holds little value when specifically addressing the intricate initial shift I would like to trace and for which I would like to give an account.

Chapter one- Adaptation and Disney Fairy Tales

Adaptations

When trying to understand the changes made to characters and plotlines during novel-to- film adaptation, one first needs to understand the art as well as many of the contributing factors that go into adaptation. Julie Sanders provides a cogent account of the process of adaptation in her book Adaptation and Appropriation (The New Critical Idiom). Indeed, she provides an in-depth overview of text adaptation, beginning with a clear definition of adaptation. According to Sanders, "Adaptation can be a transpositional practice, casting a specific genre into another generic mode, an act of revision in itself". (Sanders, 2015, p.18)

In its most basic form, adaptation may be understood as similar to the work of an editor, as it requires the "trimming" of texts. But this process is not just a different manifestation of the same text within film or animation. Adaptation, as Sanders explains, may also include developing, establishing and introducing a revised point of view, one that differs from what we know or remember from the original work. This is primarily done via transposition, in order to introduce these texts to new and perhaps larger audiences.

Sanders also argues that adaptations "contain further layers of transposition, relocating their source texts not just generically, but in cultural, geographical and temporal terms."

(2015, p.19) Drawing on Sanders' work, scholars such as Jack Zipes specifically portray how these new layers, within the context of revised points of view, assist in distancing and ultimately shifting values found in the original work. Zipes highlights how filmmakers' re- telling of a story and the changes that are made to the original, are often influenced by their different values, ideology or even personal opinion, likes and dislikes. These divergent values often change the very nature and outcome of the original tale. Drawing on Zipes, I

argue that Disney’s adaptation of Mary Poppins is a paradigmatic example of this transposition.

Due to Disney's immense popularity, and the amount of book-to-film adaptation that the

Disney studio has produced in the 20th century, it is therefore not surprising that Disney and its movie adaptations are at the center of an active academic discussion concerning the values that have been promoted by Disney films. This discussion raises questions about the different social norms identified and portrayed in Disney's most famous films and characters. Scholars have continuously pointed out specific Disney characters and plotlines and queried what some of these newly implemented changes to characters signify with respect to Walt Disney himself, and more specifically what and whether the transformations that emerge through adaptation reflect Disney’s own ideology.

There is no scholarly agreement about what kinds of ideology and norms have been promoted by Disney. Although the academic debate is one that regards Disney's entire body of cinematic work, here I focus on the narrower discussion around the values embedded in

Disney's book-to-film adaptation. More specifically, I will focus on two scholars who place

Disney at the opposing ends of what I would call the "values spectrum". These two scholars also provide different theories regarding the nature and the reason behind the values Disney promoted. On one side is Richard Schickel, and on the other is Douglas Brode.

In his book The Disney Version: The Life, Times, Art and Commerce of Walt Disney,

Richard Schickel (2019) accuses Disney films and Walt Disney himself, of acting as the rallying point for those fighting against the changing, liberal cultural climate of the 20th century. Schickel explains how in his work Walt Disney was consistently appealing and promoting conservative middle-class values. According to Schickel, this was mostly due

to Disney's obsession and nostalgia for what Schickel refers to as the "vanished past" upon which conservative middle-class values were based. According to Schickel, Disney was convinced that the world was changing too quickly. Schickel also suggests that Disney lacked any comprehension of more complex content, emotions, and themes. Indeed,

Schickel claims Disney only understood happiness in simple and limited terms and preferred "clean, moral, simple and innocent stories".(Schickel,2019, p72) The stories and values Disney promoted were recognizable for their wholesome humor, sentimentality and their ability to distinguish between the hero and the villain. By combining these storytelling elements, Disney was able to convey a notion of harking back to “traditional values”.

Furthermore, these traditional values often translated into a conservative gendered division of labor and the portrayal of traditional gender norms.

Douglas Brode, on the other hand, opposes Shickel's and others' claims regarding the conservative nature of Disney and his films. He, in fact, credits Disney as being a champion of values such as diversity, feminism, and acceptance. He attributes Disney with the creation of content that, "[f]uture hippies saw and absorbed"(Brode, 2005, p19). Brode attributes the ostensible diversity and acceptance in the films to Disney’s ability to create lovable characters, usually with the help of humor, out of characters that were, according to Brode, unlovable to mainstream audiences. Brode provides many examples of this. One that particularly stands out is his crediting of Disney for portraying "the screen's first positively portrayed black character" Brode, 2005, p. 97). This is in reference to Mickey

Mouse, a mouse that is mostly black. The very notion of considering a black colored mouse as a representation of Disney championing diversity is an incredibly problematic one, but it does help portray how very differently scholars and audience members alike perceive

Disney’s representations.

Both Brode and Schickel focus on the specific attributes of Disney's characters in order to make an ideological claim regarding the norms that Disney promoted within different book-to-film adaptations as well as original films. Yet, despite their ideological disagreement regarding the nature of these values and norms, it is clear to both scholars agree that certain norms are, in fact, embedded within Disney films and characters.

Moreover, while scholars like Brode and Schickel disagree about the nature of the values promoted by Disney, I suggest, that what is more important, and what is needed in order to understand the social norms embedded within Disney films, is to look at the plotline model used by Disney to portray these norms. Though, as I have shown, Schickel touched upon

Disney's tendency to portray characters and stories that easily distinguish between the hero and the villain, he does not mention the manner in which Disney was able to use this plotline model to preemptively classify certain norms and characteristics as good or bad.

Thus, while Brode and Schickel both claim that Disney presented certain characters and characteristics in a manner that was able to resonate with audience members and at times even sway public opinion, they do not discuss how this was accomplished. In the following chapter, I argue that the manner in which this was carried out was, by far, more schematic.

Indeed, I posit that Disney made use of a particular plotline model to embed the norms and values he wished to promote. This model was based upon what Zipes calls the “well-made

Disney fairy tale model” (Zipes,2015, p 6-8). Thus, understanding the fairy tale model used and promoted by Disney, in turn, helps us to better understand the larger ideological forces at work in our most beloved Disney films.

Fairy Tales and The Disney Well-Made Fairy Tale Model

According to Jack Zipes, fairy tales and folktales "have provided the stuff of which all films are made from the 1890s to the present…… the history of folktales and fairy tales 14

demonstrates the degree to which such narratives have pervaded cultural fields including theater, opera, radio plays, painting, vaudeville, musicals, comics, novels, and so on

"(Zipes,2015, p 6-8). In his writing, Zipes demonstrates not only the manner in which fairy tale attributes may be found in adaptations and films but also the specific manner in which

Disney embraced these attributes and forged them into a well-made model. This model includes two main characteristics, the first is the presentation of the inherent problem that needs to be solved, the second is the fight between two powers – good versus evil. The classic fairy tale model presents these characters, depicts whether they are good or evil as well as the manner they relate to the inherent problem portrayed.

The fairy tale outline that Zipes offers does not provide an exact definition of what may or may not be considered a fairy tale, as, according to Zipes, there is no such thing as a definitive fairy-tale film. He does, however, speak of the utopian verve stamp that is established within fairy tale films and the powerful aura it exudes. Fairy tale films are special in that they provide viewers with the ability to reaffirm their faith in humanity by emphasizing the human ability to solve and undo the damage that is caused by humans themselves. In other words, fairy tales show human strength, both in the damage humans are capable of causing as well as their ability to undo this damage and take responsibility for their own healing process. Therefore, it can be understood that fairy tales, though portraying many elements of magic and witchcraft, rely heavily on real, relatable human emotions that derive from human problems in order to resonate with the audience.

By demonstrating that fairy tales are constituted through these particular qualities, Zipes is able to peel back another layer of the characteristics that make up fairy tales and reveals how fairy tales are well suited to promoting different norms. Zipes claims that "The

aesthetics and subject matter of each film constitute a position-taking. Fairy-tale films can shed light on human predicaments in a given time, and, at the same time divert our gaze so that we cannot recognize their causes." (Zipes,2015, p 6-8). In other words, Zipes shows not only the way certain relevant human problems are addressed in fairy tale films, but also how the manner in which they are shown may be understood as an ideological "position- taking". This is due to the "problem solving" nature of these films and the two main forces at play. The simple model of presenting a problem, immediately followed by its solution in fairy tale films, is shown in terms of good and evil, and more specifically, a battle of good vs evil. Whatever is deemed as a "problem" is therefore also evil, and thus its solution is subsequently good. Evil, however, is the manifestation of the problem itself, not its cause, since fairy tales do not delve deeply into the root cause of evil. The good is then shown in the actions, and many times the specific non-vengeful action taken by the protagonist in order to eradicate the problem.

By providing the audience with characters and behaviors representing each side of the good vs evil spectrum, fairy tale films offer judgments on human behavior; but, more importantly, they also take a stand that ostensibly leaves little room for individual interpretation. Though fairy tales may allow, and even rely on, audience members’ ability to identify with the problem or emotions exhibited by the characteristic manifestation of evil, they also rely on the ostensibly common-sense notion that people, generally, do not want to be perceived as evil. This is a simple yet incredibly effective method through which values are disseminated within fairy tales. Disney animated fairy tales, Zipes argues, rely heavily on these fairy tale qualities.

Fairy tales then, have the ability to engage in social discourse, address human problems and emotions, as well as to place certain human problems and emotions on a good vs evil 16

spectrum. As Zipes argues, Disney had a favored fairy tale model and was therefore able to provide audience members with a moral, ideological stance on a particular issue. It is precisely because Disney followed this model in his fairy tale film adaptations, as well as in films like Mary Poppins, that we begin to see just how ideological his movies in fact are.

By adding certain fantastical elements, as well as pre-planned amusing, humoristic moments, Disney was able to ensure that he produced a nearly perfect recipe for broad appeal as well as the ability to "cultivate the taste of family audiences, while simultaneously adjusting the fairy tale's structure and contents to comply with his puritanical and capitalist values".(Zipes,2015, p7). In the following chapter, I argue that Disney made use of the fairy tale model in order to embed particular gender norms, ideals of femininity, and family values, into his films.

Chapter Two- Gender Norms, Disney, and The Classic Period

In her book Good Girls and Wicked Witches: Women in Disney’s Feature Animation Amy

M. Davis explains how historians can benefit greatly by delving into different fairy tale adaptations to film. She goes on to explain how the different changes made to characters and plotline, as they were being retold and reintroduced to audiences can, in her words:

"effectively illustrate changes in a society’s attitudes and beliefs over time". (Davis, 2007, p.17) For many scholars such as Davis, female characters within Disney fairy tale adaptations have been a method with which one can view shifting gender norms and feminine ideals over the course of the 20th century. As I have argued in Chapter One, the manner in which fairy tales portray human problems, characteristics and emotion is an ideological position-taking. As I will argue in this chapter, with the use of the fairy tale model, Disney was able to embed traditional gender norms within his fairy tale films and adaptations. I argue that the specificity of the embedded gender norms as they are portrayed by some of Disney's most famous lead female characters, can be understood as Disney's response to women's fluctuating social status in American society during the first half of the 20th century, as well as its impact on the traditional family. The gender norms portrayed by Disney through his main female fairy tale characters constitute a traditional, conservative ideological position taking. This ideological position taking was molded and established during an era characterized by the fluctuating status of women's roles in society, which directly impacted the structure of the domestic family and therefore, may be understood as a call back to more traditional times.

This chapter will therefore address the significant changes in women's place in society and feminine ideals during the 20th century in the United States. This chapter will also address the direct correlations between these historic social changes and the manner Disney

portrayed gender norms, family structure and femininity in Disney's most popular fairy tale adaptations during what Amy M. Davis refers to as "The Classic Period" between 1934-

1966. This will allow me to demonstrate how the fairy tale model is implicated in reproducing certain kinds of gender norms as well as allow me to situate Mary Poppins within this larger historical and gendered context.

Gender Norms and Femininity in the 19th -20th Century

As I have stated in my introduction, I argue that within Disney's fairy tale model, the changes made to plotlines and characters served to facilitate and reinforce the patriarchal family model by reinscribing traditional gender norms that coalesced in the 19th century.

As Susan M. Cruea (2005) demonstrates in her article "Changing Ideals of Womanhood

During the Nineteenth-Century Woman Movement", the traditional, middle-class women of the 19th century were confined by limited choices and what Cruea referred to as

"Domestic Dependency" within the patriarchal family model. White middle-class women had stark choices: they could either wed and have children or remain a spinster. They were discouraged from finding employment, and even though some means of employment were available and open to women, they were mostly encouraged and expected to remain dependent upon men (namely, their husbands, fathers or brothers) for financial support.

However, this traditional model and perception of womanhood did not remain unchanged.

During the late 19th century, these limited circumstances were some of the main driving forces behind the emergence of the Woman’s Movement and its subsequent impact on women's status in society.

As Curea details, the Woman’s Movement went through different phases, and each phase came to be associated with different images of women and more importantly models of femininity—either ones that were promoted by the movement or ones that the movement 19

attempted to challenge. These images shaped the way womanhood was perceived in society, specifically the roles women were expected to uphold as well as newly available opportunities outside of the domestic sphere. These images included that of the True

Woman, the Real Woman, the Public Woman, and the New Woman. Today we tend to understand these images—and particularly the Real Woman through the New Woman--as an integral part of the feminist movement as we understand the term today, but, as Nancy

Cott explains in her book, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, "People in the nineteenth century did not say feminism……. The vocabulary of feminism has been grafted onto the history of women's rights" (Cott,1987, p10). This is an important distinction that is necessary to maintain in order to fully understand the different phases of the Woman

Movement and the manner that they affected the public perception and debate regarding women's roles in society as well as models of femininity. Moreover, the distinction between these different phases is crucial for understanding how womanhood and femininity were subsequently represented in Disney's fairy tales, and specifically in the model of femininity

Disney actively represented in his films. Therefore, in order to better understand the particularly feminine model Disney presented in its fairy tale adaptation and how it harks back to the 19th century image of the True Woman, I will present the changing images of femininity associated with different periods in the 19th and 20th century.

The True Woman of the 19th century was, as Barbara Welter describes, a dominant gender norm that insisted that women’s natural place was in the home and domestic realm. As the image of the True Woman and her feminine qualities were tightly bound to the embodiment of morality, the True Woman was the natural personification of femininity, purity, and submissiveness. Within her role, the True Woman became a revered and moral presence within the household as well as a moral symbol within society. This image of the True

Woman placed women on a moral pedestal as wives and, most importantly, as mothers. In

The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860 Barbara Welter argues that, "The attributes of

True Womanhood, by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors and society could be divided into four cardinal virtues-piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity. Put them all together and they spelled mother, daughter, sister, wife-woman. Without them, no matter whether there was fame, achievement or wealth, all was ashes. With them, she was promised happiness and power" (Welter, 1966, p152). The idealized image of the True Woman is very closely linked to the image of "The

Angel in The House", an image I will focus on later in my analysis of female Disney characters. Interestingly, as Cott (1987) documents, the very attributes that kept the True

Woman in the private sphere, such as their selflessness and natural caregiving tendencies, were then taken up and used by the Woman’s Movement to argue for women’s right to be present and active in the public sphere as well as in the workforce.

Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, different ideals of femininity emerged alongside other images that challenged these ideals. For example, the image of the Real

Woman, who fought for a woman's ability to work for income and support herself (still within domestically acceptable roles that were based on traditional understandings of feminine strengths and ambitions) was a response to the True woman, who was domestically confined and financially dependent upon men. The Public Woman who followed, fought to gain public, legal, and political visibility, and was a response to the

Real Woman.

However, it was The New Woman that marked the beginning of a truly new era for women. As Smith-Rosenberg (1986) argued in her book Disorderly Conduct- Visions of

Gender in Victorian America, unlike her predecessors, the New Woman did not just continue the fight for her rights, such as the right to a college education or the right to be present in the public sphere. Rather, the New Woman fought for structural changes, such as coeducational institutions, allowing women to study in what were previously male-only institutions, and to put an end to sex-based segregation. Importantly, these new women publicly proclaimed that adhering to traditional “feminine” characteristics, such as sexual purity and maternal instincts, simply reinforced what they perceived as the limitations of femininity. Indeed, during the early 20th century, the rejection of idealized femininity by different generations of the New Woman paved the way for a completely new, unapologetic, ideological wave that is associated with what we know today as the feminist movement.

Carroll Smith-Rosenberg also underscores the rift that developed between what was known as the first generations of the New Woman and the Public and Real Woman who predated her. This could be seen in the way in which the New Woman was often accused of completely disregarding sex-based differences, prioritizing her career and personal fulfillment by "wrongfully" delaying, and, at times, completely rejecting motherhood. The deepening of the rift, I suggest, is connected to the fact that the generations who preceded the New Woman's did not reject traditional femininity or domesticity wholesale.

However, some scholars have argued that the lack of rejection of traditional femininity, and its subsequent impact on the perception of womanhood and domesticity, was, in part, a strategic choice that resulted in a balancing act for many women struggling to change women’s status in society. In her book The Rise of Public Woman: Woman's Power and

Woman's Place in the United States, 1630-1970, Glenna Mathew(1992) demonstrates how until the rise of the New Woman, women advocated for social and political change through 22

a delicate balancing act, namely, by articulating their social and political demands within the boundaries of normative notions of femininity and womanhood. By not upsetting this delicate balance of womanhood, femininity and domesticity, the generations that predated

The New Woman were able to expand their domestic role outside the home and remain

"feminine". Though this previous balance proved to be successful in regard to the advancement of social change and reform, it still maintained a link between womanhood, traditional "natural" femininity and women's ultimate domestic role as mothers. The New

Woman did not only break away entirely from the domestic sphere but also completely rejected the feminine image of the selfless, submissive, caring and docile angel in the house.

Nevertheless, the rift that appeared with the rise of the New Woman did not just drive a wedge between the New Woman and the previous generations of the Woman Movement, it also led to the strengthening of certain feminine ideals as they were once again embraced by certain women-led movements As Einav Rabinovitch-Fox demonstrates, rejecting femininity was not always the favored option among the suffragettes, who were often coeval with the New Woman, since women who were deemed "unfeminine" were often ridiculed and harassed for their choices. During the American Suffrage movement, for example, certain aspects of femininity were once again perceived to be beneficial to the advancement of women. In her article, New Women in Early 20th-Century America,

Rabinovitch-Fox (2017) demonstrates how in order to successfully sway public opinion, women in the suffrage movement, just like their sisters in the 19th century, often felt that they had to embrace and emphasize their "feminine attributes" in order to justify their public activity in the eyes of dominant society. Fox writes that, "[s]uffragists defended themselves by presenting alternative images that emphasized their femininity and attractiveness."(Fox,2017, p7). Fox continues by stating: "Suffragists presented a 23

respectable, stylish, and fashionable appearance that turned their public image into a positive and palatable one. Dressed in the suffrage colors of white, purple, and yellow, and with careful attention to the portrayal of their womanly talents of embroidery and fashion, suffragists marched in their costumes and with handmade banners, asserting their political presence in what was considered to be male territory." (Fox, 2017, p.8). This is an important distinction. There is no argument regarding the violent nature and painful history of the battle for the vote nor the extreme methods that were used in order to oppress this movement in the United States as well as Europe. Nonetheless, the need to emphasize certain feminine attributes as these suffragettes were struggling for equal rights is a testament to how powerful the normative conception of femininity remained.

Indeed, at the turn of the 20th century, and up until they won the right to vote in 1920, one of the greatest challenges that middle-class women faced was the constant need to negotiate their femininity. Femininity remained a powerful social, cultural notion. And while some women attempted to disregard domestic norms and feminine ideals, visible in the declining birthrate of the 1920s-1930s, womanhood remained heavily associated with dominant notions of femininity. Therefore, to be a woman was linked to “being feminine” as dominant society defined feminine. Any attempt on the part of women to change gender norms, and the gendered division of labor, was perceived as an attack on femininity and, consequently, undermined these women’s claim to womanhood.

Reintegrating Motherhood Femininity and Womanhood Between 1930s-1960s

While the ratification of the 19th amendment, which guaranteed all women the right to vote, seemed to promise emancipation, the years between the 1930s and the 1960s proved to be trying times for women. The financial ramifications of the Great Depression followed by

the years leading up to World War II and its aftermath profoundly affected women's status.

Norms of femininity fluctuated over these decades as women's role in society shifted.

While the 1920s are usually described as a time of relative freedom for middle-class women, as seen with the rise of the New Woman and their rejection of traditional conservative gender roles, the 1930s saw a backlash against these freedoms as the Great

Depression hit. Furthermore, while WWII presented more employment opportunities for women, as they were needed to join the workforce, once the troops came home, women were pushed back into the home. More importantly, once men returned home from the war, women were encouraged to return to their “most natural” role- motherhood.2

In her book Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era, Elaine Tyler May

(2008) addresses the effects the post-World War II’s years had on women, and specifically addresses the noticeable refocusing of American society on the value of family. May refers to these years as the revival of The Cult of Motherhood from the Victorian era of the 19th century and the years of the True Woman. Moreover, as opposed to the 1920s-1930s when the birth rate was incredibly low, during the 1940s and 1950's, birthrate skyrocketed.

Motherhood was once again redefined as the embodiment of ideal femininity and therefore became the most important role for women in society.

Therefore, In the post-WWII era, the image of the ultra-feminine, stay-at-home housewife, became the ideal model of femininity; as May depicts, the role of the housewife was considered the leading profession for middle-class women. Women were once again needed at home, to raise well-behaved children and take care of the household while men

2 This occurred after World War I as well, but the backlash after WWI led to the roaring 20s whereas in the wake of WWII different political and financial forces were at play and this led to the conservative era. 25

remained the main financial providers. Due in large part to the Cold War and the kind of rhetoric it engendered, increasing the birth rate and bearing American children became women’s national duty in order to ensure the free world’s victory over the Soviet Union.

Women were perceived to be biologically and morally upholding their duty to their nation as well as to their sex by having and taking care of children. Therefore, working outside of the home was discouraged as it was believed to harm women's reproductive potential.

In addition to the focus on women's natural role as caregivers and the notion that

"motherhood was the ultimate fulfillment of female sexuality" (May,2008, p152) a new connection between fatherhood and masculine behavior was also popularized. As May explains, "Although mothers were, of course, expected to devote themselves full time to their children, excessive mothering posed the danger that children would become too accustomed to and dependent on female attention. The unhappy result would be “sissies,” who allegedly were likely to become homosexuals, “perverts,” and dupes of the communists. Fathers had to make sure this would not happen to their sons"(May,2008, p153-154). This is an interesting qualification, as it helps to demonstrate that even when women were considered to be naturally endowed with certain attributes – namely, the ability to give birth and raise children, this ability still had to be monitored and tempered by men in their roles as husbands and fathers. The father was the authority charged with the task of keeping both children as well as wives and mothers in their housewife role in line, and therefore reasserting the patriarchal family model at home.

However, this new image of the professional, feminine housewife was not only to be found at home; she became a popular fixture in popular culture and the public entertainment sphere. As May describes,” "Female film celebrities began to offer a new maternal model for identification and emulation … Celebrities who were noted for their erotic appeal

suddenly appeared in magazines as contented mothers, nestled comfortably in their ranch- style suburban homes with their husbands and children." In a definite reestablishing and reaffirmation of gender norms, "The message in the popular culture was clear: Motherhood was the ultimate fulfillment of female sexuality and the primary source of a woman’s identity."(May, 2008, p154) This public perception was, as May explains, heavily endorsed by Hollywood and other mediums of popular culture, leaving little room for women to question this newly defined consensus.

In her landmark book, The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan famously described the emotional and psychological state of middle-class women in the United States in the post-

World War ll era. Friedan writes: "Fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for

American women after 1949—the housewife-mother. As swiftly as in a dream, the image of the American woman as a changing, growing individual in a changing world was shattered. Her solo flight to find her own identity was forgotten in the rush for the security of togetherness"(Friedan,2001, p70). According to Friedan, this bleak definition of women's role and normative aspirations left little room for negotiation, and no room to express discontent. Bombarded with images of the happy housewife and mother, many women truly believed that they were meant to feel content in their role but instead felt incredibly unsettled, unhappy and unfulfilled. This became "the problem that has no name".

Not coincidentally, these young housewives were also the main audience for Disney's films. In 1937, when discussing his Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ film adaption,

Disney himself-- as pointed out by Davis in her book--proclaimed that he was aware that eighty percent of their audience members would be women and that they should, therefore, create their films accordingly (Davis,2007, p100). And so, what did Disney provide for the

viewing pleasure of the seemingly perfect, but deeply unhappy, feminine housewives? He created the perfectly feminine and traditional Disney protagonist.

Disney Fairytales, Femininity and The Classic Period

Amy M. Davis refers to the years between 1934-1966 as "The Classic Period" of Disney animated fairytales. Disney's main objective as a storyteller during the classic period was to create a story that was tailored to certain audiences. With respect to film, Disney had the added responsibility of making sure that the story told would also work cinematically and generate revenue. According to Davis, a film's ability to generate financial revenue and be deemed a cinematic success is highly dependent on its appeal to audience members. The key to this appeal is relatability; as she explains, "there are within Disney’s films certain ideas, perceptions, themes, and stereotypes which are relevant to the daily lives of those who made these films successful, namely the audiences, who paid to see these films in the cinema"(Davis,2007, p22).

This classic period of Disney animation was set in a time during which women’s role in society was continuously shifting, as was the perception of femininity and what being feminine signifies. During these decades, American society had to come to terms with women's successful, hard-fought political battle for the vote, the economic effects of the

Great Depression, as well as the detrimental effects of WWII followed by the Cold War, which, in turn, was followed by the civil rights movement of the sixties. However, during these unstable years, the gender norms found within Disney's fairy tale films, specifically in Disney's lead female characters, remained the same, and were indeed, as Richard

Schickel explains, Disney's way of promoting conservative, traditional values. As it was during the 1930s that Disney started to develop animated fairytale adaptations, I argue that this call back to traditional values also corresponds, as Elaine Tyler May (2008) has 28

documented, with one of the notable periods of backlash against the gains made by the

Woman’s Movement and against the ideals of economic and sexual equality. This backlash, I argue, is reflected in the introduction of the first female protagonist in Disney's first animated fairy tale - Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This feminine model was followed by many others of its kind and served to strengthen the feminine ideal reflected and reinforced within Disney princess characters and fairytales.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the first animated Disney fairy tale, was released in

1937, and it brought with it the first Disney princess - Snow White. It was incredibly successful. After its incredible success and popularity with audiences, Snow White was followed by other beloved animated fairy tales that revolved around or included a story of a lead female character: Cinderella (1950), Alice in Wonderland (1951), Peter Pan (1953),

Sleeping Beauty (1959). In all of these movies, there is a lead female character in which the same traits can be found. As Davis indicates: “In terms of their personalities, these lead female characters are very much alike. All are very kind, graceful, good-natured, beautiful, musical, innocent young girls" (Davis, 2007, p92). These characters and their attributes remain constant throughout the film; thus, even when they are harassed or troubled, they remain beautiful, kind and admirable. They do not purposely harm others even when they are harmed themselves, and their innocence and naivety shine through. In many ways, they are reminiscent of the True Women; they are moral, pure, self-sacrificing and submissive to figures of authority. Most importantly they are natural caregivers. Although they are not mothers, they all demonstrate what is perceived to be the most feminine quality of all- the natural ability to care for others, be it animals, friends, or even their own enemies.

It is important to note that some of these female characters partake in an active attempt to negotiate their place in the world, like Alice from Alice in Wonderland and Wendy in Peter 29

Pan. Scholars like Brode suggest that this as a symbol of the manner in which Disney paved the way for the fight for gender equality. Indeed, the portrayal of women with certain forms of agency may be an example of Disney's attempt to address and represent the ongoing public ambivalence surrounding women's status in society. Yet, as Davis has argued, despite the argument that some Disney princesses do have a certain amount of agency, there is no denying these characters' elegance, vulnerability, soft mannerisms, beauty, and caring nature. These agentive female Disney characters may be admired for their activity, but their natural femininity is never questioned. Indeed, I argue that what characterizes women's normative and desirable role within Disney fairytale films is their ability to embody and exude an idealized feminine identity, as will be further addressed in the discussion regarding the Disney villain.

The Female Disney Villain

In Disney films, specifically in lead female character-driven fairytale films, the image of the angel-like protagonist is most commonly offset by the image of the female Disney villain. While both are female characters, one is inherently good while the other is evil.

Given the notion that femininity is ostensibly natural to women, especially to every female character that aims to be considered a good, lovable character, it makes certain sense that these Disney female characters are, alongside being beautiful, very passive. They do not have to "act good"; they simply are good by remaining true to their natural femininity. On the other hand, evil female Disney characters are very active characters. Davis addresses this in her discussion of Disney female characters' agency. Disney’s female villain's agency, according to Davis, is noticeably greater than that of the protagonist and is often used to gain control. There is nothing natural or passive about the manner in which these female villains make use of their agency. Rather, "[t]hey change themselves into other

things when functioning in their usual form is not working for them. They actively seek to control not only their lives but also their circumstances" (Davis, p98-99). They are strong, fearless, and often very creative. They are mature, powerful, and independent. In short, they are everything that their female victims are not" While the female Disney villain is incredibly active, the good, feminine protagonist is almost always in need of savior. Most commonly, her savior is a dominant male character, usually a handsome prince, that vanquishes the villain, saves the protagonist, wins her love and notably- her hand in marriage, thus becoming her husband. To this Davis adds another interesting distinction with respect to Disney’s portrayal of the female villain's nature: "these women seem to be particularly sensitive and easily offended (Davis, p99)".

This portrayal of the Disney villain is based mostly on how she differs from the lovable, feminine protagonist. The characteristics attributed to her are not ones that are historically identified as feminine. Furthermore, her evil actions, as well as her lack of redeeming feminine characteristics, serve to strengthen the protagonist’s position as a good character, even if her only "good" qualities are that she is notably feminine and passive. By portraying evil in this manner, “natural femininity” becomes a quality that is linked to the good vs evil spectrum in the fairy tale model. Within this spectrum, femininity is clearly situated on the side of good. And, yet, while femininity in these films is coded as good and clearly linked to the protagonist's visible passivity and care for others, its relationship to motherhood is more complex as it is initially established upon a model of dysfunctionality within the family caused by the absences of the mother figure.

Femininity and Motherhood in Disney Fairy Tales

Indeed, most fairy tales are based on a model of dysfunctionality within the family, where the theme of the missing mother, usually deceased or left unmentioned is the most common. When the mother figure is alive, which is uncommon in most Disney Fairy Tales, she is notably weak or absent. With no apparent or impactful mother figure present, the lead female character goes through many hardships.

From this absence of the maternal figure, we can identify three themes that repeat themselves in Disney films as they relate to good, natural femininity and its correlation to motherhood. The first is that femininity is not taught but is naturally present within good female characters. Due to the dysfunctionality of her family and her missing mother figure, the protagonist has no real role model or reference for womanhood or femininity.

Nevertheless, and despite her suffering, she still naturally exudes both and is herself a natural caregiver to others.

The second is that a mother's protection and care are depicted as necessary for her children's wellbeing; therefore, many times within these tales, protagonists are offered the relief of a compensating, replacement, feminine mother figure. Cinderella meets her fairy godmother;

Sleeping Beauty is raised by three of her fairy godmothers. Wendy, from Peter Pan, and her brothers are notably taken care of by their female St. Bernard house dog, adequately named "Nana". This is yet another example of natural femininity found within these good female characters. Interestingly, all of these "replacement" caregivers are not mothers themselves; yet their need to take care of the female protagonist may be understood as their own longing to express their natural feminine ability, as good feminine characters

themselves. Though their presence does not replace that of their absent biological mother, their presence is nonetheless comforting, healing and beneficial to the protagonist.

Third, these films can be read as planting the hope that the good and naturally feminine protagonist will grow up, get married and produce the right kind of family, unlike the dysfunctional one in which she grew up. The natural femininity shown by the female protagonist leads her on a path that will help her reach her own feminine peak – motherhood, through a happy romantic and heteronormative ending. Nothing is clearly stated by Disney with respect to the female lead's future as a mother, but a romantic interest is usually present, and the films often conclude with a wedding ceremony, commonly between the protagonist and her male savior, which implies that the feminine protagonist will break the cycle of the dysfunctionality from which she came. I suggest this implication of the female protagonist’s happily ever after, as it relates to her future role as wife and mother, is an integral part of the gender paradigm and the model of femininity, promoted by Disney.

I argue that within this fairy tale model, Disney successfully reinforced traditional norms of femininity, such as natural maternal instincts and their significance, by portraying both the damaging effects caused by the absences of the feminine mother figure, as well as the protagonist's natural embodiment of this feminine model and traditional feminine norms.

Disney, I argue, drew on dominant norms that predated the Woman’s Movements, and that were subsequently reaffirmed during more conservative eras in the United States.

Embedding these specific gender norms and a specific feminine image within Disney’s fairy tale model constituted an ideological position taking. Disney made use of the fairytale model in order to embed these gender norms into his films and reaffirm them. We see this in the way in which characters that oppose this natural feminine model are deemed 33

unnatural-just like the female Disney villains-and are therefore deemed evil. As I will argue in the following chapter, not only did this link regarding motherhood, femininity, and womanhood prevail throughout the fairy tale adaptations produced during the classic period, but, as I argue, it is also found within the Mary Poppins adaptation.

Indeed, Disney debuted Mary Poppins in the final years of the classic period. Yet, as I will show in Chapter Three and Four, Mary Poppins, in its original written form, is not a fairy tale and does not fit any of the fairy tale characteristics presented by Zipes, or any of the tales previously adapted by Disney. However, the changes made to the plotline and characters directly correspond with Disney's fairy tale model during the classic period.

These changes allowed Disney to implement his traditional fairy tale model and thus to place the two lead female characters in the film within a good vs evil spectrum. Indeed, as

I will show, the plotline was changed in order to portray a problem that was caused by evil attributes (as classified by Disney’s perception of evil), and evil was eradicated by portraying the reinforcement of the traditional family model alongside the removal of unfeminine characteristics.

Chapter Three- Getting to know Mary Poppins

Mary Poppins as Written by P.L Travers

In order to understand Mary Poppins as she originally appears in the books and understand the significance of the changes that her character underwent, we need to explore her character and demeanor in the series written by P.L. Travers. There are many contributing factors involved in the composition of Marry Poppins' character, firstly, the manner that she is described by the narrator of the story: namely, the adjectives used to describe her and her overall behavior; second, the different relationships Poppins maintains throughout the books: with her employers, the neighbors, everyday people like the butcher or the fisherman, her friends and distant relatives as well as her relationships with animals; third

,her important relationship with the Banks children, which I will discuss at length, and lastly, her special relationship with Bert The Match Man.

In the P.L. Travers novels, Mary Poppins' character is described as beautiful, magical, and mysterious; yet she is also vain, scornful, icy, and often cross —to the point that her angry expressions make some of the characters in the book shudder and wish the ground would swallow them whole. When Mary Poppins first magically appears in the Banks' household, she is literally flown in with the help of the wind. Her appearance is followed by the sound of a big terrifying bang that rocks the entire house. This entrance provides readers with the first inkling that Marry Poppins is no ordinary character. Yet not only is her entrance magical, it is also quite frightening. It is this mixture of magic and fear that sets the tone for the rest of the Mary Poppins series.

Poppins is first described through the eyes of Jane and Michael Banks, the eldest of the

Banks children. They do not initially speak to Poppins or greet her; their description of her

is based on the children gazing at Poppins through their window. Poppins is described as:

"Rather like a wooden Dutch doll", (Travers, p16) her hair is black and shiny, her eyes small, peering and blue, and she is thin and has large hands and feet. While this initial introduction, which includes her terrific and terrifying entrance as well as the description of her appearance, helps to create the image of Mary Poppins, it is her first interaction with

Mrs. Banks that defines and introduces the true character of Mary Poppins.

Mrs. Banks, as the lady of the house, oversees the interviewing and hiring of the household staff as well as the children's new nanny. Thus, she is the first Banks family member to meet and speak to Mary Poppins. When Mrs. Banks first tells Mary Poppins about the children, she is the recipient of what will later become the infamous Mary Poppins disapproving "sniff". This is followed by Mrs. Banks' attempt to conduct a proper job interview by requesting that Poppins provide references. However, this attempt is swiftly rebuked by Poppins. Poppins sternly informs Mrs. Banks that she "never provides references" and that the very notion is "old fashioned"(p17-18)This, in turn, leaves Mrs.

Banks baffled and embarrassed, reversing their roles as employer and employee as well as interviewer and interviewee almost entirely. Mary Poppins makes it clear that she will only accept the position if she finds the children agreeable and if she is satisfied with the situation on hand. It does not appear that Poppins is in any great need of employment or is in any rush to secure her position. Moreover, Poppins has turned the tables by essentially requiring the family to adhere to a trial period where they are expected to meet her standards. Immediately, Mary Poppins asserts herself as dominant and surprisingly unpleasant.

This peculiar introduction is followed by another glimpse of Poppins’ magical abilities.

While Mrs. Banks walks up the household stairs to introduce Poppins to the children, she

doesn't notice she is followed by Poppins who magically slides her way up the banisters.

From this first interaction, we, as readers, sense that there is an interesting shift in whatever power dynamic we perhaps expected to encounter within such a household of a respected banker and his wife- the lady of the house. In the first few moments of meeting the character of Mary Poppins, it is clear that she is no ordinary nanny and no ordinary person. She is opinionated, willful, somewhat rude but also incredibly exciting, mysterious, magical and, most importantly- she is powerful. Even if we do not understand the meaning or the boundaries of her power, this does not diminish our sense that we have been introduced to a powerful character. From what we know of Disney fairy tales, this kind of introduction, alongside Poppins' distinguished and unpleasant mannerisms, does not bode well for

Poppins' prospect as a likable feminine protagonist.

This initial interaction between Mary Poppins and Mrs. Banks, who perceives herself as a respectable lady and employer, can be further understood as a template for Poppins' established behavior to others. In the following chapter, Poppins and Mrs. Banks continue their negotiations over Poppin's employment conditions, her working hours and days off.

Just like in their first conversation, Poppins continues to speak to Mrs. Banks in a stern manner. Poppins does not ask but demands things, while making Mrs. Banks feel insecure and unknowledgeable. For example, in the following excerpt of their interaction Mary

Poppins speaks to Mrs. Banks in a threatening and belittling manner: "Mary Poppins eyed her sternly. 'the best people, ma'am,' she said, 'give every second Thursday, and one till six.

And those I shall take or-' Mary Poppins paused, and Mrs. Banks knew what the pause meant. It meant that if she didn’t get what she wanted Mary Poppins would not stay. 'Very well, very well' said Mrs. Banks hurriedly, though she wished Mary Poppins did not know so very much about the best people than she did herself." (p.25-26). This is a common

theme in most of Poppins' interactions, specifically with individuals she does not care for or consider as friendly acquaintances, including her unsettling interactions with the Banks children. Poppins is very proper and quite formal in her dialogue, adding "Ma'am" "please" and "thank you" whenever necessary, but she is nonetheless brisk and short, to the point of appearing impolite. The words cold, sternly, rudely, and snappily are often used to describe

Mary Poppins' manner of speaking to most of the characters throughout Mary Poppins as well as her infamous "usual sniff of displeasure".

Poppins' brisk attitude and mannerisms may be somewhat amusing to the reader due to its shocking bluntness, but Travers often describes the characters to whom she is speaking as shocked, embarrassed and frightened. Many of the characters do not act in a manner would justify Poppins' behavior towards them. This positions Poppins as a character who does not act in a traditionally feminine manner; she is not kind, she is not soft or intent on pleasing others, nor does she particularly care about how she makes others feel. This creates a certain ambiguity towards Poppins as a character and a dilemma for Disney producers who were adapting this written work. For potential American audience viewers in 1964, who grew up watching beloved animated films like Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping

Beauty and who experienced the entrenchment of traditional gender norms in the post-

WWII period, Poppins doesn't follow any of the norms of expected ideal feminine behavior. Consequentially, this also breaks the familiar "good versus evil" code so pervasive in Disney films. How can the main character in this tale be so unlikeable and unfeminine and not automatically be perceived as a villain? To this day, contemporary readers do not completely understand how they should feel about Poppins. There are many examples of these uncomfortable moments and interactions that further enhance the

confusion surrounding Poppins' character throughout the Mary Poppins series, mostly within her interactions with the Banks children on which I will focus later in this chapter.

Indeed, within the novel, there are numerous examples of Poppins' unsettling behavior.

These rude and noteworthy interactions are perhaps insignificant with respect to the storyline, but they provide a great example of Mary Poppins' stern demeanor, which is anything but gentle or love inducing. One such example is Poppin's interaction with the town butcher. In chapter eight titled "Mrs. Corry", Poppins and the children are in the butcher's shop. The butcher is described as a friendly man who "gazed admiringly at Mary

Poppins" while attempting to joke around with the children and compliment Poppins on her being a "handsome young lady." (p.99) He suddenly looks at Mary Poppins and breaks off mid-sentence, "For he had caught sight of Mary Poppins' face. The expression on it was so awful. And the butcher found himself wishing there was a trap door in the floor of his shop that would open and swallow him up".(p.99) On the one hand, a contemporary feminist reading of this short interaction could perhaps be read as an empowering moment for a female heroine under the male gaze. Perhaps it is a reference to the opinionated New

Women of the early 20th century who wished to break away from normative femininity.

On the other hand, there are many more factors and interactions with others that suggest this is just one of many excellent examples of Poppins' frightening demeanor-- a demeanor that does not appear to coincide with that of Disney's most famously feminine lead female characters of the classic period.

Indeed, within the recurring depiction of Poppins' unapologetically blunt demeanor, there is one characteristic which, especially to Disney audiences and longtime fans, is noticeably problematic and unbecoming of female protagonists - vanity. Poppin's vanity and fondness for looking at herself in the mirror for long periods of time is mentioned many times

throughout the book. Poppins holds herself, her handsome appearance, her fashionable clothes, and accessories in the highest regard. She is incredibly proactive in maintaining her appearance and takes special care to make sure that she is seen and admired. What is most interesting and somewhat jarring about the extent of Poppins' vanity, is her lack of a need for approval. Poppins is not, for one moment, worried about how she is perceived both in terms of her behavior and especially in terms of her physical appearance. She is only worried about making sure that she is seen. She is sure that when people look at her, at her hat, her beautiful parrot umbrella, her coat, her gloves, that they are all as equally pleased and in awe of her as she is of herself. As her depictions in the book state: "Mary

Poppins was very vain and liked to look her best. Indeed, she was quite sure that she never looked anything else….". (p. 25-26)

Another example of Poppins' vanity appears in chapter three, on the way to visit her uncle with the Banks children. As depicted, Mary Poppins stops by a shop window in which she is visible in all three mirrors. What happens next is the embodiment of arrogance. The scene unfolds in the following manner: "Mary Poppins sighed with pleasure, however, when she saw three of herself, each wearing a blue coat with silver buttons and a blue hat to match. She thought it was such a lovely sight that she wished there had been a dozen of her or even thirty. The more Mary Poppins the better" (p. 36) Poppins’ dominant vainness, then, is an especially well-known characteristic that was continuously used by Disney to accentuate evil female characters. The most famous example, going back to Disney's first fairy tale adaptation, is Snow White's evil stepmother- the queen. The evil queen is so obsessed with being the most beautiful woman in the land, that she initiates what becomes a murderous rampage to kill Snow White. Vanity, therefore, is a known trait of evil characters. Through Disney's famous fairy tale adaptation, audiences have learned to fear

and naturally dislike women who aren't humble and who are overly obsessed with their appearance, since it is presented not only as an unredeemable and unattractive quality, but it also serves as a symbol of evil.

Mary Poppins and the Banks children

One of the most interesting aspects in the Poppins series is Mary Poppins' relationship with the Banks children. Though there are five Banks children; Jane, Michael, the baby Banks twins and the new baby who is born later on in the books, most of Poppins' interactions are notably with Jane and Michael. Mary Poppins is never depicted as actually caring for or enjoying her time with the children. Furthermore, the eldest of the Banks children, Jane and Michael, are the recipients of some of Mary Poppins' harshest comments. Nonetheless, they are also the characters who experience the most magical adventures alongside

Poppins. However, every magical adventure is subsequently denied by Poppins and deemed a lie made up by the children, to their great disbelieve and disappointment. This creates a somewhat heartbreaking cycle for the children, and, it might be added, for the readers as well. In many chapters of the book, the children end up witnessing or partaking in a magical adventure alongside Poppins only to be swiftly rebuked and admonished for even suggesting that such a thing ever happened.

As seen in chapter ten, "Full Moon", for instance, the children secretly follow a strange voice that calls to them in the middle of the night. This voice leads them on a magical nighttime adventure to the zoo during the full moon. It is there that they witness all the zoo animals speaking, dancing, and most incredibly, celebrating Mary Poppins' birthday. It is clear in this chapter that Poppins is very much loved by the animals, as they clearly say so to the children. This incredible evening, filled with so much magical wonder, ends, much to the confusion of Jane and Michael, with both waking up in their beds with no memory 41

at all of how they got back home. At first, they believe they just dreamt a strange dream, but, upon confiding in each other, they become certain that the dream about Mary Poppins’ birthday party during the full moon in the zoo really occurred. After the children hesitantly decide to ask Mary Poppins about their experience at the Zoo, she answers them snobbishly and acts as if the evening never happened: "Mary Poppins' eyes popped, "At the zoo? In the middle of the night? Me? A quite orderly person……." "But were you?" Jane persisted.

"I have all I need of zoos in this nursery, thank you" said Mary Poppins uppishly"(p.150).

The children once again feel confused and disheartened, only to suddenly catch a small glimpse of Mary Poppins' snakeskin belt, which was a gift they watched her receive the night before by the hamadryad snake. The words, "A present From the Zoo" are clearly engraved on it. This begs the question, why does she continuously lie to the children?

This same cycle of adventure followed by Poppins proclaiming that the adventure never transpired, appears many times over. Perhaps what is most interesting about this cycle is

Poppin's behavior. The manner in which she answers the children each time while denying their adventures ever happened is quite cold. Moreover, she even appears to take the children's questions as a personal insult against her, leaving the children uncertain about how to act and what to ask. In this next quote from another conversation between Poppins and the children, the children ask Poppins about what they had just witnessed at her uncle

Mr. Wiggs' house, where they all had tea levitating up in the air near the ceiling. Poppins makes it clear that she finds the very insinuation insulting and answers back "Up in the air?" Mary Poppins' voice was high and angry. "what do you mean, pray, up in the air?"……Mary Poppins gave an offended sniff. "But he did!" said Michael. "We saw him!", "What? roll and bob? How dare you!!...... Roll and bob, indeed- the idea!" Michael and Jane looked across Mary Poppins at each other. They said nothing, for they had learned

that is was better not to argue with Mary Poppins, no matter how odd anything seemed…..

Mary Poppins sat between them, offended and silent." (p. 48) Once again, as this quote underscores, Mary Poppins seems to take any hint made about magic and magical adventures as an affront to her character. Notably, as Amy M Davis demonstrates, being easily offended is another classic attribute of the female Disney villain. It seems that Mary

Poppins takes her abilities incredibly seriously, and, almost begrudgingly, shares these moments with the children. It also appears that she does not think very highly of the Banks children. Therefore, when they reference her magical abilities Poppins believes they make her seems silly, or less respectable and is immediately insulted.

Indeed, this notion of Poppins only begrudgingly sharing magical adventures with the children is supported by noting how most of these adventures come about, and how the children become involved. Many of the children's adventures are caused when they are either secretly following Marry Poppins when she is unaware of their presence or when they just happen to be in her presence. That is to say, these adventures belong to Poppins, and they are never created to please the children. Moreover, some of these adventures are not even described as being very fun or at all pleasing to the children themselves. Mary

Poppins never bothers to ask the children whether they would like to experience these strange and magical moments alongside her. Poppins also never explains how these mysterious things happen, leaving the Banks children constantly confused.

Moreover, in the few moments the children witness Poppins openly performing some kind of magic in front of them, it is apparent that Poppins only uses her magic out of spite.

Poppins is uncharacteristically bold and open with her magic use in front of them only when she uses her magic to teach the children a lesson, and mostly to punish them. Once again, what is striking and interesting about Mary Poppins in the book series is that she 43

most closely resembles a Disney villain in her active use of magic and agency, which are used to frighten and control the children. Indeed, Poppins, as she is described in the stories, is inherently unlike any Disney fairy tale lead female character in Disney's fairy tale adaptation during the classic period.

As I have stated above, most of Mary Poppins' adventures with the kids end in the same way, namely, with the children silently questioning whether the events really happened or whether they are simply imagining things. There is no clear message regarding the purpose of these adventures, and throughout these magical events, Mary Poppins' relationship with the children remains even more uncertain and hard to comprehend. Poppins is continuously described as answering the children rudely, undermining their curiosity and confusion. In one instance she is even described as looking at Michael "with something like disgust"

(p.102) when he questions how long until they return to their house. Poppins is quite cynical when answering some of the children's questions, appearing apathetic and bored, but mostly irritated and cross when they dare to intervene in her plans. What is most striking when analyzing Poppins relations to the children is that it does not seem like Mary

Poppins is depicted as actually caring for or enjoying her time with them at all.

Therefore, when trying to understand Mary Poppins, especially the manner in which she is later adapted and portrayed in The Disney film, her relationship with the children is one of the most important aspects that needs to be understood. Poppins does not demonstrate affection for the children, especially not in the way Disney tends to portray feminine affection and care for others. She does not teach the children a moral lesson, and there is no apparent purpose to their adventures nor to her subsequent denial of these adventures.

In the best-case scenario, she teaches the children not to be rude to her, specifically out of their fear of Poppins, not as a lesson in overall propriety. 44

Within this discussion regarding the nature of Poppins relationship with the Banks children, it is important to note that there are, fleeting depicted moments of what can be considered

"warmth" between Poppins and the children, but they appear to be one sided, as they are mostly moments that depict the children's inexplicable attachment to Poppins and their desire for her to stay with them. Interestingly, in the book, there are moments that serve to demonstrate how Mary Poppins does not, in any way, abide by what we may call "maternal instincts". She does not appear to forcefully reject them, but is simply represented as not having them. These moments are brought to our attention when Mary Poppins and Jane are both in the presence of the baby Banks twins. For example, in chapter six, "Bad Tuesday".

On an outing to the park, Mary Poppins urges Michael to fetch an object that was shining in front of them. When Michael returns with what appears to be a compass, a very childish bickering ensues between Mary Poppins and Michael that leads to the following exchange:

"It's mine" he said jealously. "No, mine," said Mary Poppins "I saw It first". "But I picked it up!" He tried to snatch it from her hand, but she gave him such a look that his hand fell to his side". This strange and childish fight continues when Poppins proclaims that this compass is used to go around the world. When Michael exclaims that he doesn't believe her, Mary Poppins holds out the compass in her hands and exclaims "with a curious I- know-better-than-you expression on her face. "You just watch!". Poppins then yells out the word "NORTH". This immediately sends Mary Poppins, Jane Michael, and the baby Banks twins into the bitter icy cold of the North Pole, with blue Ice beneath their feet. It is in this moment that Jane reacts and runs to protect the babies from the cold: "Oh, no!" cried Jane, shivering with cold and surprise, and she rushed to cover the Twins with their Perambulator rug". (p.81-82)

As is depicted, not only does Poppins childishly and stubbornly fight with Michael over the object- the complete opposite of showing self-sacrifice and kindness, but in her 45

condescending need to prove herself right, Poppins is left with little ability or desire to worry about the wellbeing of the children. The ill-effects of this sudden geographical change on the shivering Banks children, and especially the innocent Banks babies, do not appear to register with Poppins. Jane appears to produce that certain "maternal instinct" and care that Marry Poppins is notably missing.

Moreover, the only indication of any sort of affection shown by Poppins towards the Banks children is depicted in the final moments before she leaves them. Poppins leaves on the day the winds change, which was what she had promised the Banks children when they asked her if she'll ever leave them. Poppins does not admit or tell the children that she is leaving, but she does absentmindedly give over her special compass to Michael and lets him keep it for himself, (the very one they were childishly arguing about in chapter six).

Then, when she puts the children to bed, she tells them she is going to town momentarily and that she will be back. The children are very anxious, and they do not believe her. In their eyes, being given a gift by Poppins is something out of the ordinary and completely out of character. Their distrust of Poppins motives is depicted in this telling interaction:

"oh, oh, there must be something wrong! What is going to happen? She has never given me anything before," says Michael to his sister Jane. "Perhaps she was only being nice," said Jane to soothe him, but in her heart, she felt as disturbed as Michael was. She knew very well that Mary Poppins never wasted time on being nice"(p.165).

The children soon discover that they were correct to feel troubled and begin to cry and yell for Poppins when they run to the window and see that Mary Poppins is flying away from their house, once again with the help of the wind and her umbrella. Later, Jane notices that she has also been left a gift by Poppins under her pillow- a framed picture of Poppins, painted by Bert. Poppins also leaves Jane a note saying: "Dear Jane, Michael had the 46

compass, so the picture is for you. Au revoir. Mary Poppins"(p.172). This is an interesting and confusing moment, as Jane noted before, Poppins does not waste her time on being nice. So why does she leave the children she has previously shown no affection towards gifts?

As readers, we never receive an answer. I would point out that perhaps this may just be

Poppins' attempt at being "fair" to both of the oldest children. Michael received a gift that

Mary Poppins may no longer need where she is going, and so Jane should receive a trinket as well. And perhaps these gifts are her way of showing some sort of affection. It is unclear, and that is how it remains. This final moment of goodbye in the book between Poppins and the children emphasizes how difficult it is to paint Poppins as either black or white.

Consequently, when assessing Mary Poppins as she is originally depicted in the book through Disney’s fairy tale model, it becomes clear that not only does Mary Poppins not fit the role of the lovable female protagonist, her characteristics are more similar to that of the typical female villain. Her lack of traditional feminine qualities, within Disney's good versus evil spectrum, situate Poppins alongside Disney's famous villains. Poppins doesn’t embody any of the attributes of the likable fairy tale protagonist, not in her femininity and not in her demeanor. She is unequivocally not the angel in the house, though she is beautiful and admired by others. Moreover, she is, as Davis points out in relation to the common characteristics of Disney villains, and as I have previously demonstrated, easily offended and incredibly vain, and she is also very powerful and active in using her powers to control any given situation.

However, Mary Poppins cannot be so easily identified as "evil", as her actions are not evil per se; she does not actively attempt to hurt others, and though the children fear her, they also love her dearly. Consequently, this schematic distinction between good versus evil 47

appears un-applicable to Mary Poppins' character, as she is incredibly confusing and hard to read. However, what is made clear is that both P.L Travers, and her character Marry

Poppins, are distinctly aware of how "unfeminine" Poppins' behavior is perceived. The following analysis of her relationship with Bert makes her even more ambiguous as a character due to the clear distinction between ladylike and unladylike behavior. It also becomes quite clear that Poppins understands this distinction.

Mary Poppins & Bert the Match Man

The harsh undertones of the different relationships between Mary Poppins and other characters, as well as what I argue is P.L Travers' awareness of an existing feminine, ladylike image, is demonstrated by Mary Poppins' surprising relationship with Bert-

Herbert Alfred- the Match Man. This relationship is completely different and unlike any other relationship Poppins maintains in the book, mostly due to its romantic and flirtatious nature and Poppin's incredibly uncharacteristic behavior. Poppins' behavior and the words used to describe her conduct in this chapters with Bert, are different from what we have come to expect throughout the rest of the book.

On her day off from the Banks children, Poppins goes out alone to meet Bert, a match man who sells matches on the street. Bert is also a painter; he paints beautiful pictures on the pavements of the busy streets and collects money for his creations in his hat. In chapter two "The Day Out", we witness one of Poppins and Bert's meetings. Right away, Mary

Poppins' behavior is completely different from any other interaction so far and any interaction that follows. With Bert, Poppins is described as speaking softly, admiringly and brightly, smiling and acting "Ladylike". This is the first and only interaction in the book where Poppins is as easily loveable and agreeable as the lead female Disney characters I have previously described in Chapter Two. 48

From their initial interaction in the book, it is clear that their day out together is a common occurrence. On Poppins' regular day off, Poppins and Bert regularly go out for tea and raspberry-jam cakes. Moreover, Bert is described as always paying for this shared outing.

However, in this chapter, Bert shows Poppins that he didn't make enough money to pay for their tea and cakes on that particular day. This makes both Poppins and Bert sad. It is a moment that is very unlike Poppins, as she goes out of her way to make Bert happy once she sees that he too is upset by this news. Poppins even declares that she doesn't want tea or cake at all, although this is a lie. Poppins proclaims to be uninterested in either tea or cake to help Bert feel better about being unable to provide for both of them. This interaction is very out of character for Poppins. She is neither cold nor brisk with Bert; in fact, she is the very opposite- nice, kind and uncharacteristically humble.

Poppins continues to speak with Bert and admires his art wholeheartedly. In complete contrast to how she behaves in front of the children and in front of Mrs. Banks, Poppins attempts to consistently make Bert feel admired and cheerful. What is clear from this chapter is that although Poppins acts humbly and perhaps even coyly in their shared moments together, Bert is not unfamiliar with her magical abilities. Though Bert is aware that Poppins has a certain amount of power and agency, Poppins does not use her powers to gain any sort of control over Bert nor to punish him. She is clearly making informed choices in her manner of behavior, her sudden, ultra-feminine performance is very different to the way she usually acts to others. This is especially important as it does point to the understanding and even acceptance of certain norms and what is considered "ladylike" to society. But it also shows that Poppins' behavior is based on her ability to make choices regarding the way she wants to be perceived by others.

Although there are no more romantic outings of this sort portrayed in the book, and no additional information is given regarding the nature of their relationship, this chapter helps portray a completely different Poppins. From the perspective of the good versus evil

Disney spectrum, these apparent differences might further solidify an uneasy notion that

Poppins is actively cold to the Banks children and other characters, as well as uncharacteristically but intentionally kind to Bert, therefore changing herself, and using her knowledge regarding femininity, to gain control of a given situation. However, no answers are given regarding why she behaves the way she does. The only thing the reader is told is that " [N]obody ever knew what Mary Poppins felt about it, for Mary Poppins never told anything"(p. 24).

These important details of Poppins’ character and the different relationships she maintains are important for understanding her ability, or in this case, inability, to fit into the conceptual world of the Disney fairy tale model and its conceptions of femininity. Within

Disney's fairy tale model Mary Poppins is neither traditionally feminine nor easy to love- mostly due to how “unfeminine” she is. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why Disney wanted the rights to this particular story so badly, and why he attempted to convince P.L

Travers to sell him the rights to the story for so many years. In the film Saving Mr. Banks,

Walt Disney is depicted as wanting the rights because he had made a promise to his daughter when he saw her reading the book by P.L travers. However, within the fairy tale model found in Disney's classic period, not only did Mary Poppins not fit into this model, she does not conform to any of the gender norms Disney had previously embedded within his films., Mary Poppins therefore needed to be transformed.

Mary Poppins- Negotiating Gender Norms

Examining the manner gender norms are portrayed within Mary Poppins' character and attempting to determine whether the original Mary Poppins character was based on the cultural impact of the Woman Movement and its subsequent takes on femininity, and where this character stands on a "feminist spectrum", is a difficult task. This is due to the very contradicting nature of Poppins herself. Poppins, as a character, was created in the years following the different phases of the women's movement in Britain. The original character does not appear to actively voice any thoughts regarding ideals of femininity, though I argue she is a product of changing norms around womanhood. Her character is seen walking a fine line, which includes, on the one hand, an understanding of ideal, traditional, femininity (Her interactions and mannerisms with Bert are a good example of this, as well as her obsession with her beauty and appearance ) however, on the other hand, Poppins exudes a great amount of agency when it comes to deciding whether or not to adhere to these feminine norms of behavior. For example, though her physical appearance remains incredibly important to her, she does not concern herself with being kind or caring to others, and she is most definitely not submissive.

Just like many of the women who grew up in the wake of the Woman Movement and the social and political gains this movement allowed women to enjoy in the early 20th century,

Poppins is represented as enjoying the fruits of women’s changing social role, specifically outside of the limiting domestic sphere. She is not a mother or a wife—namely, she is single, though she is beautiful with several potential suitors and admirers. She is a working woman in a domestic field, though she does not appear to fear unemployment- entering and leaving employment as she pleases.

What is most striking about Poppin's character within the novel is the amount of agency and choice she is depicted as having. While Poppins' age is not divulged, Mary Poppins is perceived to be handsome and of some financial means. As stated before, she buys herself hats, gloves and always looks very fashionable. And while we know little of her relationship with Bert, we can still assume that she is a single woman. Nothing in her manner and decision making appears to be forced or out of her control. Indeed, throughout the book, she is the character that is depicted as having the most control over her decision- making process.

Poppins’ tale, though no personal details are divulged, is that of an extraordinarily powerful woman, providing extraordinary adventures, in very ordinary circumstances. She understands the gendered roles and norms within the society that she is a part of, but she appears to only partially engage with these feminine norms. Poppins' engagement with these norms is out of choice not necessity or fear of having her womanhood questioned, unlike many women in the early 20h century who faced scrutiny for their rejection of femininity. Therefore, it may be stated that Mary Poppins' character and plot timeline embody certain aspects of the cultural change established by the Woman Movement.

However, Mary Poppins' character, appears to exist separately from that of women in the early 20th century who faced the constant need to negotiate their femininity and their claim womanhood.

Given this analysis, it is somewhat difficult to summarize Mary Poppins as she appears in the book. On the one hand, there is something magical, mysterious and compelling about her and her self-confidence. It is that same magic and sense of wonder that fascinates the

Banks children. She is also very cheeky in her matter-of-fact way. On the other hand, there is no denying that there is something somewhat cruel and frightening about how Mary 52

Poppins chooses to behave to others. Mary Poppins is not easy to love nor are her actions to others easy to defend. With no background and no other explanations of how Mary

Poppins became who she is, and an even less clear picture of who and what, specifically, she really is, Mary Poppins remains a conundrum. One might even ask what her role within this story ultimately is, as, as I have stated, there is no apparent "salvation process" lead by

Poppins to "save" or "correct" the Banks family.

Furthermore, in the book, Poppins' decision to be a nanny is portrayed and understood as part of her no-nonsense decision-making process, but no other reason is given for her sudden entry into the Banks household. By contrast, in her romanticized Disney depiction, her choice to take on a role as nanny is portrayed as an extension of women's role as caregiver, with a natural maternal love for children and a natural knack for raising them.

More importantly, as I will now show, in her Disney depiction, Poppins, while still appearing to exercise choice and agency, is portrayed by Disney as a woman who became a nanny as a part of her mission to restore the order of the patriarchal family model, where the gender roles are clear and defined.

Mary Poppins in the 1964 Film Adaptation

The 1964 film adaptation of Mary Poppins depicts the eponymous character with many of the same attributes as the original: she is a very strict, no-nonsense type of nanny. This is something that remains true throughout the movie despite major plotline changes. Yet, throughout the movie, Poppins' strictness is almost always followed up by tender moments with the children, where a softer and more loveable side of Poppins prevails. Moreover, the films plotline has been modified significantly in order to embed the fairy tale model, as presented in Chapter One. This embedded model, portrays Mary Poppins as a lovable,

feminine protagonist that has come to the Banks household to reaffirm the neglected and dysfunctional traditional family model.

It is interesting to note that because there is no narrator in this movie, as many fairy tales do tend to have, the audience can only rely only on Poppins's actions and watch as the plot unfolds to determine her character. There is no mention of any of the words that were used over and over in the books to describe Poppins and reinforce the key elements in her character and behavior from the original book. Yet, what becomes clear within this cinematic adaptation, is the use of certain moments within the film, and changes of Poppins character and overall plotline, to help establish the audience's perception and understanding of Poppins and attempt to preemptively clear any questions audience member might have about her motivations. Therefore, this chapter will provide a deeper understanding of the adaptation process and how Disney attempted to "handle" Poppins' original character within the fairy tale model. As, as I have shown, she is a hybrid of what was up until this point very clear, Disney provided distinctions of characteristics between good versus evil, heroine versus villain, feminine versus unfeminine. Given how easily the original Poppins could have fallen into the Disney villain model I have previously outlined, it is easier to understand why she had to undergo many changes.

Mary Poppins- From Text to Silver Screen

Within the Disney Mary Poppins adaptation, it is difficult to attempt to present a schematic chapter-to-scene comparison, as the film adaptation deviates quite significantly from the original plotline in the book. Nevertheless, I will depict the noticeable and important differences, in the order they appear in the film, in order to portray the schematic way the new plotline and changes made to Mary Poppins' character were constructive and necessary

in order to ensure that Mary Poppins plotline and her character fit within the Disney fairy tale model.

The first important deviation from the book regarding both the plot and Poppins' character occurs within the first few minutes of the movie. This change addresses and portrays the dysfunctionality within the Banks family and sets the tone for Poppins' entrance. In this first scene, Jane and Michael hand their father, Mr. Banks, an advertisement they themselves have written depicting what they deem are the most important attributes in a future nanny. This, of course, comes in the form of a song. The list, as written by the children, contains attributes and demands such as a cheery disposition, rosy cheeks, no warts, able to play games, kind and witty, very sweet and fairly pretty. They also request that their new nanny take them on outings and give treats, sing songs and bring sweets, that she never be cross or cruel, and most importantly, love them as a son and daughter. The children innocently sing their song, promising not to give their new nanny, whoever she may be, any cause to hate them, as long as she won't scold or dominate them. Once their song is finished, Mr. Banks, much to the disappointment of his children, cruelly rips their written advertisement into pieces and throws it in the fireplace in front of them. This scene, as I have stated, aims to portray the dysfunctional and unpleasant dynamic within the Banks household, specifically between Mr. Banks and his children. It is also made clear to the audiences that the children are very unhappy and have previously run away from their former nanny, much to the anger of Mr. Banks.

Following this scene, Mr. Banks sets to interview new applicants for the vacant nanny position. On this very day, Mary Poppins enters the Banks household. When Poppins first appears in the Banks household, with the help of the wind and her umbrella, the Banks children are seen watching her arrive from the upstairs window. It is at this moment that

Michal asks Jane "perhaps she's a witch?" to which Jane replies " Of course not, witches have brooms" (Walt Disney studios & Stevenson,1964). This is a very interesting distinction, as a witch within Disney's fairy tale films is almost always the villain. Right away Disney is signaling to the audience that this is not the case. This also presents the fine lined distinction between a powerful evil witch and caring nanny, upon which Poppins' character seems to have been further developed by Disney.

What is peculiarly noticeable in this scene of Poppins' entrance, is that when Mary Poppins appears in the Banks household, she holds a copy of the children's advertisement even though Mr. Banks ripped it into pieces and threw it in the fireplace. When Mary Poppins enters the household, she speaks only with Mr. Banks, as Mrs. Banks has been noticeably removed from her role as the one who interviews the nannies due to her failure to hire a good nanny for the children. Mary Poppins addresses Mr. Banks very firmly and addresses the "qualifications" straight away. Poppins reads from the noticeably patched together piece of paper that has clearly been magically reassembled after Mr. Banks ripped it apart and threw it away, much to the astonishment of Mr. Banks. Very like her book "self", the film Poppins does nothing to assure Mr. Banks that he is not crazy; on the contrary, Poppins makes Mr. Banks further feel like he is crazy for not understanding how she has acquired his children's letter by asking him, "Are you ill??" when she notices how astonished he appears while looking at the very paper he threw away.

However, instead of appearing mean due to her indifference to his confused predicament,

(as she was in her interactions in the book with Mrs. Banks), this scene, and Poppins herself, are portrayed and perceived as highly amusing. This is mostly due to two elements.

The first is the contrast between how seriously Mr. Banks takes himself and how ridiculously Mary Poppins' entrance with his children's letter causes him to act. The second 56

is the way in which Mr. Banks has been introduced to the audience and how Mr. Banks acts towards Mrs. Banks, the children and the servants in the house before Mary Poppins' arrival. As I have stated above, in the first few minutes of the film, before Poppins' entrance, the film aims to show the dysfunctionality within the Banks household. Mr.

Banks berates Mrs. Banks harshly for her inability to hire a good nanny who will educate the children and teach them how to behave respectably. He tells her he will have to do it himself to ensure the hiring process is done properly. Mr. Banks demands much respect and, in the process, belittles Mrs. Banks and acts condescendingly. As I have also stated previously, he berates his children and carelessly rips apart the paper that holds the song they worked hard on,. Thus, when Mary Poppins enters and causes Mr. Banks to act and feel as if he has gone mad, this paints Poppins in a heroic light. She is the one person, specifically the one female in the house, he cannot belittle, and she is much more powerful than he is, even if he is her official employer. Here, her agency and power are celebrated and are strictly used for "good".

What makes this scene even more amusing is the feeling that we, as viewers, are privy to a secret, since we witness how the torn letter reaches Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins gives nothing away and watches straight-faced and apathetically as Mr. Banks retraces his steps and acts out how he tore the children's letter apart. The audience, however, feels no confusion, but amusement, at the treatment Mr. Banks receives from her. This is a very different experience to that of reading about Mary Poppins in the original book, as, in this movie, even if the audience doesn’t have all the answers regarding Mary Poppins origins, she is still humanized and exhibits values with which audiences may relate. In this instant, we witness, if only for a moment, good triumphing over evil and the kind of retribution someone who acts in a villainies manner deserves.

Distinctly, and once again in the first few minutes of the film, the tone of the film is set, as

Poppins is swiftly and purposefully positioned by Disney as the one fighting for the side of the good. She is also the implementer of immediate comic relief and is, therefore, providing the audience with yet another reason to love her and enjoy her presence. As the scene continues, Poppins reads the letter the Banks children wrote aloud, and addresses each of their requests. In a true-to-the-book fashion, Mary Poppins' vain attitude is shown when she answers "obviously" to the request that she has rosy cheeks. However, given the humoristic nature of this scene with Mr. Banks, this reply does not reflect negatively upon

Poppins' character. As we will continue to see, Disney masks Poppins' undesirable traits such as vainness with the help of humor. Furthermore, Poppins indicates that she is kind but extremely firm and exclaims, "I am never cross" once again deviating from her original depiction in the books. Indeed, as I have outlined above, Poppins appears to be cross in many, if not most, parts of the book.

This initial interaction between Poppins and Mr. Banks is a good introduction to the Disney version of Mary Poppins, and to the tone the film aims to set, as it helps paint Mary Poppins in a new light. She is still strict, matter of fact, and overly polite to the point of being cold and somewhat rude, just as she is in the books. But she also has the audience's immediate approval as she is positioned against a character who is perceived as mean and disconnected. Mary Poppins' attitude towards Mr. Banks is not perceived as rude or harsh.

Rather, she becomes a champion for those whom Mr. Banks has hurt or offended only moments ago, as she is the one who gives him a taste of his own medicine. This change within the plot is crucial to the way in which we understand and feel towards Mary Poppins.

By adding a family conflict, with the initial focus on Mr. Banks' character and his faults, the Disney writers diverge quite significantly from the original text. Moreover, they adhere 58

to the fairy tale model that continuously uses dysfunctionality within the family unit as a common, relatable, theme. It is worth mentioning that in the book, Mr. Banks was hardly mentioned at all, while in the film he is given a meaningful role that helps offset Mary

Poppins' character as well as plays a crucial part in creating an interesting character arc.

With Poppins’ help, he will, eventually, experience his own redemption and re-affirm his place as a father and husband.

The film’s excellent comedic timing and script help to frame Poppins’ blunt and ever- present attitude as funny and entertaining. Indeed, Poppins’ harshness is almost comical when combined with the film's overall theme. The very nature of her actions that caused readers to recoil from Poppins is now what makes her so lovable and funny. As I stated earlier, perhaps the most drastic change, however, is her impact on the Banks family in general. In the film, Mary Poppins is not just a strict and magical nanny, but rather she is the driving force for the ideological change in Mr. Bank's treatment of his children as well as in Mrs. Banks neglectful and absent parenting as a mother, on which I will focus on in

Chapter Four. It is much more difficult to question Poppins’ method and overall behavior when the results of her actions cause such a positive change that reflects and promotes family values above all else. Mary Poppins doesn’t just arrive of her own free will - she is needed in the Banks family—indeed, she has to fix their broken family relationship, which we witness from the get-go, before she can leave.

Due to this critical change in the plot, and the focus on the Banks family as the catalyst for

Poppins' arrival, she is shown almost exclusively within the Banks household, interacting with family members, house servants, and Bert. Every relationship that is shown has a purpose and that purpose is to make the audience fall more and more in love with Poppins.

While many of the scenes of the movie are conceptually based on chapters from the book, 59

there are many new scenes, such as the introduction depicted above, and new elements, added to the plotline and to Poppins' character that represent the strategic deviation from the original plot and the original Mary Poppins.

One such element, added to Poppins' character, and noticeably very different from the original Poppins and yet typical for Disney lead female fairy tale protagonists, is Mary

Poppins' lovely singing voice and her tendency to break out in song whilst speaking to the children. Within this film Mary Poppins often sings to the kids. Poppins sings happy, cheerful songs as well as songs that are quieter and more soothing, reminiscent of lullabies.

Alongside this change, Poppins is much more open and willing to share her magic with the children. In her first scene with the children, a scene made up entirely by Disney writers,

Mary Poppins teaches them a game, which is called "Tidy Up the Nursery". When the children are skeptical, Mary Poppins breaks out in the first of many famous songs from the movies' soundtrack called "A spoonful of sugar". Poppins explains that "In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and….. SNAP! The Job's a

GAME!". This scene is very reminiscent of other beloved classic scenes found in many other Disney fairy tale adaptations, such as Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, where the female protagonists, with the help of their magical animal helpers, sing, dance, clean, sew clothes or prepare food. While Poppins sings to the children, she demonstartes how with a snap of her fingers the objects and toys she is pointing at immediately start to organize and tidy themselves. The children try this out and are amazed to find out that they have the same ability. Poppins and the children continue to tidy the nursery together, laughing and smiling at each other while Poppins continues to sing, much to their delight, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down… in the most delightful way". The scene comes to an end when Mary Poppins notices that the game has stirred a commotion and now all the

furniture and toys in the nursery are mostly dancing along and have also trapped Michael

Banks inside a closet. Mary Poppins thanks all the objects in the room but they continue to dance; they do not pay any attention to Poppins, and so Poppins returns to her authoritarian demeanor and sternly yells out "WHEN YOUV'E QUITE FINISHED" and immediately all the magic comes to an end. She looks pointedly at the children, tells them to put on their coats, and they all leave the house together. Though this moment portrays a forceful reaction from Poppins, it is once again portrayed in a comedic manner the produces a comical relief rather than fear. (Walt Disney studios & Stevenson,1964).

In the following scene, the children go out to the park with Mary Poppins and meet Bert.

Bert in the film still makes a living from drawing pictures on the pavement but now he is also a street artist who plays music as well as a chimney sweeper. As I stated, in the book

Poppins goes out to meet Bert alone while they enjoy a date together with tea and cake. In the book, their relationship has romantic undertones and shows Mary Poppins acting very different from her usual strict, cold and to-the-point self. In the Disney movie, while Bert is still clearly in awe of Poppins as she smiles flirtatiously back to him as well, there are two important differences- the first regards the participants of this outing, the second difference is Poppins’ demeanor.

The first noticeable difference in this scene is that Poppins does not intentionally go out alone on a private date with Bert but rather brings the children alongside her, creating a nice, almost family-like, dynamic. This is an interesting shift, although Poppins is not married to Bert, and the Banks children aren't technically her children, Disney was still able to create this clear and happy family-like dynamic.

While most fairy tales imply a romantic happily ever after, as I previously stated, in most cases, we do not get to witness the protagonist and her romantic interest live a shared life as a part of a growing family unit. This is also interesting because up until now, most family units in Disney fairy tales were shown as dysfunctional due to the death or absence of one or both parental figures. The image created by Disney in this scene is that of a functioning family unit that is also able to maintain the thrill of romance. Therefore, with the help of this scene Disney successfully portrays the plausibility of marital bliss and a traditional family dynamic.

The second noticeable difference in this scene is Poppins’ demeanor. Although it's clear that Poppins is happy to see Bert and that there are still romantic undertones in their relationship, seeing Poppins smiling, laughing, singing and enjoying her time is not that unusual from the pleasant manner she has just enjoyed tidying the nursery with the children only moments before. She even berates Bert in her casual stern manner at a few opportune moments, marking him as no different from all the other characters she has interacted with.

This new Poppins, with her feminine attributes, and soft pleasing demeanor, is much more reminiscent of the angel in the house and her fellow lead female Disney characters.

Just as they did in the book, but now all together, Poppins, Bert, Jane and Michael jump into one of Bert's pictures with the help of Mary Poppins' magic. Once in the park, the children decide to run along and see the fair. This leaves Bert and Poppins alone to enjoy their time alone together. Bert and Poppins share a walk in the park where they dance together and sing to each other. The setting is very romantic. Bert starts his song and is later on joined by the animals in the park. This song is dedicated to Poppins and how wonderful it is to be in her company:

" Oh it's a jolly holiday with Mary

Mary makes your heart so light

When the day is gray and ordinary

Mary makes the sun shine bright

Oh happiness is blooming all around her

The daffodils are smiling at the dove

When Mary holds your hand, you feel so grand

Your heart starts beating like a big brass band

It's a jolly holiday with Mary

No wonder that it's Mary that we love"

This scene between Bert and Poppins is dedicated almost entirely to express how beloved

Mary Poppins is by Bert, by the animals in the park and by anybody who is around her due to how wonderful Poppins makes them feel. The theme of categorically loving Mary

Poppin is maintained throughout the movie. Loving Mary Poppins is a theme that is also maintained within the book. However, in the book, it seems that those who love Poppins most are either the children, who are essentially too obsessed with Poppins to notice that they are unloved in return or Poppins' close friends and animals. In the film, the audience is also free to love Poppins, as it is easy to love her. She exudes all of the attributes that are deemed lovable and expected to be found in the likable Disney protagonist. The only person in the film who appears to dislike Poppins and her effect on the Banks children and the Banks household overall, is Mr. Banks himself. But even Mr. Banks is aware that the monumental positive changes within the house are all due to Poppins' magical presence.

As I have stated in Chapter Two, similarly to the manner the good, lead, female character in Disney fairy tales is offset by the characteristics and actions of the Disney villain,

Poppins' sensitivity and ability to care for the others, especially the Banks children, is offset by the dysfunctional Banks family dynamic. Specifically, Mr. Banks' uncaring and mean demeanor alongside Mrs. Banks frivolousness and disconnect from her own children's emotional state. The dysfunctional Banks family dynamic is not only used to offset

Poppin's character, it is additionally portrayed, in accordance with the fairy tale model, as the tale's main problem that needs to be solved.

The Fairy Tale Model- Problem and Problem Solving

While in fairy tales, this dysfunctional family model is used mostly as a setting for the story and the problems that arise, in the Mary Poppins adaptations the dysfunctionality of the

Banks family appears to be the main problem that needs to be solved. Just as Zipes suggests, this shift in the Poppins storyline portrays a relatable, human problem. Although

Poppins brings many fantastical and magical elements, the solution to this problem is found in the reevaluation and subsequent correcting of human behavior. As I will show in the following chapter, with my analysis of Mrs. Banks' character, Poppins is the embodiment of what Mrs. Banks is currently lacking and serves as the necessary feminine presence needed to soften and morally guide the patriarch of the family.

As is shown in the end of the film, the designated time for Poppins' departure, coincides with the moment the miraculous resolution to the Banks' family's dysfunctionality, is reached. The Banks children are upset that Poppins is leaving, but quickly get sidetracked from their sadness when their father returns home from the bank, surprisingly happy and excited. Mr. Banks has seemingly, with Poppin's help, come to an understanding that his true priorities lie with his family and his children, and he is miraculously no longer upset or cold to them, as he realizes that his children need and miss him. Mr. Banks takes the

children out to fly their kite. Noticing this sudden change, Mrs. Banks happily joins them, while they run to the Park.

This closing scene ends with us witnessing the Banks family run-along happily together while Mary Poppins emotionally watches on from a distance, a symbol of how much she cared for the children and how much she will miss them. Suddenly, her Parrot umbrella begins to speak to her: "That's gratitude for you, didn't even say goodbye……. Look at them. You know, they think more of their father than they do if you." But Poppins answers:

"That's as is should be." This short interaction emphasizes Mary Poppins’ true opinion regarding the patriarchal family model and how important the patriarch is within this model. The conversation continues as follows: " Well, don't you care?" asks the Parrot.

"Practically perfect people never permit sentiment to muddle their thinking." She replies while looking emotionally at the children with their parents, almost longingly. The parrot exclaims that he doesn’t believe her "You don’t fool me a bit…. I know exactly how you feel about these children". When he tries to speak further on the subject Mary Poppins shuts his beak so he can't continue to talk. She opens her umbrella and lets the wind guide her up into the sky and away from the Banks household. (Walt Disney studios & Stevenson,1964).

Within this final, yet defining, scene, Disney provides the audience with answers that were never divulged in the books regarding Poppins' true feelings for the Banks children.

Poppins, as well as the entire plotline, has been subjugated to a new narrative, one that not only befits a Disney fairy tale model, but, even more importantly, helps audiences place

Poppins and her newly defined femininity within the good versus evil spectrum. As I have shown, and as part of this new narrative, each character has been given a new purpose and enhanced characteristics to fit this ideological narrative. Poppins, alongside her kindness

and her noticeably softer demeanor, has also been given the ultimate feminine traits- natural maternal instincts and a longing for family and children.

In addition, although Poppins remains a character with a great amount of agency, as a result of the changes made to her character, her likability is no longer questionable. Moreover, her natural femininity, as I have shown, is greatly emphasized. Though she remains a single woman, she is not the image of an unlovable spinster, but rather a beautiful woman who is admired by many. Moreover, she is also not the image of the frustrated housewife, she is incredibly powerful and independent. However, in this final scene, Poppins, with the strategic and final exhibition of great emotion, helps Disney portray the overall importance of family, as well as the emotional gratification and natural feminine longing for motherhood. Indeed, Poppins has been given an important role by Disney- she is the savior of dysfunctional families; she understands the importance of her role and is committed to it. When Poppins emotionally watches the Banks family happy and reunited, this moment reaffirms what Disney has been portraying all along- the importance of family over all else and the satisfaction of motherhood. Not even Poppins, with her power and abilities, can name a greater feeling of satisfaction than being a part of a loving family unit.

Therefore, as Poppins is portrayed as the missing, natural feminine and maternal touch missing within the Banks household and is thus the good, lovable, feminine protagonist, this raises the question: How does Mrs. Banks fit, as a female character and as a mother, within this fairy tale model? As Poppins has been adapted by Disney and presented as the good protagonist, where does Mrs. Banks' character lie upon the good versus evil spectrum? and how was she portrayed by Disney? In the following chapter I will attempt to answer this question by providing a review of Mrs. Banks, as she was depicted in the

books as well as in the Disney film adaptations and depict the significant changes made to her character.

Chapter Four- Mrs. Banks

Mrs. Banks as written by P.L Travers

Mrs. Banks, in her original debut in the book by P.L Travers, is the quintessential lady of an upper-middle-class family. She is rich enough to have her house looked after and cleaned by the help, namely, a cook as well as a live-in nanny. She is a constant yet minor presence, mostly appearing in her hiring and then dealings with Mary Poppins. It is unclear, as a reader, where she goes and what she does with the rest of her free time, as there is no mention of her working. Moreover, her first name is never divulged. Mrs. Banks takes herself very seriously and cares about how others perceive her, even as the other characters are shown to perceive her as foolish. Importantly, despite her frivolity, Mrs. Banks is described as caring greatly for her children. With her hired help surrounding her and due to her lack of sharpness, she remains a somewhat blissfully ignorant character.

Indeed, Mrs. Banks is not a character that stands out on her own in this book, and her character is established mostly through her interaction with others, specifically Mr. Banks,

Mary Poppins, and the Banks children. The first relationship we witness in Chapter One is her relationship with Mr. Banks and their funny interaction. The dynamic between Mr. and

Mrs. Banks is an interesting one, and it is quite humorous. It is clear that Mr. Banks perceives his wife as somewhat silly, while Mrs. Banks appears to understand that her husband takes himself very seriously and that in turn makes him, at times, amusing to her.

In this first interaction, we see the Banks couple discuss the need to hire a new nanny. Mrs.

Banks is worried and unsure of how she will be able to find a new nanny for the children

in such a short amount of time, and she seeks Mr. Banks' help. She asks him, "What am I to do?". Mr. Banks seems very unconcerned, even amused, when he exclaims the following, "If it were me- I mean I- well, I should get somebody to put it in the Morning

Paper, the news that Jane and Michael and John and Barbara Banks require the best possible

Nannie at the lowest possible wage at once". Mr. Banks then goes on to say, "Then I should wait and watch for the Nannies to queue up outside the front gate, and I should get very cross with them for holding up the traffic" (Travers, p14-15). Mr. Banks, of course, is being quite cynical and amused, but Mrs. Banks is truly concerned since she needs a new nanny for her children immediately. Thus, she does go on to write an actual letter to the papers.

In another interaction between the married couple, Mr. Banks is described rummaging around the house looking for his bag. When he finally finds his bag, not in its usual place, he asks in exasperation and anger who moved his bag from its correct location. Mr. Banks goes about the house "[a]s though he were delivering a sermon 'My bag is always kept in one place. Here. On the umbrella stand. Who put it in the study?' He roared". To his surprise and displeasure, Mrs. Banks corrects him by telling him that he himself is the one who moved his own bag. It is a curious moment of bravery by Mrs. Banks, who doesn’t back down to her husband's arrogant need to place the blame on somebody else. It is then made clear, though, that perhaps this is less bravery and more of an example of Mrs. Banks inability to stop and contemplate before she speaks. Almost immediately after Mrs. Banks attempts to answer her husband, we witness the following description that illuminates Mrs.

Banks inner thoughts and regret: "Mr. Banks gave her such a hurt look that she wished she had been less tactless and had said she had put it there herself." (p164-165). This may also be seen as an example of another side of Mrs. Banks, a more sensitive side. She sees that

she has caused Mr. Banks, who considers himself to be a very dignified and respected man, to feel embarrassed, and she regrets this.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Banks are somewhat silly characters, in that their interactions with each other are objectively amusing to the reader. Their depiction appears to reflect acceptable gender norms of the early 20th century in their respective roles outside and inside the house.

Mr. Banks works at a bank and provides for his family and Mrs. Banks is a society lady who takes care of the household by hiring servants. However, their interaction seems lighthearted and mostly funny. The manner that Mr. and Mrs. Banks speak to each other, provides a warm and amusing sense of familiarity.

Additionally, Mrs. Banks relationship with her children is also an interesting study. It is made clear, a few times throughout the book, that she loves her children. In the first chapter it is even said that when she and Mr. Banks planned their shared future, he gave her a choice, she could have a nice, big, clean and comfortable house or four children, but not both. Mrs. Bank chose to have her four children (who later on become five children, much to Mr. Banks' amusing astonishment). The Banks still maintain a respectable lifestyle in a house with servants but had Mrs. Banks decided to have fewer children her house would have been much grander. For a character that clearly cares what others think of her (as is shown in her interaction with Poppins), her emphasized choice, to have more children instead of a nicer house, is quite significant. However, Mrs. Bank walks a fine line in terms of readers' approval. Mrs. Banks is seen navigating between being a somewhat frivolous society lady who is not very present in her children's lives and being portrayed as a loving mother, who will happily choose to have more children rather than living in a finer house.

Emphasizing Mrs. Banks caring yet frivolous character in one of her depictions in the book,

Mrs. Banks is described sitting in the drawing-room with her feet up, while Mary Poppins 69

is with the baby Banks twins. When the twin babies begin to cry, even though they are with

Poppins who is paid to look after them, Mrs. Banks runs into the room to try and comfort them. It is made clear that even her two twin babies think their mother is silly because she thinks she understands why they are crying. They know that she doesn't understand, but they love their mother and so they calm down in order to appease her. This moment in the book is most interesting due to the reversal of roles. The baby Banks twins understand that their mother doesn't have the ability to understand them, and they can see that she is worried for them- so they humor her and calm themselves down out of love for her. As readers, we are privy to the babies thoughts about Mrs. Banks, and so when baby John witness his mother's distress over his crying he stops crying, watches his mother and is described thinking as follows: "he was truly fond of his mother and remembered what was due to her.

It was not her fault, poor women, that she always said the wrong thing. It was just, he reflected, that she did not understand". Mrs. Banks is saved from any true embarrassment as she is not privy to hear how foolish, yet loving, her son perceives her to be. But readers ultimately sympathize with John and can't help but agree with his perception of his mother as she happily turns to Poppins and proudly exclaims "There, you see, Mary Poppins!

They're quite good again. I can always comfort them. Quite good, quite good," in what can only be described as an attempt to show-up Mary Poppins. (p. 124-125)

Interestingly, Mrs. Banks, though she does take pride in her relationship with her children, doesn’t seem to have any effect on the storyline, nor on any of her children. Her duality-- as a present yet notably absent mother—does not appear to be depicted in an attempt to present the Banks family as dysfunctional nor as an attempt to present what the Banks children are missing in their lives- a feminine maternal figure. Neither is her absence an attempt to imply that she purposely does not care for her own children and is, therefore,

unnaturally unfeminine. She is mostly a character that is used to provide readers with an introductory interaction with Mary Poppins. Due to her somewhat obtuse nature, she is not the recipient of any harsh criticism regarding her lack of presence or authority. Nor does the book imply that she should be. Her foolishness is amusing at times, and, moreover, her lack of sharpness and her failing attempts of exuding a sense of power and self-confidence is useful as an offset to Mary Poppins' character. Mostly, it appears that her character as well as her perceived lack of influential presence in her children's day-to-day lives is of no great influence or harm.

Therefore, in the book, it does not appear that Mrs. Banks is the recipient of any gender- based criticism; she does, to the best of her ability, love her children and her husband. Her femininity does not appear to be questioned or even addressed. She is a happy and loving mother of five children, yet, she does not raise her children nor does she spend every minute of every day with them- not because she is necessarily otherwise occupied but simply because she can afford to hire help and wants to do as she pleases. Though she clearly wanted her children, she does not believe it is her direct and only obligation to raise them, although it is worth mentioning that she believes that she is naturally good at it, as shown in her interactions with the twins. However, it should be noted that the Banks children confess they do not love Mrs. Banks as much as they love Poppins. Nevertheless, the characteristics that the Banks children admire most about Poppins do not revolve around traditional feminine norms. On the contrary, what the children admire most about Poppins appear to be her magical powers and sharpness, precisely what Mrs. Banks lacks, not as a mother or caregiver, but simply due to her human nature and frivolity. Thus, it may also be understood that in the eyes of the Banks children, Mary Poppins is simply more exciting

than Mrs. Banks due to her magical abilities and mysterious nature, and not a “better” feminine, maternal presence in their lives.

As I will show in the following overview of the adaptation process of Mrs. Banks character,

Mrs. Banks, as written by P.L Travers, is somewhat difficult to situate within the Disney fairy tale model, as she is present within the tale. Though P.L Travers does not appear to portray any open, criticism regarding Mrs. Banks actions, or lack of action, as a mother, she does depict a character who is feminine but is not a naturally capable caregiver as most good, female, Disney characters are. Therefore, in order to successfully embed the Disney fairy tale model and its subsequent model of femininity, Mrs. Banks, similar to Mary

Poppins, had to be transformed.

Mrs. Banks in the 1964 Disney film

As I have shown in Chapter Three, Poppins' Disney character is notably offset as a good character by the depiction of a mean Mr. Banks, as well as the depiction of the dysfunctional Banks family. Within this Disney adaptation, Mrs. Banks' perceived failure at being a mother is seemingly offset by Mary Poppins herself. Yet, Mrs. Banks, unlike

Mr. Banks, has not been altered or pitted as a villain; she has also not been portrayed as the unnaturally unfeminine. In her Disney depiction, Mrs. Banks is a good feminine character who has simply lost sight of what's important. Indeed, she is a victim herself.

This shift in Mrs. Banks’ character and her eventual character arc, as I will show, was successfully embedded by Disney with the addition of two important contributing factors.

The first is the portrayal of the feminine qualities that Mrs. Banks does naturally possess.

The second, and this is a monumental shift from P.L Travers' original character, is the

addition of the ideological cause that appears to pull Mrs. Banks away from her own family and children and influence her in a negative manner.

In the movie adaptation, Mrs. Banks maintains her somewhat foolish demeanor but with a prominent difference. Her character undergoes a major change—she is depicted as a suffragette, militantly fighting for women's right to vote. This appears to be her main occupation and clearly takes precedence over time with her children, emphasizing the need for a nanny's presence in the first place. But even her suffragette attitude is nonetheless depicted as ridiculous. One moment she sings about fighting for women's rights, no matter the cost, while the next moment has her hiding her "votes for women" ribbons from Mr.

Banks, fearing his reaction to "the cause". Mrs. Banks appears to understand how problematic and unpopular her participation in all things regarding the cause is in the eyes of her husband, and she is emotionally conflicted. Additionally to this changes, Mrs. Banks has also gained a new positive characteristic which is similar to Mary Poppins – she too can sing. In the same manner that some of Poppins' harsher attributes have been softened and feminized with the help of her newly acquired ability to sing, Mrs. Banks fighting suffragette attitude is also made amusing and lovable with the help of this iconic, Disney, stamp of approval. In her newly acquired love for singing, Mrs. Banks marches into the

Banks household singing the famous feminist tune, written specifically for her role in the film, "Sister Suffragette." The lyrics in Mrs. Banks’ song are shockingly militant and powerful.

“We're clearly soldiers in petticoats

And dauntless crusaders for woman's Votes

Though we adore men individually

We agree that as a group they're rather stupid

Cast off the shackles of yesterday

Shoulder to shoulder into the fray

Our daughters' daughters will adore us

And they'll sing in grateful chorus

Well done! Sister Suffragette!”

Mrs. Banks calls for women to fight for equality while being aware of how dangerous the fight is. She also exclaims that women should stop being meek and subservient. Had these words been shouted, or even simply spoken, they might have appeared much more radical.

As it happens, they are delivered in a lovely and incredibly catchy Disney tune that only enhances Mrs. Banks' feminine appeal. Her delivery of this song is unquestionably charming.

“From every corner of the land

Womankind, arise!

Political equality,

And equal rights with men

Take heart, for Mrs. Pankhurst has been clapped in irons again!

No more the meek and mild subservient we

We're fighting for our rights Militantly!

Never you fear!!”

This is an incredibly moving and unforgettable scene, Mrs. Banks appears charismatic and in charge, yet it also appears somewhat unrelated to her character, as she appears during the rest of the film. Furthermore, while not much is directly written about Mrs. Banks' appearance in the book, her portrayal in the movie is unforgettable. She is almost constantly wide-eyed, and looks somewhat confused, while she speaks in a high pitch, breathy voice.

She is also very dramatic. In this first scene, Mrs. Banks walks into the house happy and 74

singing, telling the house servants all about the latest rally she just attended, wearing a

"Votes for Women" sash. She explains how she and her fellow suffragettes shackled themselves to the prime minister’s front gate and were arrested. Only when she is finished with her song, she is told that Jane and Michael have run away from their nanny, again, and that the current nanny is leaving. Mrs. Banks immediately panics. She knows that Mr.

Banks will be home in a matter of minutes and all the charismatic fighting spirit we witnessed only moments before, vanishes at once. It is at this moment that she also decides to hide her "Votes for Women" sash, knowing that Mr. Banks does not approve and is annoyed by the cause.

When considering Disney's fairy tales track record of feminine passiveness and portraying powerless mothers, it is interesting to see how incredibly powerful Mrs. Banks initially appears when she is speaking on a topic as controversial as the suffragette movement. She is also proudly describing participating in a very fiery, violent and disorderly demonstration. This is not on par with Disney's depiction of favorable femininity.

Nonetheless, Mrs. Banks, in accordance with the depiction I have provided of the suffragettes in the United States, maintains many of her traditionally feminine qualities, specifically her feminine and well-kept appearance. Moreover, as I have detailed in

Chapter Two, many of the suffragettes in the United States did not seek to reject traditional femininity, and therefore maintained a very feminine, well-kept appearance. In her Disney portrayal, Mrs. Banks appears to do the same. She is dressed in a fitting dress and interestingly, though the story is set in London, her dress is a light blue color, with a white sash, and she noticeably has many gold-yellow trimming details on her dress. This is an interesting anecdote, as the known colors of the suffragettes in Brittan were purple, white and green, while the colors for the American suffragettes were purple, white and notably-

yellow. The American suffragettes were noticeably different in their use of gold and yellow instead of green like their British sisters.

However, as I will argue in this chapter, Disney’s depiction of Mrs. Banks as a very feminine, yet militant, suffragette was not, as I have argued in Chapter Two, part of the

“balancing act” in which the women in the Woman's Movement took part. Maintaining

Mrs. Banks' femininity was not a strategic choice made in order to support "the cause's" legitimacy. Rather it was, helpful in portraying Mrs. Banks as a naturally feminine characters under the negative influence of the feminist cause that is pulling her away from her natural role at home.

Having set Mrs. Banks suffragette identity so clearly, the following scene portrays the arrival of Mr. Banks and depicts Mrs. Banks in an entirely different manner. When Mr.

Banks comes home, he berates his wife for her inability to hire a proper nanny and blames her for the disappearance of the children. Though Mr. Banks is unkind to Mrs. Banks, and is therefore classified on the evil spectrum, there is a sense of a gender-based justification to the manner he understands the situation. The children have run away, again, because they are undisciplined as well as unhappy. As their mother and lady of the house, it is her responsibility to care for them and also provide them with the right nanny if she does not actively watch over them herself. Mr. Banks continues to berate Mrs. Banks and tells her that he will have to do it himself while dictating a letter he wishes to write to the papers.

While he gives his speech, Mrs. Banks is ever the adoring wife. She listens to him wholeheartedly, while adding “Yes dear, of course, dear” at every turn. She even belittles herself while giving him high praise on hiring Mary Poppins. She exclaims, "I would have made such a mess!" (Walt Disney studios & Stevenson,1964). There is no more mention of: “No more the meek and mild subservient we,” we saw only moments before. In this 76

scene we witness Mrs. Banks reestablishing her subservient position in an attempt to please

Mr. Banks, and perhaps the audience as well. As a supporting and admiring wife to her husband, Mrs. Banks assumes the more popular, correct and desirable femininity. She is also somewhat funny.

The transition of Mrs. Banks from an aspiring, militant, activist to a meek wife is very fast and serves only to belittle her character and perhaps f all suffragettes. As we begin to see more of the interactions between Mrs. and Mr. Banks It appears that Mrs. Banks only acts the part of a militant suffragette and does not embody any true fighting spirits in any other aspects of her life. Nevertheless, she still does not prioritize her children and she cannot seem to make enough time to take care of her children, as she has many meetings to attend to that relate to "the cause". Once again, though Mrs. Banks takes an active part in the suffrage movement and appears to be influenced by the movement in her actions, her true, feminine and subservient nature does shine through in her interactions, especially with Mr.

Banks, the patriarch of the house.

Mr. Banks' harsh reaction combined with the feminine, yet foolish characteristics Mrs.

Banks has debuted thus far, help navigate the audience's feelings towards Mrs. Banks.

Though she might be, perhaps rightfully in the audience's minds, judged for her lack of attention to her children, Mr. Banks anger towards her is mean and unkind, and is therefore helpful in redirecting the audience's own anger. Unlike Mr. Banks who, at this moment, has no redeeming qualities, Mrs. Banks is lovable, amusing and clearly feminine; she is not mean or purposely uncaring. Furthermore, as I will show later on, she does care and attempt to help the children, but her unassertive nature prevents her from any true agency in the house. Moreover, her frivolousness and foolishness are perhaps also the reason she has gotten so caught up in matters of the cause instead of her own children. This all makes 77

loving Mrs. Banks much simpler while redirecting any negative emotions towards Mr.

Banks and perhaps towards the cause itself. Mrs. Banks is not an evil character, she is good, and she must be helped too. This is the question, I argue, Disney aims to raise within the minds of mothers through Mrs. Banks' character: namely, is the "fight", or any other cause, worth neglecting your family for?

The Fairy Tale Model- Problem and Problem Solving

Though, as I have said, Mrs. Banks is not perceived as evil per se, her lack of attention to her children is evidently harmful to them and to the household as their family is lacking the natural feminine touch needed to help guide and soften both the patriarch of the family and the children themselves. Therefore, the very actions that compel her to leave her children may be considered harmful and evil. This perception also strengthens the connection that was associated between any sort of feminist movement and the abandoning of the domestic sphere and the rejection of femininity. In the film, perhaps due to cinematic restriction, the Banks parents only have two children instead of five. Given this information, Mrs. Banks' suffragette ideology may suddenly appear less forgivable to an audience of the American 1950's-1960's where the professional housewife image was at its peak. Amy M Davis explains how women who identified, or even just labeled, as having feminist opinions were seen as easier to ridicule and deem blamable, especially in the years leading up to the publication of The Feminine Mystique, when it appeared to many that feminists were conducting a direct assault on motherhood and its sacred status. Therefore, it is easy to see how combining Mrs. Banks gullible character with that of a radical suffragette made her an easier target to ridicule and deem as weak. Nevertheless, due to her likeability, the reason for her lack of presence can more easily be blamed on the feminist cause itself.

Due to these changes in the plotline of the film, Mrs. Banks, unlike in the book, takes no part in hiring or even speaking to Mary Poppins. Indeed, all authority is placed in the hands of Mr. Banks. This then leaves Mrs. Banks with very little say in the running and managing of the household and staff, emphasizing, in turn, her absence from her own home and in her family’s daily life. There are a few moments when, as Mr. Banks berates the children,

Mrs. Banks gets upset, and it is clear that she disagrees with Mr. Banks' method. She even occasionally attempts to soften Mr. Banks' behavior and treatment of others while looking at him encouragingly, but to no avail.

What is also clear in the Disney movie is that while the family as a whole is suffering from

Mr. Banks mean behavior, they are also feeling the effects of Mrs. Banks absence as a feminine caregiver, and this is an incredibly important difference thematized by Disney.

Mrs. Banks may be understood in the book to be actively choosing to hire a nanny so that she can take a less active role in raising them. However, by 1950 and the resurgence of conservative values, and from Disney's traditional perspective- this is harmful, unnatural and unfeminine, behavior.

As I have mentioned above, unlike her fellow female Disney characters who exuded unfeminine and harmful behavior, Mrs. Banks is not portrayed as a villain. This creates a problem within the Disney fairy tale model. In fairy tales, problems are solved by eradicating evil. Therefore, the pain the Banks children experience due to their absent parents needs to be eventually solved in order to be a complete fairy tale. Yet, with Mrs.

Banks character, Disney could not simply portray foolishness and gullibility as evil characteristics. Therefore, Mrs. Banks had to be given a new and additional characteristic that could both be blamed for her actions or lack of action and most importantly, eventually

be eradicated. This could shed light on the reason Mrs. Banks was suddenly introduced as a suffragette which was associated with harmful feminism.

By depicting Mrs. Banks as an example of a mother and wife who attempts to find fulfillment outside of the household, via the suffragette cause, but fails to provide any assistance, support or authority within her own home, Disney can be understood as portraying the harm caused when mothers abandon the household, and the ill effects of feminism on the domestic family unit and thus on society.

Due to her foolishness, it appears that Mrs. Banks does not even understand how detrimental her behavior is and how neglected the Banks children are by both of their parents. Therefore, she does not understand the evil influence she is under. It is because of her unperceptive nature that it is, in fact, eventually up to Mr. Banks to save her by providing her with an example of what kind of parent she should strive to be. Disney depicts Mrs. Banks as having no power to save herself or her family, thus establishing Mr.

Banks' role as her savior. His actions are what ultimately help Mrs. Banks abandon the evil influence that is the feminist cause and return to her family. Similarly, to the fate of

Disney's famous lead female fairy tale characters, it is left up to the lead male character to save the feminine protagonist.

One of the most interesting and metaphoric moments within Mrs. Banks' storyline in the film, and as I argue- in the film itself, occurs at the end of the film. The following scene portrays the moment in which Mrs. Banks is "saved" and is able to successfully break away, with the help of Mr. Banks' actions, from the evil influence she was under. After Mr. Banks happily runs into their house to take the children to fly a kite, Mrs. Banks, who watches him in awe and surprise, decides to bring out her "Votes for Women" sash from inside a closet. As if the spell she was under has finally broken, she then proceeds to tie the sash, 80

with all this implies, to the end of the kite, so that she, Mr. Banks and the children can watch it fly high up into the sky, together. She then happily exclaims "A proper kite needs a proper tail don't you think?". They all leave the house together, holding hands, singing and jumping down the stairs, with the "cause" becoming a tail tied to the bottom of a kite flying up and away in the air. Any wish expressed by Mrs. Banks to continue and search for fulfillment outside of the house appears to end the moment Mr. Banks appears to metaphorically call his wife back to her rightful place, by his side, and subsequently to their children's side. As the Disney picture-perfect marital bliss of the traditional family model reaffirms itself, their family is now whole and the traditional gender roles within the house are once again clear.

With the help of these plot line changes, Disney successfully imposed the fairy tale model upon the Mary Poppins plot line and the Banks household. By maintaining Mrs. Banks' femininity, and simultaneously portraying the ideological influence of the suffrage movement as the evil force responsible for Mrs. Banks inability to use her natural femininity, Disney was able to portray how positive, traditional femininity truly is as well as how detrimental the feminist cause was to the traditional family model. Furthermore,

Mrs. Banks, in her depiction by Disney, may now be understood as a victim in need of saving. Therefore, the tale of the dysfunctional Banks family and Mary Poppins does not simply revolve around the salvation of the Banks children, it is also the tale of saving Mrs.

Banks, achieved by reaffirming traditional femininity within the patriarchal family model.

Chapter Five- Conclusions

Following the cinematic debut of Saving Mr. Banks and the new Mary Poppins Returns film adaptation, Mary Poppins as she originally appeared, became a subject of public interest once again. As I have shown, many articles reviewing Mary Poppins Returns referred back to the 1964 Disney cinematic adaptation. Indeed, within the different articles and reviews, many of the critics addressed the noticeable differences between the 1964

Disney film and the original P.L. Travers’ novels, with some articles further expanding on this topic by providing a detailed comparison of the two. Furthermore, these articles address how unhappy P.L Travers was with Disney's adaptation process and the changes that were made to the plotline and characters, specifically relating to Mary Poppins' character. Nevertheless, it appears that questions regarding the profound reason and significance behind these substantial changes remained unasked. Moreover, the linkage between these changes as they relate to gender norms as well as Disney's cinematic track record and preference for traditional values, are not discussed. Therefore, in my thesis, I attempted to answer these questions and give an account of the main factors that influenced this adaptation process.

In order to provide a convincing account, I first discuss the process of adaptation, followed by an analysis of the attributes of Jack Zipes' “well-made Disney fairy tale model", upon which Disney storylines and plotline adaptations, as well as characters' very nature and motivation are based. Additionally, I present a historical overview of shifting gender norms and femininity as well as an outline of Amy M. Davis' exploration of female representation in Disney's cinematic universe. Finally, in Chapters Three and Four, I offer a deep character study of both Poppins and Mrs. Banks as they were originally depicted in the books. This is followed by a comparison of their depiction in the original Disney film. These chapters

provide the necessary examples of the implemented changes, upon which my theoretical framework is based. By analyzing the process of adaptation, and the fairy tale model that provides the necessary framework for understanding the transformations that the Mary

Poppins book and characters underwent, this thesis shows how Disney was able to implement and promote conservative values within the Mary Poppins plotline and the two lead female characters. Moreover, the broad historical overview, alongside a discussion of

Disney’s cinematic universe, allowed me to situate the adaptation of Mary Poppins within

Disney's classic period. This further enabled me to present the changes made to the original

Mary Poppins plotline and characters as Disney's reaction, and ultimate "answer", to the

Woman Movement and the changes this movement produced.

By drawing on the premise of Jack Zipes' “well-made Disney fairy tale model, as I explain in Chapter One, Disney was able to provide the audience with characters and behaviors representing each side of the good vs evil spectrum. As fairy tale films offer judgments on human behavior by promoting certain characteristics and behavior as good while portraying other characteristics as evil, Disney was therefore able to express and promote traditional norms of femininity and the patriarchal family model, while rejecting and warning against the effects of feminism and its perceived rejection of traditional femininity.

Future research and discussions might benefit from comparing whether and how the Disney fairy tale model was used in the new Mary Poppins Returns film. Indeed, if the fairy tale model is still used today, it would be interesting to ascertain how this new adaptation differs in the values and norms it promotes from the books as well as the previous films. It would also be interesting to establish whether the values promoted in this new Poppins film correspond with this new era of filmmaking of the 21st century, and the values portrayed in Disney film during this new era. 83

Bibliography

Brode, D. (2005). Multiculturalism and the mouse: Race and sex in Disney entertainment. University of Texas Press.

Cott, N. F. (1987). The grounding of modern feminism. Yale University Press.

Cruea, S. M. (2005). Changing ideals of womanhood during the nineteenth-century woman movement. ATQ, 19(3), 187.

Davis, A. M. (2007). Good Girls & Wicked Witches: Women in Disney's Feature Animation. Indiana University Press.

Friedan, B. (2001). The Feminine Mystique. 1963. New York.

Matthews, G. (1992). The Rise of Public Woman: Woman's Power and Woman's Place in the United States, 1630-1970. Oxford University Press on Demand.

May, E. T. (2008). Homeward bound: American families in the Cold War era. Hachette UK.

Rabinovitch-Fox, E. (2017). New Women in Early 20th-Century America. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History.

Sanders, J. (2015). Adaptation and appropriation. Routledge.

Schickel, R. (2019). The Disney version: The life, times, art and commerce of Walt Disney. Simon & Schuster.

Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1986). Disorderly conduct: Visions of gender in Victorian America (Vol. 820). Oxford University Press on Demand.

Travers, P. L. (2014). Mary Poppins: Mary Poppins, Mary Poppins Comes Back, Mary Poppins Opens the Door, and Mary Poppins in the Park. HMH.

Welter, B. (1966). The cult of true womanhood: 1820-1860. American Quarterly, 18(2), 151-174.

Zipes, J., Greenhill, P., & Magnus-Johnston, K. (2015). The Great Cultural Tsunami of Fairy-Tale Films. In Fairy-Tale Films Beyond Disney (pp. 19-35). Routledge.

Websites Dargis, M.(2018. 12.18). 'Mary Poppins Returns' Review: A Truck Full of Sugar Can't Make This Uplift Go Down. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com

Dockterman, E. (2018.12.10). How Mary Poppins Has Evolved Over the Years. Retrieved from https://www.time.com

Garber, M. (2019.1.3). The Dark Magic of Mary Poppins Returns. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com

Motion Picture

Walt Disney Studios (Production) Stevenson, R. (Director). (1964). Mary Poppins [Motion Picture]. USA: Walt Disney Studios.

תקציר

שיר הסופרז'יסטיות, אותו שרה הגברת בנק בסרט הקולנוע המפורסם של דיסני ,מרי פופינס, משנת 1964,

הינו שיר בלתי נשכח, שכן פעמים מעטות ניתן למצוא קריאה פמיניסטית מהפכנית שכזו, הנעשית בצורה

כה קליטה ומעוררת חיבה, בסרטיו של וולט דיסני. הסופרז'יסטית הכריזמטית והמוזיקלית, אשר שרה את

שיר הסופרז'יסטיות, הינה הגברת בנקס. הגברת בנקס היא אשתו של מר בנקס, ואימם של ילדי משפחת

בנקס, בהם מרי פופינס מגיעה לטפל ולהשגיח במה שבמהירות הופך לסיפור מלא בהפתעות וקסמים. מרי

פופינס והגברת בנקס הן שתי דמויות מוכרות ואהובות במיוחד מהסרט מרי פופינס של דיסני, אך שתיהן

עברו שינויים רבים מהאופן הראשוני שבו הן תוארו והוצגו בספרים המקוריים של הסופרת פ.ל טרוורס,

בשנת 1934.

בעקבות הפופולאריות של דיסני וסרטיו, וכמו כן בעקבות כמות האדפטציות הגדולה של ספרים לסרטים

אשר בוצעה על ידי אולפני דיסני במאה העשרים, אין זה מפתיע לגלות כי דיסני ותהליך האדפטציה העמוד

מאחורי סרטי דיסני , עומדים במרכזו של דיון אקדמי ממושך. דיון זה מתייחס לנורמות ולערכים המקודמים

בסרטי דיסני מפורסמים והאופן שבו ערכים אלו מוצגים לילדים ומבוגרים, וכמו כן ילדות ונשים באופן

מיוחד. בעוד ישנם אקדמאיים רבים הטוענים כי לאורך ההיסטורית הקולנוע, דיסני דאג באופן מודע לקדם

ולהפיץ ערכים שמרניים בסרטיו, ישנם אקדמאיים אשר טוענים טענה הפוכה. על פי טענה זו, דיסני הוא

למעשה, איש מהפכני, אשר מקדם ערכים כמו קבלת האחר ופמיניזם. למרות אי הסכמתם האידיאולוגית

בנושא זה, אקדמאיים אכן מסכימים כי השינויים הנעשים לדמויות וקווי עלילה, כחלק מתהליך האדפטציה

של ספרים לסרטים, מהווים כלי אשר באמצעותו ניתן להטמיע ערכים חדשים בסיפורים המקוריים, גם אם

ערכים אלו שונים באופן משמעותי מהערכים אשר מוצגים בסיפור המקורי, טרם האדפטציה.

ניתן לטעון, כי דיונים אלו, הנוגעים לערכים ולנורמות המקודמים על-ידי דיסני, מתייחסים למאפיינים

ויזואליים, פיזיים, והתפתחויות עלילה אשר לרוב מתקבלים כברורים מאליהם ולא זוכים לפרשנות נוספת.

בנוסף לכך, דיונים אלו אינם מתייחסים לשיטה המובילה שבאמצעותה ערכים אלו מוטמעים, והאופן שבו

שיטה זו עלולה להשפיע על האופן שבו ערכים ונורמות אלו מתקבלים ונתפסים על-ידינו. לכן, במבט

ראשוני, שיר הסופרז'יסטיות החדש אשר מופיע באדפטציה של דיסני, המתנגן בעוד הגברת בנקס לובשת סרט עליו הכיתוב " זכויות הצבעה לנשים", עלול להוביל למחשבה כי דיסני מקבל ומקדם את התנועה

הפמיניסטית, שווין ומעמדן וזכויותיהן של נשים.

למרות זאת, כפי שנטען במחקר זה, השינויים שהטמיע דיסני בסיפורה של מרי פופינס ובדמויות הנשיות

הראשיות, נועדו להטמיע ולקדם ערכים שמרניים ומודל נשיות מסורתי בנוסף למודל המשפחה

הפטריארכלית. בנוסף לכך, על פי מחקר זה, שינויים אלו הם תגובתו הרשמית של דיסני לשינויים

התרבותיים הנוצרו בעקבות תנועות הנשים השונות במאה ה20 והמאה ה19.

בהסתמכות על "מודל האגדות של דיסני" של ג'אק זיפס, תזה זאת מביאה לידי ביטוי ואף משחזרת בהצלחה

את המודל הסכמתי, אשר אפשר לדיסני להטמיע נורמות וערכים חדשים באדפטציות קולנועית. דיסני עשה

שימוש רב במודל זה, אשר מתבסס על המאפיינים העיקריים של סיפורי אגדות, באדפטציה של סיפורי

אגדות וסיפורי נוספים אשר אינם אגדות כאחד, כפי שמוצג בתזה זאת בסקירת השינויים שנעשו בעלילת

הספר מרי פופינס, בדמותה של פופינס, ובדמותה של הגברת בנקס.

טיעון זה נתמך על ידי הסקירה המופיעה במחקר זה, אשר מציגה סקירה היסטורית רחבה של השינויים

הרבים במודל הנשיות ובנורמות המגדריות המקובלות בחברה לאורך המאה ה19 והמאה ה20. כמו כן,

בנוסף לסקירה זו, טיעון זה נתמך על ידי בחינת הדמויות הנשיות בסרטי דיסני לאורך ההיסטוריה, אשר

מציגה את הקורלציה בין הערכים אשר הוטעמו בתהליך האדפטציה של מרי פופינס )באמצעות מודל

האגדות( והאידאולוגיה השמר נית של דיסני אשר אותגרה על ידי השינויים התרבותיים והמגדריים במאה

ה20.

תזה זאת, מהווה דיון רחב המנמק את השיטתיות והמשמעויות של השינויים שנעשו לדמויותיהן של מרי

פופינס והגברת בנקס באדפטציה הקולנועית של דיסני. בנוסף לכך , תזה זו מנמקת את האופן שבו דמויות

אלו הוצגו מחדש על-ידי דיסני במטרה לחדד ולחזק מודלים מסורתיים של נשיות ואף להביע התנגדות

לפמיניזם, אשר נתפס ככזה הסולד ממודלים של נשיות מסורתית ואימהות.