Alert The Media: Emily Blunt Is No Julie Andrews- Critics Rave!

Which quote is more truthful, "Truth Isn't Truth"

or "You can't handle the truth?"

This isn't existential philosophy, so I shall remind you who said each: Rudolph Giuliani said the first quote to NBC's Chuck Todd; Aaron Sorkin wrote the latter line, performed famously in the movie, Some Good Men, by Jack Nicholson as a shout-out rebuke of his adversary, played by Tom Cruise.

Both lines are as accurate as one another, because we don't seem to give a damn about knowing the truth, as in, enough information that approximates truth, i.e., enough facts to render a decision. The good news is we all are such capable arm chair scholars, the sad news is we are TRAGICALLY MISTAKEN.

How does this relate to the release of The Return of Mary Poppins?

Every review I've read praises Emily Blunt's performance, in such a high caliber way- she actually has gotten much better reviews than had Julie Andrews, who starred in the original 1964 movie. Andrews got good reviews, but not as good as she received the very same year in, The Americanization of Emily, a movie that revealed more of her talent as an actress, and here's a quote from the review in the NYT:

"If you can stand watching Julie Andrews playing a role in which she doesn't sing, but in which she does make some beautiful music with a delightfully unheroic man, then nothing should deter you from going as swiftly as you can to see "The Americanization of Emily.”

The first line makes hay of the current infatuation with Andrew's singing voice, not as a swipe at Andrews, but the hype that cost Audrey Hepburn an Oscar nomination, because Hepburn was cast as the lead in the movie of My Fair Lady (also 1964) and she received rave reviews for her performance. There had been a backlash because Andrews also had been a contender for the leading role, she had created on Broadway, but the original Broadway star rarely ever was considered for the movie, even though publicists would write every version of fiction to make you believe such things, as when Tallulah Bankhead was said to be the sure fire bet to play Scarlett O'Hara in the movie of GWTW, and it seems unlikely she had even a fighting chance against Bette Davis, to reprise the role she originated on Broadway, to star in the movie adaptation of Lillian Hellman's Little Foxes.

Gossip columnists and tabloids had a field day pitting Andrews against Hepburn, as any rivalry between actresses makes headlines (Am I the only one who thinks Jennifer Aniston is still pining away for Brad Pitt or have others caught onto the fact she and Angelina Jolie are plotting his demise, any day now?)

This “Lady” drama seemed suited to soap operas, but helped to make boffo business at the box office when the movie of My Fair Lady finally had been released. Still- it had been a public insult to both actresses that lingers on even until today, and, "insult" is putting it mildly, if you read how the studio wrote the narrative, you'll see what I mean (as transcribed in wikipedia):

"Audrey Hepburn, the female lead of the film, was controversially not nominated for Best Actress. The unpopularity of her replacing Julie Andrews – who had originated the role on Broadway and, coincidentally, the Best Actress winner of the year for Mary Poppins – as well as the revelation that the majority of her singing was dubbed by Marni Nixon (which wasn't approved by Hepburn herself) were seen as the main reasons for the snub."

Not only had the Studio and the media turned it into a cat fight between Andrews and Hepburn, somehow Hepburn was punished, as if she were to blame, by being denied even an Oscar nomination, for what is still such an outstanding performance (even by today’s standards, as awkward as is any dubbing, comparatively speaking.) I can say with know-it-all certainty, Hepburn didn't get to approve Marni Nixon, the greatest musical dub artist in the history of cinema, as I don't believe Natalie Wood had any such provision in her contract, for West Side Story, either. I think grateful might be an understatement for how they both felt, considering how closely they needed to collaborate with Nixon for a seamless result. Nixon already had been an unsung hero, as a behind-the-scenes performer, so she had to take another hit for doing her job exquisitely...because some Producer was a bully in every which way except THAT way, as far as I know, and I wouldn't dare suggest what I don't have the courage even to consider in context of Audrey Hepburn and Natalie Wood- sorry, but I am that much of a wuss.

I am less sheepish to suggest Andrews did not deserve to win Best Actress for Mary Poppins- frankly, even when I was a kid, which is the only time I’ve seen it, she seemed a bit wooden but embedded with the voice of an angel.

It seems other than Blunt, everything else in Mary Poppins Returns takes a hit, as not nearly as good as the original movie, Mary Poppins (uh, duhhh,) including, and it seems to me, especially Lin-Manuel Miranda. I am not saying that a movie critic is using his review as a way to prove he won't cower to the genius behind the mega hit, Hamilton (as long as no one says Hamilton or takes the critic's less than "faint praise" out of context,) but notice I also am not naming which movie critic(s) by name, as I’d prefer to keep my enemies list down to a minimum.

I also wonder if some editors think raking Miranda over the chimney coals counts for continued coverage of the devastation of hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, where Miranda was born, and which has been conspicuously under reported by the media, as non-collusion news, because it does not.

In context of reviews that say Miranda has a "decentish Cockney accent" or "seems half-asleep compared to the effervescent Van Dyke — and his Cockney accent isn’t much more accurate than Van Dyke’s was, either," I think, "HUH?"

I add that I have yet to remember reading anyone say Meryl Streep has a passable voice at best, in any of several movies in which she sings, except for me, and it's a fact that happens to be my opinion.

"Who is the target audience?"

I ask, who is the savvy reviewer who would ask such a question? His name is Clint O'Connor, from the Akron Beacon Journal (in an effort at full disclosure, my Aunt- the one about whom I speak, ad nauseum to someone, is from Akron, so is educator/basketball player, LeBron James and Jim Jarmusch, also, whose mother was the first woman film critic in the U.S. and she started at the ABJ- and predates Pauline Kael.)

O'Connor goes on to ask,

"Are today’s 8- to 12-year-olds too jaded by the deluge of superheroes and special effects to be enraptured by a nanny from the 1930s? Will this mostly please families with really young kids, or musical buffs, or fans of the first film looking for a nostalgic getaway?"

How refreshing that he doesn't bully the target demo by telling them what they shall think- he merely asks, nor does he trick their parents into wondering if this movie turns medicine into a sugar chaser. One thought might be to have someone review the movie who doesn't get tripped up on comparing it to the original? Could there be such a person who is less than 50 years old, who has exercised such extraordinary restraint never to have seen the original Mary Poppins nor have him in her grip?

Don't ask me, I pretended I had seen Breakfast At Tiffany's for so many years, I finally watched it a few years ago...at least, until the first scene with Mickey Rooney- I REFUSE TO SEE EVEN ONE FRAME MORE. Either you know what I am talking about or you too, have never seen it- either you are lying if you say you have seen it or you should start lying ASAP that you have not-one or the other, trust me...or don't. Not My Problem.