Mary Poppins/Headscratchers


 * The scene at the bank, where Michael's father and the board of directors are trying to persuade him to put his tuppence in their bank. Even in 1910, that much money can't have had much buying power, so why would these men go to that much effort to get his business? It would be one thing if there were already an account in Michael's name (which I could even believe, what with George Banks' job and characterization to that point; he'd be the type to think of that), but the implication is that there isn't. Yeah, I can see George Banks wanting his son to start learning about money management, follow in his footsteps, that kind of thing, but isn't this a bit much?
 * Yes it is. That's the point of the scene. They're greedy men, and they covet every single penny they see.
 * Maybe, but I still think it's stretching plausibility for George. By this point, we've already gotten a good idea of George's character. Heck, he's one of the first characters we meet, and the first song of the movie exists to establish his character. Him being that greedy doesn't gel with the characterization we've already gotten for him. The board of directors, fine. We haven't met them before this scene, and them being that greedy does gel with what we know of them. One might think they'd have something better to do with their time, but other than that, I'll buy it.
 * Actually, it's perfectly in character with Mr. Banks. Mr. Banks isn't really acting out of greed. He's acting out of spite. It's not so much that he wants to teach his son to invest money in his bank so much as it is that he wants to subvert Mary Poppins' authority.
 * No, he wants to do something with his son that will result in his son taking an interest in what he does. It's still a little small-minded and selfish because he's basically hoping Michael will turn into his Mini-Me, but it's an understandable fatherly impulse. George is excited by banking, he wants Michael to be excited about banking too.
 * I disagree. For Banks at least, he didn't care about the tuppence in the Bank, he wanted his children to like him and what he does. (His verse was all about what wonderful things banks do, not about giving the bank money). However, he didn't understand how and couldn't break his shell to understand that he should do child-things with them and was trying to make them do adult-things.
 * It's not just that they're greedy, it's that they take a long view of things. If they persuade Michael, the son of an up-and-coming executive to open an account and get into the habit of saving and investing, then several years later his savings will have grown to a substantial sum. Tuppence today equals pounds down the road.
 * And if you're wondering, tuppence (two pence) in 1910 is about seventy cents American in 2010. So maybe Michael could buy a candy bar with his coin, but it's obviously not going to result in any appreciable amount via compound interest anytime soon. Specifically, a basic 5% interest savings account would take twelve years just to double the tuppence.


 * Practically perfect in every way? Where does the 'practically' part come into it?
 * No Canon/Word of God answers in either the movie or book, but some popular WMGs include...
 * 1) That Mary Poppins can't preemptively help people from unhappiness.
 * 2) That she can't help everyone.
 * 3) The so-called "fact" that she probably has never really been "romantic" with anyone- save Bert, and even that is dependant upon her being needed in London.
 * 4) That she can't get her parrot to back-talk her.
 * 5) That eventually, people don't need her anymore, echoed in Nanny McPhee.
 * She does have a bit of a temper, doesn't she? That mars any claim of 100% perfection. Besides, she lied outright about a few of the adventures, under the guise of being an ordinary nanny. Dishonesty isn't quite perfect behavior, is it?
 * I always thought it was a joke about humility. She actually is perfect but part of that perfection is humility which means she can never claim to actually be perfect. It's a simple Catch-22.
 * I agree. It wouldn't sound as good if she said, "Absolutely and undoubtedly perfect in every way."
 * This troper always thought it was for Alliteration.
 * After thinking about it, it's impossible to be absolutely perfect, especially when different people have different ideas of perfection. Thus she can only say that she is 'practically' perfect (in a sense of being close to and of being realistically).
 * As an extension of this, I'm not sure of the religious beliefs of the author but Christianity holds that there has ever only been one perfect person, and that while the rest of us can strive to follow his example it's probably not possible for us to get all the way there.
 * This also sort of applies to the book, but this notion that Mary Poppins accepts the magical adventures at the time, but the instant it's over (a personal Big Lipped Alligator Filter?) she's all "I'm a traditional nanny and we only do ordinary stuff; magic does not exist". *Hand-wringing*
 * Maybe it is happening in the minds of the children? But then, what prompts Bank's sudden epiphany?
 * Are Jane and Michael in school?
 * Wealthy children in the early 20th century often were taught by governesses up until a certain age. Why Mary Poppins does no teaching I can't say.
 * Explains why Mr. Banks was so upset about her not teaching the kids anything useful.
 * Why such a cramped and fake-looking setting? If budgets were an issue they still had enough for location shoots in London if they updated the setting to The Sixties.
 * Probably to give it a distinctive look, and they wanted to make it as close to the original in terms of setting as possible.