38. Julie Christie in 'Darling' (1965)

   

Plot intro

Diana Scott (Julie Christie) is a young aspiring actress/model trying to just live her best life in 1960s Swinging London. With sexual liberation and free love all the rage, she leaves one husband and shacks up with a married intellectual TV interviewer Robert Gold (Dirk Bogarde). She cheats on him with wealthy advertising executive Miles Brand (Laurence Harvey) and with Italian royalty Prince Cesare (Jose Luis de Vilallonga). Young, beautiful and carefree, she soon starts to realise that her life is increasingly hollow and directionless…

Paul says...

From the onset of the Hays Code in the early 1930s through to the late 1950s, Hollywood movies didn’t change much. It’s true that production values and technology developed, with the increase in colour movies and big-budget special effects. However, the aesthetic remained quite homogenous. Pseudo-classical sweeping music, linear story-telling, smooth, clear transitions from scene to scene and big statement acting were all the rage, as was an erasure of all references to sex, drugs and rock and roll (we must, in the words of Helen Lovejoy, protect the children, after all).

But the counter-cultural revolution of the '60s changed all of this, and Darling is a great example of this transition. In terms of content, it’s deliciously immoral and sexual. Julie Christie throws a tantrum in an Italian palace and then strips naked; she hangs out with a gaggle of open homosexuals; Dirk Bogarde performs oral sex on her; an older gay man seedily lusts after a visibly underage black serving boy dressed in a Georgian outfit; and couples forsake the sanctity of marriage like nobody’s business. Stylistically, too, it’s a jump in a new direction. The music is jazzy, rocky, chaotic, sometimes discordant with the events on screen, and scene transitions are quick, discombobulating jump cuts that give little indication of the change in place and time. 

Has it stood the ultimate test- that of time? In some respects, it is hard to identify with Diana’s self-destructive behaviour. She appears to come from a loving background and despite being a part-time model, she and Robert very easily afford a huge flat in the centre of London. Of course, this was entirely possible in the mid-'60s but to us struggling to buy something more than 700 square feet despite ample privilege and hard work, it’s laughable that she should get bored or unhappy with anything in her life. I would advise going into Darling with a strong awareness of young people’s lives in the '60s. They were raised by parents who assumed that their sons and daughters would settle into whichever class or gender-based role they had been divinely assigned by the time they were 21. Parents who were shocked, confused, sometimes furious when their children decided instead to boogie to The Beatles, go to Woodstock and, most heinous of all, advocate human rights for the LGBT community and people of colour. Diana Scott would never have been told how to live her life as a free young woman with the ability to choose careers, lovers and lifestyles, and as a result she tries everything and gets bored of it all. She has no clear direction and that’s not the fault of '60s counter-culture but rather the fault of the war generation’s inability to prepare their children for such a massive social change. 

It’s a hard one to appreciate as narrow-minded millennials but Darling…

I really enjoyed Julie Christie in the role. I was perturbed about whether we’re supposed to admire or condemn her but I think this was purposeful, with the writers presenting a character dissection on which viewers can make their own judgements. Christie is exuberant, energetic and likeable in her adaptability to some of the more to and when her world comes crumbling down I understood her devastation and entrapment, even if I didn’t feel much. Christie’s film debut was in Billy Liar two years beforehand but it was Darling that solidified her dual role as film star and iconic symbol of the Swinging Sixties internationally. She hasn’t acted in much in the last 10 years (possibly her own choice, possibly Hollywood’s aversion towards older women) but younger audiences may recognise her as Gertrude in Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, Thetis (mother of Achilles, played by Brad Pitt) in Troy and Madam Rosmerta in the Harry Potter film series. 

Darling is what I would call an interesting watch. If you’re fascinated by '60s counter-culture in London especially (and it is a fascinating topic) then it is a film intrinsically tied to that time period both commenting on and contributing to the zeitgeist. But it’s probably lost its power and influence over the decades because films just aren’t made in this style anymore, so for me it’s more a relic than a game-changer.

Highlight

There’s a great scene in which Diana hangs out with a group of indolent, artistic types who play a game in which they dress up as and roast each other. It’s weird and savage and brilliant attack on people who have more money than substance.

Lowlight

The final shot of an old Italian woman randomly singing in Piccadilly Circus. To our eyes it had no connection to anything else in the film other than the subsidiary setting of Italy, and just seemed like one of those clever-clever artistic shots that progressive directors just love.

Mark

6/10

Doug says...

I didn’t get this film really, but as Paul says that’s because it’s very much a trendy, zeitgeist-created thing which are generally the first to age badly (just look at mullets). We have to understand the culture of the ‘60s in order to appreciate exactly why Diana’s indolent, lavish and empty lifestyle was so fresh and shocking - whereas now it’s more commonplace with influencers pushing the boat out to show lives that are wildly inaccessible to most. 

I liked certain elements - there was a sense of 1920s Hollywood in the way the filmmakers are experimenting and trying things out. The sudden jump-cuts to show time passing in a conversation - they walk through the streets and it cuts to them on the tube, still having the same conversation. I also liked certain parts of the story - Diana and her gay photographer friend have a whale of a time, the moment when they somewhat brutally kill her pet fish by throwing their food into the fishbowl was almost Ancient Roman in its representation of opulence. 

Julie Christie is very good in an unlikeable role. While the film feels slight and not particularly interesting, she immerses herself in the role and is natural in her wide range of  different temperaments and odd scenarios she’s involved in. Diana is desperate to fit in, determined never to be the butt of the joke for long - particularly in the odd scene where drunken partygoers swap clothes and parade around the room in an aggressive conga. 

Is it still relevant though? No. The wild excesses in the ‘60s seem a bit tame by today’s standards where Hollywood has pushed the boat out a lot more. Apparently the men semi-dragging up in the party scene was a complete shocker for audiences but looks half-hearted for us today. I think the Hays Code is now such a forgotten period for us - boundaries have been pushed and pushed and pushed. 

Ultimately, a slim and forgettable entry but an interesting look into a time when they were beginning to innovate with filmmaking again and pander to a very different audience.

Highlight

The moments of comedy were terrific and gratefully received. I liked the little jokes about the gay men sunning themselves abroad - you can tell the filmmaker John Schlesinger (of Midnight Cowboy fame) was gay simply by the way it’s never snide or judgemental, but rather lovingly poking fun.

Lowlight

Same as Paul - what on earth was that opera singer??

Mark

5/10

37. Julie Andrews in 'Mary Poppins' (1964)

  

Plot intro

London, 1910. The Banks family at 17 Cherry Tree Lane are in uproar. Mr Banks (David Tomlinson) is completely consumed by his work and ambitions at the Bank. Mrs Banks (Glynis Johns) is fighting for suffrage for women on the down-low. And their children Jane and Michael (Karen Dotrice & Matthew Garber respectively) are struggling to connect with a lengthy string of austere nannies. Enter Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews), a mysterious young nanny with magical powers. Along with her jack-of-all-trades with a dodgy accent, Bert (Dick Van Dyke), she takes the children on a series of adventures involving chimney sweeps, penguins, animated horse races, tea parties on the ceiling, and some parenting tips for Mr Banks.

Paul says...

We’ve had some obscure movies on this blog, and we’ve had some that people quote, sing and satirise so much it comes with its own mythos. Mary Poppins is very much the latter. It is one of the Disney Corporations biggest and most recognisable money-spinners and easily its most successful film to incorporate live action. It hit the top of highest grossing films of the '60s with total ease; it is one of the few Disney films to be nominated for Best Picture; Disney used the $25 million profit (equivalent to well over $200 million now) to finance the building of Walt Disney World in Florida. And, most importantly for this blog post, it spiralled Julie Andrews from West End/Broadway debutante to international star.

It’s difficult to criticise Julie in Mary Poppins (and yes, I call her Julie like I know her). She is, indeed, practically perfect in every way, managing to combine twinkly-eyed charm with dignity, authority and serenity. But even if you don’t like her performance (God knows why), there’s no denying that Julie has managed to ride the Mary Poppins wave even until this very day. Her renditions of songs such as 'Spoonful of Sugar', 'Stay Awake', and 'Feed the Birds' (the latter of which became one of Walt Disney’s personal favourites) have never been surpassed by any remakes and her image dressed up as Mary Poppins goes alongside most '90s Disney princesses as an icon that conjures up all sorts of nostalgic memories and emotions. 

She famously gained the role after being passed over for the lead role in 1964’s Best Picture winner, My Fair Lady. A character she originated on the stage was given to Audrey Hepburn who, though fine in the role, was not Oscar-nominated and had to have her singing voice dubbed by Marni Nixon. Disney had offered Mary Poppins to Julie whilst she was pregnant having seen her on Broadway in Camelot, and was willing to wait until after the birth of Julie’s daughter to start filming. Julie, as we know, got the last laugh by nabbing Best Actress for her film debut and then went on to star in the next year’s Best Picture winner, the phenomenally successful The Sound of Music. She remains a firm favourite amongst musical-lovers, children and Netflix-subscribers thanks to her later appearances in The Princess Diaries, Shrek and Bridgerton. 

Mary Poppins is one of those films where more depth is discovered as you get older. As a child, you are delighted by the idea of carousel horses leaving the roundabout to charge through the woods, exploring the rooftops of London and flying up in the air whilst laughing uproariously. As a teenager, you start to realise that Mary Poppins teaches nothing to the children but is rather there to help the parents establish a better work-life balance. As an adult, you notice that Mary Poppins, a bit like 1962’s The Miracle Worker, is part of the post-war reassessment of child development and educational pedagogy. 

Let me explain. The film begins with Mr Banks insistent that his children need more discipline. Children should be raised on “tradition, discipline and rules” with Victorian values of obedience and self-restraint. But the children are desperate for more love and fun, a nanny who is “kind, witty, sweet” and plays games. Mr Banks is completely perturbed by this but, of course, Mary Poppins (who fits the bill for the children’s requirements) turns out to be right. Love and fun, combined with calm and self-regulation, lead to emotionally-fulfilled children and families. Any Early Years Teacher will tell you the same.

Interestingly, there’s no real villain in the film. Mr Banks himself is more a victim of the bank’s hefty demands on his life. The children don’t do anything naughty at all and are, in fact, immensely kind and welcoming whereas most nanny-helping-family films start with seemingly nasty, manipulative goblins (both Nanny McPhee and Maria Von Trapp have to contend with pranks and rule-breaking). The closest we come to villainy is the group of bank tellers wanting tuppence from Michael to put into a savings account. To a child this is horrifying but to adult eyes this seems like a very prudent way to spend 2p (you certainly can’t buy a Freddo with that anymore). The real villain of the tale is the struggle mankind has in shaking off the old and accepting the new. Shaking off the Victorian values of children being seen and not heard and instead embracing imagination, laughter and sprinklings of chaos. Whilst it’s not as powerful as other Disney works such as The Lion King or almost the entire Pixar canon, Mary Poppins remains a sweet, funny, and poignant tale that narrowly avoids being too twee for modern eyes. 

Highlight

Gosh, so much to choose from! The hilarious scenes in which the family have to prevent the house being knocked down by their mad neighbour letting off a cannon; the elaborately choreographed penguin dance sequence; and Mary’s sad final moment in which her umbrella points out that no one ever wishes her farewell once she has set them straight are all big contenders. But I think the barn-storming 'Step In Time' sequence is the big highlight and a testament to Dick Van Dyke’s athleticism. 

Lowlight

I’ve always felt Mrs Banks gets let off too easily. She is absent from the children too but never has to learn how to balance her fight for women’s suffrage with playing with her children. She and Mary also never exchange words and only share a scene for a very brief moment.

Mark

9/10

Doug says...

In the mangled words of another of Julie Andrews’ famous roles: How do you judge an iconic performance like Mary Poppins? 

Answer: you can’t really. Andrews is one of those rare beasts who has managed to have two truly iconic film roles under her belt (three if you count the Queen Mother of Genovia). Lead in both Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, she really is one of the stand-out talents of her generation, not to forget that she originated the iconic Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady on stage (and the existing cast recording is utterly tremendous). One wonders what would have happened if she hadn’t had that botched vocal chord surgery that took away her extraordinary four-octave range and left her with a gravelly (but still deeply charismatic) voice. We’ll never know. 

But what we are left with is the recordings and films that she did (thankfully) do before the surgery. Mary Poppins is a two hour twenty minute madcap ride, trampling over PL Travers’ much-nastier novels and installing kindness, sweetness and a hint of sass. While Travers hated the film (and if you read the books, you’ll see why - it’s a completely different character and overall vibe), I think this is fairly untouchable as far as nostalgic childhood films go. 

Andrews is flawless, singing the Disney Golden Age songs to their utmost and embedding them in our memories forever (I once drunkenly sang 'Feed The Birds' word-perfect in my friend’s kitchen at 3am). Even Dick Van Dyke’s accent is so bad it’s actually good. The mythology around the film is amazing - Disney apparently got the Sherman Brothers to play ‘Feed the Birds’ to him all the time, and he dragged Oscar-winning actress Jane Darwell out of her retirement home to play the Bird Woman. Andrews wrote in her autobiography about the heatwave in which they all learnt the 'Step In Time' choreography while the cast is brimming with legends like Hermione Baddeley (who milks every second of screen-time) and Glynis Johns (who originated Sondheim roles onstage and who is still considered one of the best interpreters of ‘Send in the Clowns’). And David Tomlinson as Mr Banks who would later appear with another legend: Angela Lansbury in Disney’s Bedknobs and Broomsticks. It’s ridiculous! 

Is the film bulletproof? Watching as an adult, the first half is pretty slight - it’s just a series of fun adventures (the whole Penguin Cafe Dance Break is actually completely irrelevant to the plot) and things don’t really kick off until the opening strains of 'Feed the Birds' and the story becomes about Mr Banks forging a real connection with his kids. Apparently Disney was concerned that men were focusing too much on work and forgetting their families. He was also worried that women were focusing too much on their own liberation, hence the bit where Mrs Banks stops being a Suffragette. Awks. It’s when the story kicks in that the film develops proper heart and it stops being fun vignettes and becomes meaningful. 

All this goes to say what? This film is a Moment in Hollywood’s history. It is as important as Gone With The Wind in 1939 and Moonlight in 2016. It will be iconic for a long, long time to come. Also Dick Van Dyke doubles as the old Banker and it’s still so convincing that I’m pretty sure he’s a wizard. 

Highlight

Julie Andrews. Simple as. Who else can dance with cartoon penguins so convincingly?

Lowlight

The Uncle Albert scene was always my least favourite vignette. Ed Wynne was a famous vaudevillian and while he’s far from terrible, it feels the most unnecessary scene in the whole film. 

Mark

10/10