History Headscratchers / MaryPoppins

** I assumed Mary was doing this deliberately. Clearly she isn’t going to tell the parents about the magic adventures. Her jarring attitude that “nothing happened” has some advantages. If she just told the children to keep their adventures secret, they might feel that they had some leverage over Mary by knowing her big secret and would engage in power struggles with her (they are, after all, supposed to be experts at making nannies miserable). Her total denial undercuts that whole line of thought, once the adventure is over, talking about it is not simply disallowed, it is totally futile and won’t be acknowledged. Also, having the children and Mary agree to keep secrets from their parents would create a barrier between children and parents that Mary does not want. Instead, she is basically telling the children “when you parents are busy we will do some amazing things, but once playtime is over we are going to live in your parents’ world.” It cuts the children down to size so they don’t get the attitude that their association with Mary makes them superior to their parents.

** 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.

** Probably to give it a distinctive look, and they wanted to make it as close to the original in terms of setting as possible.

** Further thought: one of the lessons (even the main lesson) she was trying to teach them was that there is a time for fun and a time for seriousness. As part of this, she would encourage their imagination through their outings (whether it was real and done by magic or all in their minds doesn't matter), but by then turning around and saying "What are you talking about? That never happened" she's reminding them that the Mr. Bankses of the world will not look kindly on or accepting anything having to do with fun, entertainment, or imagination even without magic being involved. So it's both a wink and nudge to hint at what really happened and a reminder "this has to be between us, because no one is going to believe you". An encouragement to keep imagining and dreaming, but also pointing out that there's still a realistic side to life from which you have to keep such things separate.

### That she can't get her parrot to back-talk her.

* 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 TheSixties.

*** [[FridgeBrilliance Explains why Mr. Banks was so upset about her not teaching the kids anything useful.]]

** 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.

* Are Jane and Michael in school?

**** 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 about money management so much as it is that he wants to subvert Mary Poppins' authority.

** Maybe it is happening in the minds of the children? But then, what prompts Bank's sudden epiphany?

* 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 [[BigLippedAlligatorMoment Big Lipped Alligator Filter]]?) she's all "I'm a traditional nanny and we only do ordinary stuff; magic does not exist". *Hand-wringing*

### The fact[[hottip:*:The word fact here not referring to either {{canon}} or {{word of god}} but just being the best word for the situation]] that Marry Poppins can't preemptively help people from unhappiness.
### The fact that M.P. Can't help everyone.
### The [[{{fanon}} so-called]] "fact" that M.P. probably has never really been "romantic" with anyone- save Bert, and even that is dependant upon her being needed in London.
### The fact that she can't get her parrot to back-talk her.
### The fact that, eventually people don't need her anymore.

** This troper always thought it was for AddedAlliterativeAppeal.

** 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.

** 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?

### The fact that, eventually people don't need her anymore.

* Practically perfect in every way? Where does the 'practically' part come into it?

* Practically perfect in every way? Where does the 'practically' part come in?

** Yes it is. That's the point of the scene. They're greedy men, and they covet every single penny they see.