For making it necessary for women to not only keep house, raise children and feed their families - but also to hold down a job while doing all of the above! Lol Thanks for that!
___________________________________________
Sometimes its better to be silent and thought a fool - than to speak and remove all doubt...
Well to be fair, some women had to do that anyway. not women like Mrs banks, but plenty of working class married women worked as well as raising families pre-WW1. They took in sewing or washing, or went out charring, or worked in factories, sweqtshops etc. In 'Victorian farm' Ruth Goodman talked about her female ancestors who were straw plaiters. And of course farmers' wives did a great deal on the farm, the dairy and the poultry were usually their responsibility for instance.
shareThe live musical version leaves out the whole suffragette angle. There in no Sister Suffragette song in the touring version.
Some have theorized that the moral of the Mary Poppins movie is that women need to quit being political and come home and raise their families. In the end, Mrs. Banks finally decides to remove her sash and attach it to the kite. She is giving up on politics to raise her family.
_______________
A dope trailer is no place for a kitty.
In the film saving mr banks (which is of dubious authenticity, so i don't place much credence on anything it says), it is suggetsed tha the writers of the film made Mrs banks a suffragette because they didn't understand why she would have a nanny to look after her children if she didn't have a job, they needed to find some other reason for her to need one. This seems rather unlikely to me, nannies were the norm in upoer middle class families like the bankses in those days in England, and i am sceptical about the idea that they were not used in America as well.
shareI just read that in England the woman's sufferage movement didn't start until 1918, and the movie was set in 1910. I wonder if anyone else knew that.
shareNo, that is not correct. The sufrragette movement in Britain started at the end of the 19th century, and continued until the beginning of WW1, when it was put on hold for patriotic reasons during the war. Women over thirty got the vote in 1918, and women over 21 in 1928. 1918 was also the year that all British men finally got the vote, until then about a third of men couldn't vote - mostly young men who were not property holders.
shareIt wasn't just in SMB. This is discussed in the DVD extras for this movie as well - that if Mr and Mrs Banks are so awesome in the books, why did there need to be a magical nanny to look after the kids? I think this was a serious bone of contention between Disney and Travers.
ALTHOUGH, for the record, there's a difference between being passionate about creating a better world and being passionate about something to the exclusion of everything else. I think Mrs. Banks' issue isn't that she's a suffragette. It's that she cares about being a suffragette MORE than she does her children. In the beginning, Katie Nana has to interrupt her several times before she finally sighs exasperatedly and says, "Yes, Katie Nana, what IS it?" As though KN needing to tell her something about the children is an inconvenience to her. And later in the movie, when Bert brings Jane and Michael home after they run away from the bank, she refuses even to consider looking after them herself. It's the nanny's day off, but heaven forbid Mom watch her own kids, since that would mean SHE would miss out on a suffragette rally.
They're not awesome in the books, they're just ordinary pleasant middle class parents. And ordinary pleasant middle class parents who could afford it did have nannies in the 1930s, in England anyway. But of course that doesn't make a very dramatic plot. And the parents are made central in the film, wheras in the books they are really just background figures. the trouble with the books is that they don't really have plots, they're just a series of episodes where the children go out with Mary Poppins and magical things happen. some of the amusing happenings in the books are worked into the film (the tea party with Uncle albert, going into the chalk picture etc), but most of it is not in the books.
shareDisney made this in 1964... but it's more a 'spoof' oh you would not need something asodd as Mary Poppins if you were home with your children where you belonged.
*When she comes home from the suffrage event, Mrs. Banks is naively oblivious that the household help is already aware of women's issues and needs. THey however do not have time to protest--otherwise chores would not get done.
JFK had convened a commission on the status of women in America before he died. Some of the members went on to found the National Organization for Women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_on_the_Status_of_Women
NOW would be founded after this film was made (1966). So it also foreshadows this too.
I agree, women shouldn't be able to vote.
shareThe one thing I didn't like about the movie was Mrs. Banks giving up her campaign to get votes for women at the end. That was a very important cause and deserved more than being the tail of a kite. What happened to the "dauntless crusader?"
Boo Hoo! Let me wipe away the tears with my PLASTIC hand!--Lindsey McDonald (Angel)
Now that the movie Suffragette has come out, I feel even more strongly that Mrs. Banks was wrong to give up the cause. She was a lucky woman with a great home, a cook and maid and nanny, a husband with a good income; she didn't need to worry about votes for women any more. Yet some women gave up much to fight for their rights. I find that line "Take heart for Mrs. Pankhurst has been clapped in irons again" to be almost reprehensible. Boo, Mrs. Banks, and Boo, Walt Disney!
Boo Hoo! Let me wipe away the tears with my PLASTIC hand!--Lindsey McDonald (Angel)
I don't think Mrs. Banks was necessarily giving up the cause. IMHO, she was just trying to incorporate her family more often in her interests. Besides, attaching the sash to the kite is a good way to get people to notice the cause.
shareIt wasn't a question of whether it was wrong or she was lucky....its supposed to be 'bygone' in 1964 a past issue.
Don't get mad @ Disney....the academic field of women's history did not even exist. If you had gone into a bookstore back then, would have only found passing reference to the 19th amendment re the American women's vote. And no academic professional association. Was not established until 1970's.
Colleges, universities...etc did not believe women's history was worth studying back then. And certainly not anything from another country re women's history. This provided families with critical insight about women's history.
I agree, women shouldn't be able to vote.
So all men should be allowed to vote just because they are men, but women need to pass extensive background checks to make sure they are smart enough to vote?
YOUR VOTE MATTERS! Please vote in every election. Thank you.
What? Voting and working are two different things.
shareThe whole Suffragette movement was started by ne'er do well idle rich ladies, who had nothing better to do with their time.
share"For making it necessary for women to not only keep house, raise children and feed their families - but also to hold down a job while doing all of the above! Lol Thanks for that! "
You must be 12. Or stupid. What does your right to vote have to do with you being workshy? upper-class women can afford not to work, working class women cannot. Both have the right to vote on what twit runs the country. You have no point. Other then that you're lazy.
Why do people so frequently get told to read the book on a movie database?
[deleted]
That's not 'necessary'.
If expectations have changed, that doesn't affect that nobody, male or female, has to go out with / marry someone who insists that they must go out to work.
[deleted]