It's the reason Julie Andrews chose not to appear in this production, thus the casting of Sally Ann Howes in her place. Poppins and Scrumptious both become surrogate parents to children, and act as mediators between the severe practicality of adults, versus the more whimsical, impracticality of children. The alliance between Potts and Scrumptious takes place relatively early in the film, as in 'Mary Poppins', and character dynamics between each film's couples are very similar. Both films demonstrate and defend the need for dreams, childishness, and impracticality in an otherwise adult, business-and-profit driven world, and both are set in nearly the same time period.
reply
share
TMC-4
8 years ago
Sally Ann Howes rightly or wrongly, has been considered the "poor woman's Julie Andrews" during the height of her career.
https://www.google.com/#q=julie+andrews+sally+ann+howes
https://www.google.com/#q=julie+andrews+sally+ann+howes+career
https://www.facebook.com/DDDivas365/photos/a.1617597165219158.1073741851.1445436915768518/1624916281153913/?type=3
She was basically Julie Andrews in an era where Julie Andrews already existed. As a result, she always seemed to in the shadow of her fellow British musical comedy star. It's not that she didn't have success. She was nominated for a Tony Award for her lead in a revival of 'Brigadoon.' She took over the role of Eliza Doolitte for Andrews on Broadway in 'My Fair Lady' to great success. She was a mainstay of West End musicals for a generation. But when it came to the movies, nothing quite happened for her. Her lone memorable role was that of Truly Scrumptious in 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' in the late 60s. And while, it wasn't pleasant enough and her chemistry with Dick Van Dyke was good, in the end it was no 'Mary Poppins'. Miss Sally Ann's film career did not reignite after that. Still, being a poor man's Julie Andrews is not the worst of career options. And, she does look pretty scrumptious, too!
reply
share
Navaros
8 years ago
They definitely used Howes as an Andrews stand-in/imitator in this film.
reply
share
TMC-4
8 years ago
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/14936118-chitty-chitty-bang-bang-1968
Because [R23] Julie would've been in her element in BEDKNOBS and CHITTY. Those singing fantasy/family roles are what made her a star and what people wanted to see her in. In 1968, when CHITTY and STAR! were released, she was the #1 movie star for a second year in a row. STAR! and DARLING LILY were a departure from all that. Had Julie done CHITTY, it probably would've been a hit, not just because of her, but because it would've been a MARY POPPINS reunion of Dick Van Dyke. Audiences love *beep* like that, which is why Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney or Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers or Rock Hudson & Doris Day made several movies together.
—Anonymous
reply 24 02/09/2015
reply
share