Estimated Reading Time 6min
I watched Mary Poppins countless times as a kid. Julie Andrews. Dick Van Dyke. The songs. The magic. It was one of those films that felt timeless. So when I finally picked up P.L. Travers’ original book, I was curious to see what had changed between page and screen. The answer? Quite a lot.
As always, spoilers ahead.
The Biggest Difference Is Mary Poppins Herself
Let’s start with the obvious one. Movie Mary Poppins and Book Mary Poppins are practically different people. Julie Andrews’ version is firm, proper, and occasionally strict, but she’s also warm and genuinely likeable. Even when she’s correcting the children, there’s a kindness underneath it all.
Book Mary Poppins? Not so much. She is rude. She is vain. She snaps at people constantly. She spends a surprising amount of time admiring her own reflection and generally behaves as though she’s better than everyone around her. The magic is still there, and the adventures are still fascinating, but as a person, I found her incredibly difficult to like. If I had only ever read the book and never seen the movie, I don’t think I would have understood why people loved Mary Poppins so much.
Bert Barely Exists
One of my favourite parts of the movie is Bert. Dick Van Dyke brings so much charm and energy to the role that it’s hard to imagine the story without him. The book apparently had no problem imagining exactly that. Bert only appears briefly. He’s a match seller who also draws chalk pictures on the pavement, but his role is tiny compared to the film.
The famous chalk-picture adventure still exists, but it’s completely different. Instead of Mary, Bert, Jane, and Michael entering the picture together, Mary visits Bert by herself and they go on the adventure alone. Personally, I much preferred the movie version. The adventure feels far more magical when the children get to experience it too.
Many of Bert’s Best Scenes Were Invented for the Movie
The movie expanded Bert’s role dramatically. The laughing scene with Uncle Albert? Bert wasn’t there in the book. The chimney sweep sequences? Not in the book either. In fact, chimney sweeps aren’t really part of the story at all. Those scenes were created specifically for the film, and honestly, I think the movie is better for it. Bert adds warmth, humour, and heart to almost every scene he’s in.
The Parents Hardly Matter in the Book
One thing that surprised me was how little the parents appear. Mr Banks and Mrs Banks are barely involved. The book focuses almost entirely on Mary Poppins and the children. The movie, on the other hand, gives the parents much larger roles. Mrs Banks receives her suffragette storyline. Mr Banks gets his entire character arc.
The bank sequence becomes one of the central plot points. None of that exists in the book. There’s no dramatic bank visit. No threat of Mr Banks losing his job. No emotional kite-flying payoff. The movie added all of that.
The Book Contains Many More Adventures
While the movie added plenty of material, it also removed a lot. The book is essentially a collection of magical adventures. Mary takes the children on numerous journeys that never appear in the film. There are stories involving a cow, a zoo, Mrs Lark and her dog Andrew, and several other characters that movie audiences never meet. Some of these adventures were genuinely delightful, and I could easily imagine them working well on screen. The film simply didn’t have room for all of them.
There Are Four Children, Not Two
Another major difference is the Banks family itself. In the movie, the focus stays on Jane and Michael. In the book, there are actually four children. Two of them are babies. The babies even receive their own chapters and adventures. I completely understand why the movie simplified things. Managing two older children is much easier than trying to build an entire story around four children, including infants. Still, it was one of the more noticeable changes.
Some Familiar Movie Elements Don’t Exist
A few iconic parts of the movie came as a surprise because they simply aren’t in the book. There are no kites. There is no “Let’s Go Fly a Kite.” The bank storyline doesn’t exist. Several major songs and scenes were invented specifically for the film. Yet despite all those additions, the movie still manages to capture much of the spirit of the original story.
The Movie Kept the Magic
For all the differences, I do think the movie preserved the heart of the story. The sense of wonder. The magical adventures. The idea that extraordinary things can happen on an ordinary day. Those elements remain intact. What changed most dramatically was Mary Poppins herself. And for me, that change made all the difference.
Book vs Movie: Which Was Better?
The movie wins. Not because the book was bad. There were plenty of things I enjoyed about it, especially some of the adventures that never made it to the screen. But I simply could not get past Mary Poppins’ personality. She was vain, self-absorbed, rude, and constantly cross. Julie Andrews transformed that character into someone audiences could actually love. She remained firm and proper, but she also became patient, caring, and endearing. Without the movie, I don’t think I would have liked Mary Poppins as a character at all. The book had some wonderful ideas. The movie took those ideas and gave us a much better Mary Poppins.
Have you read Mary Poppins, seen the Disney movie, or both? Were you surprised by how different Mary’s personality is in the book?
See You in The Adventures!
Christy Grace
Leave a Reply