In episode 3 of Coffee with Kurtti, I hit Jeff Kurtti with a bombshell: “Roger Rabbit is just as good as, if not better than, Mary Poppins.” Jeff, incredulous, fires back in defense of his beloved Poppins. But, do I really believe that? If so, am I right, or wrong? We go over some of the points each film has in its favor, and talk about why it’s actually a closer race than some people think. Below is a paraphrased excerpt from our conversation.
Jeff: Both films really are of their time, and both films really are of their Studio at the time. They’re interesting because they’re both kind of microcosms now that I think about it.
Keith: Yeah. There’s a lot of parallels between the two.
Jeff: One of the things I think makes Roger Rabbit a repeat view… you really are digesting three different kinds of cinematic language.
Keith: That was one of the things for me that made it harder to compare. The amount of animation, the quality of the effects. Obviously you can’t throw up a movie that’s 25 years older and expect to compare the effects fairly.
Jeff: One of the things too is as much as you see Roger Rabbit as wall-to-wall animation, if you listen to Mary Poppins, without looking at it, it is practically wall-to-wall music.
Jeff: The whole thing [Roger Rabbit] was hand-made, in the same sense that Mary Poppins was hand-made. As sophisticated as it looks, it was still a four-pass, genuinely photographed—not digital—animation technique. That may be where Roger Rabbit gets taken for granted.
Keith: I think another thing that might get taken for granted as well is Eddie Valiant.
Check out the full conversation below:
You can also find us on iTunes: Coffee with Kurtti on iTunes
Well folks, what do you think? Does Roger Rabbit hold a candle to Mary Poppins?