Interpretation 2: Banks as a failure of masculinity. He has no control over his wife (who is publicly agitating for more power for women, and shows him next to no affection) or his kids. He alone understands the importance and difficulty of making ends meet, and wishes to impart this wisdom to his children. But he loses his children to the tyranny of mirth imposed by Mary Poppins. In hiring her he loses the initial battle of wits against Mary in all her presumption. And then he loses another battle, in which she persuades him to take the kids with him to work. In neither case does he stop to say no-on-second-thought, but instead lets go of the reins, letting things take their own anarchical course. The second time jeopardizes the very livelihood that he is bound by duty to provide to his wife and children — he is fired. Note the ritual destruction of his umbrella/phallus. Only by the failed composure of the bank manager (did Mary arrange his death, too?) does Banks get a reprieve. Similarly, Mary’s indomitable self-control serves as a physical rebuff to the Burt’s repeated advances, too. Another case of failed masculinity?
Interpretation 3: The children are actually pretty mild (do they ever punch each other? throw hard objects with the intention of causing pain? swear? refuse the food they are given, with an insult? fail to give a damn?), but are supposed to stand in for any incorrigible child. And thus the false argument emerges: Jane and Michael can be nurtured to civility with a firm but loving and attentive caregiver, through the working of many outlandish amusements painted in garish colors. This is all that any child needs. Those kids that go shoot up their schools? All that's missing are some animated penguins and a romp through the chimney. That is, Mary fails to address the root cause of human depravity, drifting off after but a brief stint.
Interpretation 4: It doesn’t matter which particular changes are made in the Banks family, that Mr. Banks stops to smell the flowers, that the kids are given a chance to act compliantly. What matters is that harmony of any sort has arisen, which means increased performativity/efficiency: they are now able to do without a nanny altogether. This saves money. The economic principle guiding Banks’ workplace has come home with him. A welcome increase in general wealth will insure that father and children continue in their new course.
Interpretation 5: Whitewashes the reality of class struggle. The screever, resembling nothing of Bozo, the real screever in Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London, is unfazed by his social standing. Merry, in fact. His lungs are seemingly unaffected by his work as chimney sweep. Nor does his inability to afford a wife appear to drive him to alternative outlets. Nor does one see the neglected children of the likes of Burt running the streets, forming tomorrows criminal class.
etc etc etc