SAVING MR. BANKS - Disney's New Film About The Making Of MARY POPPINS- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 7:17am

I like the trailer, and now I understand the title.

Mr. Banks is the character who undergoes the biggest transformation in the film's story, and I've always loved David Tomlinson's performance (even thought he deserved an Oscar nomination for it).

I see how they are drawing a parallel between his characterization and Pamela Travers' own father, and that's an interesting idea. It could work.

It's so great to see Emma Thompson in a high-profile leading role again, and Hanks isn't a Walt lookalike or soundalike, but he seems to capture the essence of the man, which is far more important that mimicry. And his resemblance is close enough that I can suspend my disbelief.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 7:18am

I do wish someone would edit a mashup of the Hanks films:

Saving Private Ryan
Saving Mr. Banks

Together, they'd make one hell of a trailer.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 8:34am

I doubt we'll ever see a biopic of Walt that isn't complete hagiography. As it is, it looks like Walt is a fun-loving, quirky saint in this.

I'm not too sure about that, Kad. I think the trailer does give that impression but I wouldn't be surprised if that is simply meant to just get the butts in the seats.

John Lee Hancock was recently interviewed and spoke about how this is not a "sugarcoated" portrayal of Walt.



John Lee Hancock Moviefone Interview

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 8:53am

Walt was on his best behavior with Pamela, and that's what I see in the video. He's doing everything he can to work with a difficult woman and get the rights to the books.

I don't see a "saint" in this trailer. I see a businessman playing the game.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 9:04am

Exactly, besty.

Walt was a very shrewd businessman and played his hands very well.

He found a way to be both a respected by his peers/employees and beloved by the masses.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 9:21am

He very rarely, if ever, paid compliments to anyone.

His biggest compliment to the Sherman brothers was, "That'll work."

They were insulted at first until they were told by others this was Walt's highest praise. If he thought "it would work" in one of his movies, he meant it 100 percent. Otherwise, you'd hear about it. Or he would find someone else to "make it work."

He also met with Arthur Freed and Stanley Donen from MGM once. They wanted to "borrow" Mickey Mouse for a dance sequence with Gene Kelly in Anchors Aweigh. Walt just looked at them and said, "Let me get this straight. You want Mickey Mouse to appear in an MGM movie? Mickey Mouse will never appear in an MGM movie."

A shrewd businessman and a giant in the industry. But he absolutely understood the value of his image, what it meant, and how it could be used to great benefit.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 10:56am

One thing has me curious about this film.

It's been rated PG-13. "Parents strongly cautioned."

For "thematic elements including some unsettling images."

I certainly don't want to know any spoilers, but I do wonder what it's referring to.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 11:05am

The film is supposed to delve into Travers' childhood, with her abusive and alcoholic father. I would assume that's where that would come into play.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 11:08am

Kad beat me to it. You are correct!

[jv92]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 11:47am

I'm looking forward to this with some trepidation. And I really would love a non-biased portrait of Walt, too, but until his surviving daughter passes away, I doubt we'll see that.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 12:19pm

We are only seeing Walt like others have said, in a two week window plus at the premiere.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 1:37pm

From Wikipedia:

The Disney musical adaptation was released in 1964. Primarily based on the first novel in what was then a sequence of four books, it also lifted elements from the sequel Mary Poppins Comes Back. Although Travers was an adviser to the production, she disapproved of the dilution of the harsher aspects of Mary Poppins's character, felt ambivalent about the music, and so hated the use of animation that she ruled out any further adaptations of the later Mary Poppins novels. At the film's star-studded premiere (to which she was not invited, but had to ask Walt Disney for permission to attend), she reportedly approached Disney and told him that the animated sequence had to go. Disney responded by walking away, saying as he did, "Pamela, the ship has sailed". Enraged at what she considered shabby treatment at Disney's hands, Travers would never again agree to another Poppins/Disney adaptation, though Disney made several attempts to persuade her to change her mind.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 2:12pm

Wow. Uncle Walt was a dick.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 3:45pm

I was told by one of his big child stars of yesteryear that he was very protective of and kind to the kids who worked for him, but that he had a mean streak. He'd sometimes clear the set if he needed to rip someone a new one. Whatever, he sure knew how to build, grow and maintain an empire.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 3:55pm

The thing is, from other articles and interviews, she sold the rights and agreed to be only an adviser, not a producer, not a writer, not anything. Disney had the ultimate and final say on the project. Travers didn't have the right to tell Disney how to make his movie based on her books. If she wanted more rights, she should've worked those out before selling them. You can't take the money and then complain about the service later. It's done and done.

I don't think he was being a dick at all. Maybe, and I mean maybe, he was a dick with not inviting her, but it sounds like she had second thoughts and it was too late to change it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:02pm

^ Exactly.

I think, "Pamela, the ship has sailed" is a much better response than, "Look, honey, the movie has been made already. This is the premiere, so f*ck off."

That would have been a dick.

She was the one being impossible. AFTER the premiere she told him, "It's time to go to work and 'fix' this movie."

I'm surprised he didn't send her home on the next plane. Actually, he probably did.

She was an advisor, but Disney had the final say and creative control. That was in her contract when she gave him the rights.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:09pm

I'm even more curious now to see what this movie is going to be like. If all of this is true she's going to come across as a completely unsympathetic character.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:16pm

Anyone have a version of the screenplay?

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:22pm

Nothing I read makes her seem anywhere close to being a professional. By all accounts, she was hard to deal with. It's not going to be an easy role to play.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:49pm

Oh, I think Walt dealt with Pamela Travers quite well. She was completely unprofessional and untactful. Maybe the Disney people weren't her cup of tea, but she could have handled the situation, with more, er...grace?

I'd like to see a movie made about Walt about his life between the early 1930s and the late 1940s. He did some pretty rotten things while creating wonderful films like SNOW WHITE and PINOCCHIO.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:54pm

Is this film based on a book between Disney and Travers and the trouble they had shooting the film? I thought that it was but can not find the name of the book or author anywhere. I would be curious to read it before seeing the film.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 4:55pm

They actually released an audio recording of one of the meetings between the Shermans, the screenwriter, and Travers on a rerelease of the MARY POPPINS soundtrack-- a "special edition" of some sort. The sound is muffled, but she's really persnickety and unpleasant.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 5:13pm

The sympathy will come from us getting to know this woman and how she was raised. Her abusive childhood, where she fantasized about a "magic nanny" who made everything right in the home, led her to write the books.

And while they are darker than the Disney incarnation, there are also some really lovely, imaginative parts. All four books are episodic, and Disney used episodes from the first two books to make his movie.

There are also some really gross things, like the lady who breaks off her fingers and gives them to the kids as candy. Then she would instantly grow new fingers. Even as a kid, I remember thinking WTF?

There were also two other Banks children (the twins) who were written out of Disney's movie. There is a wonderful section of (I think?) the third book, where the twins who have not yet learned to talk (to humans), can talk to every other living creature. They can communicate with birds and dogs and cats and mice. And as they learn their first English words, they begin to lose the ability to communicate with nature. Eventually, they can speak with humans, but nothing else.

I always loved that part. As a kid, I found it profound.

I also think Pamela's bark was worse than her bite. She bitched a lot (by all accounts), but in the end, Disney turned out what is arguably his finest live-action film, to this day.

I love the books. I love the movie even more.

(And not to start a war, but I absolutely HATED the Broadway show.)

I'm also interested in seeing a film about A.A. Milne and Christopher Robin, who was a very unhappy kid. He and his father got along until Milne started school and all the kids teased him about the books. Milne wrote Winnie the Pooh as a way of reaching out to his son, who would later hate him for doing it.

As an adult, Christopher Robin Milne resented the Pooh stories. He felt his father had exploited him and his childhood. He later married his first cousin (!), and his mother and he fought over it for the rest of their lives. He only saw his father occasionally as an adult, but he never saw his mother after his father died. For the last 15 years of her life, even on her deathbed, they refused to see each other.

A sad and angry life for a child who inspires such warmth and love in children everywhere.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 5:25pm

OK, despite my love for the MARY POPPINS film, I have one huge problem with it--

There's a scene after the kids run away from the bank and bump into Bert, who is now a chimney sweep, and he gives a very moving speech about how Mr. Banks loves them, even though he has trouble showing it, and so on. But isn't the film called MARY POPPINS and not BERT? Shouldn't SHE give that speech?

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/12/13 at 5:31pm

I don't think Mary would ever be that impertinent or obvious. It would be completely out of character for her to talk with the children that way.

One of the things I love about Mary, as played by Julie Andrews, is that she never reacts the way you think she should or would.

If something is shocking (to us), she's cool as a cucumber. If something is sweet or mildly innocuous, she is shocked or upset. She smiles when things are sad. She looks wistful when others are happy.

It's a wonderful way to play the part, making her even more of an unpredictable mystery.

Julie rightfully won an Oscar for it.

As for Bert's speech, it's one of my favorite parts of the film. I will also say that when the kids run away from the bank and run into Bert in the dark streets of London, I found that part to be fairly scary as a kid. So it wasn't all "sunshine and lollipops."