SAVING MR. BANKS - Disney's New Film About The Making Of MARY POPPINS — Page 3

She should play the part again but this time with Jaden & Willow Smith as Jane & Michael.

Luckily Cameron Mackintosh was able to sweet talk her into handing him the stage rights to do a stage adaption!

Well, it sounds like she really challenged a guy who was perhaps used to being surrounded by yes people at that point in his career. Just my impression of the scenario through the trailer and the discussion here, which is very interesting.

Updated On: 7/13/13 at 12:39 AM

^ Such spinning!

It sounds like she flew all the way out there to go to the premiere and never talked with Disney before then.

I'm sure she hadn't seen the finished film, but she was in L.A. serving as an advisor on the project. There was nothing in her contract about approving a final cut. That would have been suicide on Disney's part. That's what this whole movie is about. He spoke plenty with her, and got PLENTY of advice. And that's it. She did have in her contract approval of the casting of Mary, which was a huge hurdle to overcome. She didn't like Julie Andrews for the part at all, and had to be convinced by Disney and by Julie that she could play it.

Feature films were and are often edited together up until the last possible minute before the premiere, making any number of adjustments before it is considered "locked." And even then movies are occasionally edited after they've had a premiere or opened (usually at great expense, to save a failing project).

If Pamela had been there watching rough cuts the film never would have opened. He didn't extend that courtesy, and he never should have extended that courtesy. No one in their right mind would do that. Even if she had adapted the screenplay herself, she would not have had any say in the final cut. Film is a director's medium and a producer's medium, not a writer's medium. They call the shots (literally). It's a very different world than theatre.

It was because she was such a pain in the ass and they all knew she would raise a stink in front of the press and media that she wasn't invited. Can you imagine if she'd walked out of the theatre saying, "Well, that was terrible!" Disney knew she wouldn't ever be satisfied with it, and the last thing he wanted was to have the author of the books go public at the premiere in front of the press, saying, "That sucked!"

But this sounds like she's some castaway orphan, this kindly British woman, whom they all shunned. She earned her "non-invitation" all by herself.

She was paid handsomely for the rights, hired as a consultant, and after many "difficult" rounds with Walt and the creative team, she was politely shown the door. But she walked back through it anyway, only to be told "The ship has sailed."

Again, I say that was nice, compared to, "F*ck off, Pamela! You're a pain in the ass!"

---

I understand the feeling of dread you feel as an artist when you feel you've sold out, especially concerning a creation that is very dear to your heart. It must have been very difficult to have pop culture always refer to "Walt Disney's Mary Poppins" instead of "P.L. Travers' Mary Poppins". It's a huge blow to the ego to see something take off so much further without you.

But that's where my sympathy ends for Travers. She made her decision to allow the adaptation to happen, and no matter how put out she felt, she also made the choice to be tactless and unprofessional about it during and after production/release.

Lack of sympathy aside, I think that tension and conflict helped to create the wonderful movie we have. I'm a firm believer that surrounding yourself with "yes men" suffocates the creative process and leads to very bland, though expensive looking, work. (example: Star Wars original trilogy vs. the prequels)

"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,"

Tell that to Bobby Driscoll --or maybe you could say it over his grave, if anyone knew where it was.

"In his biography on Disney Marc Elliot described Driscoll as the producer's favorite "live action" child star: "Walt often referred to Driscoll with great affection as the living embodiment of his own youth" However, during a project meeting following the completion of Peter Pan, Disney stated that he now saw Driscoll as best suited for roles as a young bully rather than a likeable protagonist. Driscoll's salary at Disney had been raised to $1750 per week and compared to his salary, Driscoll had little work from 1952 on. In March 1953, the additional two-year option Driscoll had been extended (which would have kept him at Disney into 1956) was canceled, just weeks after Peter Pan was released theatrically. A severe case of acne accompanying the onset of puberty and explaining why it was necessary for Driscoll to use heavy makeup for his performances on dozens of TV shows, was officially provided as the final reason for the termination of his connection with the Disney Studios.
On March 30, 1968, about three weeks after his 31st birthday, two boys playing in a deserted East Village tenement at 371 East 10th St. found his body. The medical examination determined that he had died from heart failure caused by an advanced hardening of the arteries because of his longtime drug abuse. There was no identification on the body, and photos taken of it and shown around the neighborhood yielded no positive identification. When Driscoll's body went unclaimed, he was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave in New York City's Potter's Field on Hart Island."

"I have found that memories are not very useful. I was carried on a silver platter ... and then dumped into the garbage."
---Bobby Driscoll

The story of Bobby Driscoll is awful--but it's true he seemed to be a pretty schizo man in terms of how he dealt with his child stars.

The full New Yorker article, btw is online I just realized in 6 long pages in their free section http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/19/051219fa_fact1

I still think the film looks delightful--I hope it is. I've come to my own mixed conclusions and beliefs about Walt Disney a while back--and those probably won't change. He was my first big hero. And probably the first person I held to esteem and then realized was not everything I thought.

I have highly mixed feelings about Walt Disney. I adore Disneyland and Disney World. When I visited elderly relatives in California and couldn't get anyone to go with me, I went to Disneyland alone, and rode Pirates of the Caribbean about 6 times. Yet, I too, remember reading that Walt Disney was anti-Semitic -- quite an irony considering Eisner's later running the company.

---

New One Sheet Poster

---

That's one of the most successful onesheets I have seen for a non-popcorn flick. It tells you exactly what the film will be about, features two prominent actors, and grabs your interest with the shadows of two iconic images. No doubt it will help spark interest to those who see the poster but haven't heard of the movie.

---

Also, it's interesting to note that the poster revelas a PG-13 rating for the film.

^ Ugh. Hate this cloying, manipulative. overlong piece of crap.