SAVING MR. BANKS is a corporate, borderline-sexist spoonful of lies

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/12/13 at 10:52pm

This sort of seals what was already stinkin' to high heaven:

"Why does it matter that Saving Mr. Banks sabotages its supposed heroine? Because in a Hollywood where men still pen 85 percent of all films, there's something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control by asking to be a co-screenwriter. (Another battle she lost — Mary Poppins' opening credits list Travers as merely a "consultant.") Just as slimy is the sense that this film, made by a studio conglomerate in a Hollywood dominated by studio conglomerates, is tricking us into cheering for the corporation over the creator. We take sides because we can't imagine living in a world without the songs the Sherman brothers wrote for the film: "Let's Go Fly a Kite," "Feed the Birds," "Chim Chim Cher-ee." We wouldn't have had to either way; if Mary Poppins had collapsed, Walt planned to package up the songs wholesale for Bedknobs and Broomsticks."

Review here.

Updated On: 12/12/13 at 10:52 PM

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 12/12/13 at 11:03pm

I've said this before, but Travers is no victim. Disney paid her fair and square for rights she agreed to have/give away. She had no right to bitch and moan when she didn't have her way. I'd be pissed if they changed that in any way.

It sounds like they're telling the truth, but I'll wait until after I've seen it.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 12/12/13 at 11:25pm

I have zero interest in this film. Besides being sick to death of the tiresome story of how P.L. Travers hated what Disney did to her beloved Mary Poppins, Tom Hanks, in no way, shape or form, reminds me of Walt Disney. Nobody would give two ****s about Mary Poppins if Walt Disney hadn't made HIS film. Everything in the stage show that was different from the film, I hated; and I was told those parts were more like the books. Furthermore, why would she have been given a co-writer credit, when they rejected basically everything she suggested (which was pretty much to reject everything they had written)?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 12:57am

But is it okay for me to still enjoy both movies?

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 1:06am

I think the main problem is portraying Disney as a folksy 'Uncle Walt' figure. His entire biography shows a person who had a lot of moments of darkness and shrewdness that in many ways was not in the consideration of those who worked with him. I think the actual details about him and Travers were also much colder. Didn't even Hanks himself say Travers would probably hate this film too?

The whole Saving Mr. Banks script history is an interesting one. It was on The Blacklist, that usually notes the best un-produced scripts. Many in the industry knew the original script was good but any studio buying that movie would have to face potential Disney lawsuits. It was widely believed that when Disney bought the script, they had every intent of letting it die in development hell. Instead they got another person to work on the script which has led people to believe the script everybody liked by Kelly Marcel had much more of the truth in it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 8:36am

Congratulations on finding one of the few bad reviews.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at an 83% for critics reviews and a 91% for audience reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saving_mr_banks_2013/

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 9:01am

Emma being fab on Letterman

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 9:10am

There are always multiple sides to every story: your story, my story and the truth.
Very few people know all the facts and this story is based upon facts along with a very generous dose of gossip from the studio lot.

Enjoy it for what it is worth and nothing more. No one is an angel and I have never doubted that Walt was one. Most highly successful business people stepped on people as they made their way to the top. If you want to know more about the man behind the mouse then go to the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco and you will see more than Mickey and Disneyland. Disney and Travers cannot be fairly put on trial based upon the very limited plot lines in this movie.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 9:23am

I think the people who try to paint him as the epitome of a corporate monster are just as delusional as the people who try to paint him as a sugary-sweet saint. Even the documentary released by Disney, called "Walt: The Man Behind the Myth" doesn't paint him as a saint. They talk at length about how he manipulated people. He would break up congenial creative partnerships within his own company and pair people together who didn't get along. He thought a better creative product would result from the friction and tension, and he was right, more often than not. He never paid a direct compliment. He would praise someone to others, but never to the person himself/herself. And he would often do it in the form of a challenge to his other employees, suggesting they ought to rise to the occasion of someone who was doing superior work.

Check out that documentary sometime. It's not as good as "The Boys: The Sherman Brothers Story," which also shows how these two brilliantly creative songwriters couldn't even speak to each other for most of their adult lives.

The idea that Disney is painted as "saintly" isn't even true within its own company or its own video releases. It's a myth in the minds of uniformed non-fans who decide "they know the truth" without doing any research at all.

Updated On: 12/13/13 at 09:23 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 9:53am

Frankly, this review is pretty much the impression I got every time I saw one of those trailers. Yeah, they're just trailers and all, but still. Not in a hurry to see it.

One of the less flattering reviews...

Updated On: 12/13/13 at 09:53 AM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 12:15pm

Depicting its hesitant heroine as a kind of Scrooge figure, whose cranky, principled stance can only be conquered by the magic of Disney, Saving Mr. Banks plays like a celebration of selling out. Naturally, the film neglects to note how much Travers actually hated the finished Mary Poppins movie.

This part of the review in particular worries me. I doubt I'll love this movie, but hopefully Thompson can rise above some of the issues with her character, she's such a delight to watch. I do wish anyone but John Lee Hancock had directed.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 1:34pm

"Because in a Hollywood where men still pen 85 percent of all films, there's something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control by asking to be a co-screenwriter."

While I'm not going to disagree with this, two women wrote this much lauded screenplay.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 1:54pm

I'm not surprised the cynics are out in full force calling this a "corporate" spoonful of lies. Give me a f*cking break. I sat through a screening a few weeks ago and greatly enjoyed it. Thought it was well produced. I used to work for Disney but feel no loyalty to them; I'd certainly voice a negative view about the film if I had one. But I really don't.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 1:56pm

What a bunch of humbug! The movie is fabulous. Do not miss it.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 3:06pm

I was going to see it this morning with a friend who canceled so I saw AMERICAN HUSTLE instead. And WHOA that was an excellent film!

I'll see BANKS tomorrow!

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 3:19pm

Jordan, I cannot wait to see AMERICAN HUSTLE! Just bought my tickets for the first showing they are having in Gainesville, FL (not until Thursday unfortunately) this morning. SAVING MR. BANKS is not coming out here until that day either, so I'll have to wait some time for that one.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 4:28pm

I agree with DAME. It's a good movie. Not the year's best but definitely worth seeing.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/13/13 at 5:08pm

I personally am not anti-Disney. Love the parks, the resorts, etc. I love the book Walt Disney: The Triumph of The Imagination. He's a flawed figure who gave and took but his early rise is fascinating.

I think is a fair written piece by Vadim Rizov on what the movie did in simplifying a figure who should be getting the big cinematic treatment but one where there is no hagiography or takedown.
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/12/saving-mr-banks-review

[daisybeetle]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 1:49am

Cigarette smoking is not allowed in a Disney movie, including this one, even though it was a big part of Walt's life (and probably death).

[Almira]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 2:00am

A friend of mine sent me this story that someone posted on a message board he subscribes to.



I went to a DGA screening of "Saving Mr. Banks" yesterday. It starts
off promisingly, but ultimately becomes a puff-piece and promo for
"Mary Poppins" the film and a very untruthful portrait of Walt Disney
-- who is so benevolent and cutesy in Hanks's performance. The
historical facts of is encounter with P.L Travers are jettisoned for a
jolly happy-ending story and very cheap psychology.

Coincidentally, last week when I mentioned to someone that I was
seeing this film, they told me that in 1964 their mother was flying
home from California and sat next to P.L Travers who was returning
from the premiere of "Mary Poppins." Travers turned to my friend's
mother and started ranting about how much she hated the film and
vented her anger. Then apologized and explained that she never talked
to strangers like this but it was her uncontrollable anger speaking
and then she proceeded to knock back several drinks -- also explaining
that she never drank like this on planes.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 2:33am

Imagine that in the 1960s, a woman wouldn't be welcomed into the film (or any other industry) how dare HISTROY be strife with sexism.

While I don't really have a big interest in seeing this, I've heard so many raves and am not ruling it out.

[jv92]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 12:24pm

The WALT: THE MAN BEHIND THE MYTH documentary was a puff piece televised around the same time as his 100th birthday. It may have portrayed him as a tough taskmaster, and thrown in a few snippets of interviews with the animators he named during his HUAC testimony, but his HUAC association is brushed aside and whitewashed with a sort of, "Well, anyone in his position would have done the same thing" explanation, which is not true. They call him "politically naive" in that film too (and that's a quote), which I think is far from the truth. Walt was friends with J. Edgar Hoover and an ardent Republican from the 1940s on. I think he knew where he stood and who he was voting for.

Disney was a visionary and a wonderful creative person, but I would hope that with the death of Diane Disney Miller, a film will come out that will paint him in an honest light-- neither negatively nor positively. Just honestly. I can understand the criticism this film is getting from some reviewers, though I do think the film of MARY POPPINS is a wonderful family film and a treasured part of my childhood.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 12:33pm

Disney’s Saving Mr. Banks is not banking. On its limited runs (15 screens), it looks like a per-screen estimate of around $23,000 for the three day. It will go wide next week and obviously is skewing to an older audience. (This older female loved it.) Surely, it was hoping to have some awards to help market the picture, but only Emma Thompson received kudos from the Golden Globes and SAG.

The film is a flop in the UK, and somehow it doesn't look like it's starting off so well box office wise in the U.S. It's gonna need strong word of mouth to improve on these numbers. I'm shocked, I thought it was gonna be a mammoth hit--it still could be, but they're gonna need some help from audiences and a bunch of Oscar nods to counteract the lack of Globe/SAG love.


BO Preview

Updated On: 12/14/13 at 12:33 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 1:22pm

@ ray: You really thought "Saving Mr. Banks" was going to be a MAMMOTH hit?!! Why?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/14/13 at 1:26pm

Haha, maybe that's an exaggeration, but I thought it could really do LINCOLN business. I figured the family angle, the familiar story, etc would make it a must for family audiences around the holidays, clearly I was wrong.