SAVING MR. BANKS is a corporate, borderline-sexist spoonful of lies — Page 3

Oh, let's be honest: smoking looks very cool on B&W film!

There was an ad with Fred Flintstone smoking which would never happen today, there was a Goofy short where he tried to quit smoking and failed.

Why do people act like this is a documentary? Are they that clueless or can't they tell the difference? Do they think "Amadeus" is completely true, too? Or should be? Or any of the dozens of recent, "based on a true story" movies, for that matter?

If you want to read a news story filled with facts about this subject, then read it. This is a creative film 'based on" the story of how and why Mary Poppins came to be a motion picture for Walt Disney.

I just got back from seeing the film. I thought it was deeply moving. it spoke to me about the struggles of the creative process, the struggles to sort out one's past through art, and the need artists have to answer questions about human nature through their art. It succeeded on all these levels. Excellent performances from Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Collin Ferrell, and Paul Giamatti.

And the next thought that occurred to me was that most of the recent criticisms I've read seem as if they came from people who haven't actually seen the movie, even though they claim to have seen it. There were more "untruths" in their articles about what was or wasn't included the film. Talk about agendas! I'm floored by the misinformation in their "factual," journalistic accounts of this film.

Ah, well.

See the movie or don't. Go in with your minds made up or closed off if that floats your boat.

I loved every single minute of it. A job well done by all, and a very touching and thought-provoking film.

---

There are many scenes in the film I loved but the scene where Travers walks into her hotel room and it's filled with Disney toys and goodies and her disdain made me chuckle. Although it didn't make sense for Winnie the Pooh to feature as I think the first short wasn't until 1966, the line about AA Milne got a laugh.

Updated On: 12/20/13 at 06:14 PM

I'm with Besty on this one! Love the movie and loved the performances. Emma and Colin Farrell really stood out for me and the little girl playing Travers as a child was simply beautiful!

I should also praise the great work by Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak as the Sherman Brothers.

It showed me that with the right setting and premise, the right actor, the right material, I don't need a fancy singer to bring me to tears. Jason's simple rendition of Feed the Birds had me bawling like a baby. And I loved B.J.'s quiet, brooding Robert Sherman. If you know the background at all of these two brothers, they nailed it. That's how they were: one outgoing and the other introverted. One is light and fun, the other is brooding and serious. Together, they struck just the right balance artistically.

If you don't know the documentary about them called "The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story," you must see it. One of my favorite docs in the past decade.

---

^ Because people love to throw their own agendas onto everything.

This is not PL Travers' life story, and it was never intended to be her life story. This is about the inspiration of Mary Poppins and the creative team for the film coming to terms with the characters and their reason for existing. It shows Travers' childhood, where the actual influences came from, and it shows her as an adult of 62, working with Walt Disney on the rights and the project itself.

It does not show her teen years, her first kiss, her first love, her first dance, her move to London, her romances with men and women, her writing of the books (Mary Poppins and others), her study of mysticism and her summers spent with the Navajo, Pueblo, and Hopi tribes, because they have nothing to do with this story.

The movie is called "Saving Mr. Banks," not "The Real Life of Pamela Travers."

I don't know if it's reality TV that has brought so many people down to pedantic, factual, unimaginative storytelling, or just an enormous lack of imagination and an inability to accept or concentrate on anything other than paint-by-numbers biographies that reflect their own lives and agendas.

EDIT: I also think that people have been doing this film a disservice by shortchanging the role and performance of Tom Hanks. I went in thinking Disney was going to be a supporting character in the film with limited screen time. He is on the screen almost as much as Emma Thompson. It's a very LARGE supporting role, or in my eyes, it's really a secondary leading role. Travers is the lead, because this story is told through her eyes, but Disney is the major secondary figure of the story. He's far from a "minor character." But it's not his story either. This is THEIR story, together. And their relationship together while working on this one film.

---

Updated On: 12/23/13 at 06:32 AM

Wow...so many people getting their knickers twisted over this film.

Because we're passionate about a movie we like? I've never seen you do that before, Carlos.

LOL

---

I haven't seen the film yet (looking forward to it, however) and I don't care whether Mrs. Travers' sexuality is mentioned.

But surely we can understand why some people are sensitive to the common practice of eliminating the homosexuality and bisexuality (or the perversion of same by Mel Gibson) in films about historical persons.

It isn't just a matter of "forcing one's agenda". It's a matter of not allowing the public to believe there were no gay people in history, or at least none who made any important contributions.

Again, I'm not arguing that SAVING MR. BANKS need address the topic, just that I can understand why some are sensitive about it.

Actually, I will add this ...

To me, there is one disservice in the movie. A big point that is missing from the main subject of how/why this movie came to be (which is the real subject at hand). They use the one excuse that Walt had promised his daughters that he would make Mary Poppins into a film. That's the reason he spent 20 years, asking Mrs. Travers every single year for the rights, and every singe year until 1961, she refused him.

While I don't doubt that this was a primary motivator, particularly in the beginning before his daughters were in their thirties, but I do doubt that Walt would have invested two decades, plus had the Sherman Brothers and Don DaGrati working on it in advance if he didn't think the story was worth it. He knew that what she had written was gold, that it went way beyond a "nanny with a talking umbrella who made magic for the kids." I think they brushed that point aside a bit too much, and made it about a rich, successful dad still trying to please his two daughters (who were now no longer little kids).

Walt was, first and foremost, a storyteller. (He wasn't much of an animator, even in his youth.) He knew a good story and knew what it was worth.

That omission really is part of this story, and it should have been included. It would have fleshed out Disney's character a little bit more as well. And it would have made us understand why putting up with Mrs. Travers was worth the trouble.

EDIT: And the bottom line to me is that while these two people were so completely different, they still worked (very hard) to make this the best movie it could possibly be.

Walt would also break up teams of workers at Disney Studios who were too affable. If they got along well at work, he would separate them and pair up teams of creative people who didn't see eye to eye and didn't get along all that well. He thought it almost always led to a stronger product in the end. Each side would have to fight for the creative decisions and opinions, and if they couldn't stand up to the fire, they probably weren't strong enough ideas.

I think that's why he liked the Sherman Brothers so much. They didn't get along at all, and barely spoke to each other outside of their work together. But their songs were magic.

I also think Walt did the exact same thing with himself and Mrs. Travers. He knew that out of the fireworks and the passionate stances and demands, they were both going to make a better final film.

---

Updated On: 12/24/13 at 05:37 PM

"Why do people act like this is a documentary? Are they that clueless or can't they tell the difference? Do they think "Amadeus" is completely true, too? Or should be? Or any of the dozens of recent, "based on a true story" movies, for that matter? "

I think it boils down to the fact that they are extra cynical that this is a DISNEY movie about a Disney movie. But I agree with you--I know there WAS some press about Finding Neverland being hardly accurate, but not to this extent, and it arguably was less accurate.

It's still weird that the thread with the SAVING MR. BANKS user reviews has this title! I'm looking forward to seeing the movie now that I've read you guys' comments more than I was before. As I've said repeatedly, the trailer looked too "sugary" for me, but it sounds like that's not the case. I'm gonna try to see it Thursday.

---

Updated On: 12/24/13 at 06:34 PM

This is definitely a film that deserves a little time to process or a revisit before I wager TOO deeply into the conversation, but I find two points work addressing - 1. People suspicion and offense at Disney producing it and 2. Travers' bisexuality / family that she built being left out of the film.

1.)
I believe that we all have the very reasonable expectation that historical films, to varying degrees, will have dramatic license taken. "Saving Mr. Banks" IS, as has been stated, a different animal. If you have familiarity with the factual accounts of the creative process behind Poppins, this film IS shocking. Were either of these two people perfect? Far from it. This account, though, really does paint Travers as a shrew and borderline villain against a white washed and softened Walt Disney, who is made out to be almost a heroic figure. Hanks, as also observed here, manages to play him as a tad more manipulative than the screenplay gives, but you have to watch his eyes to see it.
Were this produced by another studio, this could be chalked up to crafting a compelling drama, but since it is a Disney film about a Disney film, and more importantly Disney HIMSELF, it DOES come across as a propaganda film to many people.

2.
Travers' sexuality and adult family life are completely washed out of this film. Is this a film about her sexuality and family? Not at all, but pointing that out is perpetuating a double standard.
It is way too common in film in general to have homosexual and bisexual characters neutered or altered to a heterosexual orientation in the adaption process. There is a host of examples. I won't get into them now. that alone makes many LGBT audience members sensitive to the depictions.
As I said, this is a double standard at work. If you mention a same gendered spouse, etc in passing, you get knocked for making a point to include it when it didn't matter, but the heterosexual characters? Well... mentioning the wife, the family, etc? That is no different.. so why is that okay instead? By that logic, Disney should have made no mention of his kids or his wife throughout the film.