SAVING MR. BANKS is a corporate, borderline-sexist spoonful of lies — Page 4

The film doesn't discuss Disney's sexuality either. Or the Sherman Brothers. Or Julie Andrews.

Frankly, I'm not sure I ever want to see a film that discusses Julie Andrews's sexuality.

---

I HATE the title of this thread.

---

Saw it this afternoon and enjoyed it. I was never that big of a fan of Mary Poppins growing up. I'd seen the movie but was pretty much indifferent. I loved the stage musical, which incorporated more of the books than the movie had. Saving Mr. Banks didn't instill any desire in me to see the movie again, except for changing my mind about Feed the Birds.

I thought both Hanks and Thompson fared well, though if one is getting nominated without the other I'd expect it to be Hanks. He does have a smaller part but I thought he captured the essence of the man very well. My favorite part of the whole film was his TV segment with Tinkerbell.

---

I liked it and I'd be lying if I said I didn't get choked up a couple of times. But truly, I commend the always fantastic Emma Thompson for wringing those emotions out of me. She is the reason the movie really works in my mind. I thought Tom Hanks was phoning it in beyond belief and if he manages to get an Oscar nomination for this, it'll be simply because he's Tom Hanks.

It's all easy to swallow and quite enjoyable, but without Thompson's wry, hilarious line delivery and lovely performance, it would be completely forgettable.

Updated On: 12/29/13 at 06:22 PM

I absolutely loved this film. It brought me to tears several times, and I really didn't expect that going in. In fact, rather ironically, the last time I cried that much during a film was during Finding Neverland, another fanciful biopic that took great artistic licence with history.

The scene where they started to sing "Let's Go Fly A Kite" was just glorious and probably my favourite out of them all. I think the acting was exceptional, though Tom Hanks, while enjoyable, probably the least of all. I adore Emma Thompson in everything, and she was sensational once more. Rachel Griffiths' surprising little cameo was especially nice for me, and I must say that I was thoroughly impressed by Colin Farrell's Australian accent, which came across as pretty believable and not at all cartoonish (I say that as an Australian). The Sherman brothers were wonderful, though I knew that already coming in! And the girl playing the young Helen/Ginty was fantastic; I'm sure she's got a strong future ahead of her!

I know many people don't agree, but this was beautiful storytelling, at least for me. Old-fashioned, moving, sentimental but also funny... I loved every minute of it!

Word of mouth is helping this movie, its second weekend box office gross increased 50% over its debut weekend.


Weekend Report: 'Hobbit,' 'Frozen' Top 'Wolf,' 'Mitty' on Final Weekend of 2013

Finally got to see this last night and thought it was an absolute delight. I don't get the criticisms re Disney's portrayal or Travers' portrayal. If this was a re-telling of their lives in the style of something like the horrible J.EDGARD, then yes, I'd criticize them not showing certain aspects of the characters' lives. As it is though, the movie's script is very tight in its focus on Travers' experience in L.A. working on the film and her relationship with her father. The best part is that it wasn't just cute, or saccharine, or silly. I'm not sure if this was in the script or in the acting, but there was a level of complexity to the portrayal of the relationships on camera (well, in the present day, I'll get to the flashbacks in a bit) that I wasn't expecting after watching the previews.
I do think the flashbacks were very cliched and too long. A stronger director could have told the story as powerfully with less flashbacks and a more interesting group of actors. The stuff going on in the "present" of the story is so exciting and interesting than the very cliched story of an alcoholic father and his daughter (a typically bland child actress) pales in comparison. There are still some great moments in there, such as Rachel Griffiths' first appearance, or the cross-cutting between the father giving the speech and the Shermans singing "Fidelity Fiduciary Bank."
The best part was Emma Thompson. What a performance! It reminded me so much of Julie Andrews' performance as MARY POPPINS. She constantly refuses to go for the expected line reading/reaction. She continually surprised me, all the way to the end. Her acting at the end was of course ideal, though I wish the camera had stay on her face in a long take a la Nicole Kidman at the opera in BIRTH. She's surrounded by an excellent supporting ensemble led by Tom Hanks in his most unaffected, transformative performance. I'm glad I gave this one a chance.

---

The actors portray as the Sherman Brothers was so brilliantly crafted Bravo!

Here's the truth about Pamela Travers, regardless of what you read or hear or think you know.

She let Disney make a movie of Mary Poppins. She agreed to it after decades, after hours of meetings, after fighting with everybody on the lot, and telling everyone how much she hated it.

She agreed to it.

And she didn't have to do that. Nobody "made" her sign that contract. I think she liked enough of what Disney was doing to get her to change her mind after 20 years. No, I don't "think" that, I "know" that.

She signed the contract.

If she was really positive they were destroying her Mary Poppins, she would not have signed that contract, even if she needed the money. She knew bloody well what she was doing, especially after 20 years to think it over.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *SPOILERS NOW * * * * * * * * * * * * *






I absolutely love Emma's reaction to the film at the end. Seeing her (as Pamela) in the audience, with all of those conflicting emotions, some of them simultaneous, everything for enjoyment, to revolution, to eye-rolling, to her final comment to Walt when he leans over and asks her "Pamela, are you all right?" Her response? "I can't abide animation!"

Beautiful.

And for those of you who think she was portrayed as way too much of a harpy and bully and Disney was the real pigheaded, nasty one between the two of them, stick around and listen to the end credits of the film, where they play the actual recording of Pamela with the Sherman brothers and Don DaGradi. It's horrifying. She is WAY nastier than she is portrayed in the film. They actually cleaned her up for the movie. She provokes, insults, antagonizes, interrupts, and bulldozes over everybody else in the room. She shows zero respect for anyone else. If anything, Emma Thompson underplayed her and focused her motivations to help us like her a little bit. The real Pamela was a real piece of work. There's a word I can think of to describe her "that isn't generally used outside of a kennel."

Was she worth the trouble? Absolutely, 100-percnet, yes. Was the movie better because of her? Yes, to that, too.

---

Borstalboy, did you think you were going to see a documentary?

He wrote it long before the Disney film--I'm not sure if it was one that he completed or not. (The Sun is Blue is the only song--as a demo--from it that I think has leaked.) I quoted some pages up the piece from a bio on Travers where it's claimed--without particularly substantial evidence--that Travers asked Sondheim in the very early 80s to do a stage musical since she still had those rights but he turned her down saying he wanted to do something at that time that was very American. This was just after Merrily, if the dates are to be believed, when I thought Sondheim had decided he would do computer games instead of theatre--and then did Sunday, so...

I still don't think it was portrayed "so inaccurately" at the end. Her last comment in the film about the movie is "I can't abide animation!" She never says she liked it or loved it or even accepted it. She sheds tears, rolls her eyes, sings along, looks very uncomfortable, pissed, and says the line I quoted above.

That's it. She was overwhelmed with many conflicting emotions, and Emma played that beautifully.

As far as the ending/resolution, this movie WAS a huge success, despite (or possibly because of?) her objections and her difficult behavior. To portray the ending of the film saying the "Mary Poppins the movie was a disaster," would be a lie. It was a critical and financial smash, and many still consider it the finest feature film Disney ever made.

A complicated resolution, but it was neither a "sinking ship" nor a "patched vessel rescued to shore."

It was a big, fat, huge, hit movie, that PL Travers never embraced.

I wish I had a nickel for all of the authors who despised the film adaptation of their books.

I would be a rich man.



EDIT:

The article below sums it up pretty nicely, although I do think it goes rather easy on Travers, since as the audio at the end of the movie depicts, she was quite a handful and unrealistic in her demands. Disney was never going to make the film she wanted, but she knew that in 1961, just as she knew it when he asked her to make the movie 20 years earlier.

Exactly! She knew she was never going to get the movie she wanted, but she sold him the rights anyway after listening to all of the songs, reading through and making notes on the entire script (things most authors never, ever get to do). She still signed the contract ... after all that work had been done.

Her actions speak louder than her (nasty) words. She barked her way to the grave with her mean comments about this film ... and also about children, if you read more about her. She didn't like kids. (News flash: Neither did Maurice Sendak.)

I think they had to soften Disney a bit (his bite was a LOT worse than his bark) and Travers (her bark was a LOT worse than her bite) in order to make these two strong-willed extreme characters accessible to movie audiences. Otherwise, we would be rooting for no one in the film.

I ended up rooting for both of them, because they came together and made something better than either one of them could have on their own. That's where the "magic" of the creative process lies for me. And that's why I was so taken with this film.

---

Updated On: 1/5/14 at 12:54 PM