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

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/25/13 at 3:43am

I think MARY POPPINS is definitely one of the best Disney films. It's not only a really well-made one, but as Besty said (in this or another thread? Can't remember and too lazy to look) it features this insanely brilliant and quite subversive performance by Julie Andrews in which she acts in the most unexpected ways. She's never cute or sweet, but she's not stern or bitter either. It's one of those special movies, and I'd definitely put it up there with SLEEPING BEAUTY and CINDERELLA. Okay, the more I think about MARY POPPINS and the more I hear you guys talk about it, the more excited I am to see it. My fear was that it was gonna be another MY WEEK WITH MARILYN, easily one of the most absurd films made about the making of a movie; hopefully, it'll be more along the lines of HITCHCOCK--or even better--which I quite enjoyed (though that had a lot of criticism as well).

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/25/13 at 1:18pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/25/13 at 1:38pm

I'm still traumatized from seeing her bare-chested in SOB.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/25/13 at 9:06pm

I HATE the title of this thread.

[DivaBrigader]

Posted: 12/26/13 at 1:01pm

I liked the performances of Thompson and Hanks and was prepared for some stretching of the truth (obviously they would go to Disneyland together, etc.) but I was mainly just turned off by the premise that Disney "discovered" the story was really about the father and that's what persuaded her to allow him to make it. I don't think Travers felt that way at all and she hated that the movie ended up focusing on the dad. There was enough of interest that really happened between them that it didn't have to paint Walt Disney as the superhero who peeled away the layers of Travers's daddy issues. The flashback scenes all seemed extremely long and not all that compelling. I was really charmed by the scenes with the Shermans writing the songs though.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 12/26/13 at 6:39pm

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.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/27/13 at 1:33am

I thought it was ultimately disappointing. The flashbacks were distracting and boring, and did disservice to the development plot. And talk about heavy-handed.

I just asked myself why it needed to be made. I just didn't find it illuminating enough for any of the topics it touched on. A film about the troubled development of what would become an iconic and beloved work is tough to do. Unfortunately, I just don't think heavy handed flashbacks to Travers' past were an adequate solution.

And I certainly can see why some would be opposed to the liberties the film takes. Disney comes off as being nigh faultless- his decision to not invite Travers is only surprising because it's not consistent with the character as written beforehand.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/29/13 at 6:22pm

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

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/29/13 at 7:34pm

Saw it. Thought it was meh.

I liked it the most when there was actual focus on the creative process, the Sherman brothers, the people who worked at Disney, etc. Schwartzman, Novak, Baker, Whitford, and Michelle Arthur were good. Paul Giamatti was also solid, albeit it is clearly playing a person who does not exist.

I think my issue is the constant use of flashbacks and it takes so long for Rachel Griffiths as the Mary Poppins inspiration to appear and it's verbatim. I was somewhat expecting to know more about her than just re-hearing lines. Instead it is all about her father, and I thought Farrell was fine but it was obvious where this was going, but I never really feel we get to know how this young girl became this worldly writer.

This version of PL Travers is not all that interesting and I think making Walt himself such a central figure than just rendering him an omnipresent figure little seen was a mistake. I found the tension of the Sherman Brothers and DaGradi with Travers interesting and potential more complex. Instead it feels all too simple.

Thompson is fine, I guess but the Oscar buzz is ridiculous in this year of leading turns by other actresses that are better parts in better movies. The constant use of flashbacks in the script and Hancock's direction let her down. Hanks is laughably bad. It's not just that the affectation is not good it's that he still sounds nothing like Walt.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/29/13 at 7:36pm

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!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/29/13 at 9:32pm

Very glad to hear it, doxy!

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/29/13 at 11:54pm

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

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:16am

That was a very impressive rise for the film. It might finally be catching on and not being considered a financial disappointment (which it was a bit last weekend) will also help it during this crucial period of Oscar voting.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 12:36pm

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 12:49pm

Yay!

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 2:36pm

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

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 2:49pm

I saw this with my parents while I was home for Christmas and all three of us loved it. I think the "Let's Go Fly a Kite" sequence was my favorite. There was something about seeing her let go for that moment that was just so joyous, even knowing the real history and knowing that the joy of that moment was probably very short-lived.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 3:09pm

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.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 3:43pm

And the thing is, in public circumstances Disney always put on his best face. And this would include any time he'd be with someone he was trying to court their favour like Travers. Most of us have heard of at least someof the ass-holey things he's done in his personal life, and to those who worked with him (but worked under him) and of his temper. I am just not sure in a story with this focus any of that really had to be shown, because mostly he was trying to win Travers' approval all the way until the film was done. Travers, famously NEVER was that way to people trying to work with her, or interview her, or anything. If anything, from the several books on her, I get the feeling she put on more of a mean face in public than private--the opposite of Walt (granted this is subjecture.)

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 4:02pm

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

[Jonwo]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 8:49pm

Walt Disney wasn't the only person interested in adapting Poppins as Stephen Sondheim came up with a musical version while training under Oscar Hammerstein, it would be interesting to see how close Sondheim would have been to the source material given that I imagine he wrote it without the influence of the 1964 films.

I think Walt and Travers are portrayed just right, the scene where Walt says he didn't invite Travers to the LA premiere to 'protect the picture' does show his more business side.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 9:40pm

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...

[Master Bates]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 12:33pm

Loved the performances and while I don't expect a documentary, I am disappointed that the entire resolution to the corporate/artist debate in the movie was ultimately portrayed so inaccurately. It would be like if James Cameron's Titanic ended with Jack patching up the ship and steering everyone to safety.

This movie completely misrepresented actual history to tie up the movie with a bow, but in doing so made a mockery of the author. Also, I don't think we can know why she agreed to finally make the movie, but money, despite her objections, was obviously the ultimate decider that helped her overlook the Disneyification of her beloved character. She hated the idea of a musical, she hated animation, and she hated Dick van Dyke, so with all that, money made her decision. It wasn't about her liking enough of what Disney was doing, it was about the realities of life, which tie in nicely to her backstory (if any of that was true, as presented in this movie).

That's why the bastardization of her reaction to the film and actions afterwards (even in her will Travers forbid an American to ever touch her character again) speak volumes.

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. This complexity would have enriched Saving Mr. Banks and made it much more truthful, if only filmed by any other studio than Disney itself.
Never mind-land

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 12:54pm

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

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 1:20pm

In the end, this is a self-serving and self-congratulating movie...

Yes, that about sums it all up.