Saving Mr. Banks
SAVING MR. BANKS (PG)
D: John Lee Hancock
Disney/BBC (Alison Owen, Ian Collie & Philip
Steuer)
US/UK/Australia 2013
125 mins
Comedy/Drama/Biopic
W: Kelly Marcel & Sue Smith
DP: John Schwartzman
Ed: Mark Livolsi
Mus: Thomas Newman
PD: Michael Corenblith
Cos: Daniel Orlandi
Emma Thompson (P. L. Travers), Tom Hanks (Walt
Disney), Colin Farrell (Travers Goff), Bradley Whitford (Don DaGradi), B.J. Novak (Robert Sherman), Jason Schwartzman (Richard Sherman), Paul Giamatti (Ralph), Ruth Wilson (Margaret Goff),
Rachel Griffiths (Aunt Ellie), Annie Rose Buckley (Ginty)
I wanted to like this film a lot more than I actually
did and it took a while to figure out why it just didn't ring true to me, then it suddenly dawned on me. The film is produced by Disney, therefore it wouldn't dare show it's Uncle Walt in
a bad light, and it doesn't. It's well documented that P. L. Travers, the author of the Mary Poppins series of books, was reluctant for her work to be adapted into a film, even
after it was a successful motion picture which earned the studio (and herself) millions, she wasn't pleased with what they'd done with her work, which was incredibly personal to
her.
The film portrays P. L. Travers as a neurotic, prim
and proper killjoy (which maybe she was) who builds several obstacles to prevent Walt Disney from producing her work, including "no songs", "no animation", "no Dick Van Dyke" (in
fairness, she had a good point on the last one), but is slowly seduced by "Feed The Birds" and "Let's Go Fly A Kite", meanwhile she reminisces on her childhood and real-life events which
inspired her books. This, as far as the history books, isn't too far from the truth.
However, when it looks like the project to bring Mary
Poppins to the big screen hang in development purgatory, Uncle Walt flies off to England to tell Travers stories of his own childhood, says he understands that the books are personal to
her because they represent a metaphor for her own childhood and makes promises that her characters will be faithfully handled.
The story then whisks to the world premiere where the
audience are wowed by the film, including Travers who sits in the theatre choked by tears. Although these scenes have been added for the sake of dramatic plot devices, they are
nothing more than a fabrication. None of it happened. Travers only allowed the filming of her novels because she was facing financial hardship, she despised the treatment of her work so
much that she refused West End producer Cameron Mackintosh rights to her work to make a stage play (which only came into fruition after her death).
The movie itself is well made from a production
standpoint, with good attention paid to the detail of the early 1960's and the performances are generally decent (Tom Hanks was actually a very good choice for Disney). However, a story
of the development problems of Mary Poppins didn't need lies and added doses of sentiment to make it more powerful and the scene in which Walt tours Disneyland with P. L. Travers borders
criminally on grotesque product placement.
As a fan of the movie Mary Poppins, I was genuinely
intrigued to see this film, but don't think it did the story, nor the 1964 film, any justice at all.
On this occasion, a spoonful of sugar does not help
the medicine go down.
5/10
