Moviefan12: Hello & welcome back to A Look at Disney. Saving Mr. Banks is an upcoming film that I have been anticipating for quite some time. And some of my readers may recall that long before the trailer came out, I wrote an article detailing my concerns. Today's article is similar to that as you will see. A theatrical film about Walt Disney, that is something I've always wanted and making it about Mary Poppins sounds like a logical choice to me. I am super excited about this and I know I am not the only one. Joining me today from In Too Deep, is Ratin8tor who has been reviewing all of the animated films in the Disney canon. Thank you for joining me, today.
R8: You're welcome, lovely to be here. Lets start by making one thing absolutely clear: This is going to be a good film. No, it's going to be a great film. It's going to be a film that gets into our heart and brings tears to our eyes. It'll be the film that has at least few nominations under it's belt when the Academy Awards rolls round.With the brilliance of Tom Hanks as Walt Disney himself this film is sure-in for a success.
BUT that is not my problem with this film. No my problem comes from the premise, i.e. the story of the adaptation of Mary Poppins.Why do I think this is such a controversial premise? For one simple reason: P L Travers loathed the Mary Poppins film and was devastated about how little control she had over the final picture. She hated the film and hated Walt Disney for destroying her beloved classic. It is a story of a film-maker who took something dear to the author's heart and perverted it into something she found unrecognizable.
In short, this is a film where Walt Disney is the antagonist.
But I can't start off being all doom and gloom. Moviefan12, what are the positive aspects found in this trailer and the film's story as a whole.
Moviefan12: Well as for some positives found already, first I truly buy Tom Hanks as Walt Disney.
It's just something about the way the Hanks was shown as Walt in that trailer, I was able to buy into the role. And it is kind of exciting that they shot on location at Disneyland and the studios. Now as for the issues, you brought up. Those are valid and I do agree to a certain extent that I am worried about how they are going to pull off the falling out that Travers and Disney had over the film and you noted that the books were very dear to her heart. That is true and if you may recall in the trailer, the revelation is made that Mr. Banks is based on Traver's real life father (played by Collin Farrell in the film), who was an alcoholic. Just looking up this film, you'll see how much of Traver's life influenced her books. Also, the trailer does show Traver's distaste for what they doing during the filming process. The most obvious example being that she did not want Dick Van Dyke in the film at all and that is briefly touched upon in that trailer. For that may not know, Travers hated the way, Dick Van Dyke was playing Bert and wanted him to be recast and even asked Mr. Disney to recast the role of Bert. And there is also the short scene with The Sherman Brothers. So, this film does show the struggles that Walt Disney and PL Travers went through while going through this process. I have to admit that I do fear that this film may go for a quote unqote Hollywood ending, where everything ends happily. Which would be contrary to what actually happened and R8 , you said this is a film where Walt is the antagonist. I'm not sure that is true, you see I imagine that is how Travers viewed Walt after the film came out but I'd say that rather, this film is just showing what happens during the process of movie making. And also, something I thought about, no disrespect to PL Travers but how many of us would know about Mary Poppins, if the film did not exist?
Ratin8tor: You do indeed bring up many good points.
Although I'm hesitant to say that Tom Hanks is Walt Disney. Perhaps it's because Disney had such a huge on-screen personality no one can truly match it, and Tom Hanks himself is a bit too well-known to separate him from the role. But that doesn't mean he still isn't going to do a good job at it.
In regards to the sets, the studios shown look amazing. Authentic looking, periodically perfect and absolutely beautiful. Plus filming in Disneyland itself for the first time since, what, it's very opening? Though it'd be interesting seeing how much they age back to keep it within the time period. But I digress.
Let us look at the meat and the bones of the story: P L Travers and her struggles when it comes to making the film. She had a very firm vision in her head about what she wanted and how it should be portrayed. As the trailer shows, there's a scene where she vehemently disagrees with making up words, leading to the Sherman brothers hiding the notes to Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
But the song still got made, regardless of what her intention was. Likewise Dick Van Dyke got cast. The animated segments got left in. Regardless of her input, things she disagreed with were still left in or taken out without her consent.
Now one can argue that that's the standard nature of adapting something. Some things get added, some get changed and some get removed entirely. It's the nature of the business. But that still doesn't change the fact that we have a story where a writer is chewed up and spat out by the mass marketing machine that is the Disney corporation.
Will the film end before the premiere and P L Travers reaction to it? Maybe. Part of me doubts that though, firstly cos of certain shots in the trailers, partly cos it would seem like the best place to end the film. But presuming it doesn't, the story of the film will go through great lengths to have us sympathies with P L Travers even when she makes decisions that we know are wrong in hindsight. The film will make us relate to her plight even though we know historically she is wrong.
The core problem I have with this film is the idea itself. If the film is about the story of P. L. Travers then it is a tragic tale of betrayal and loss as her beloved classic is mutated beyond belief by the big cheese himself, Walt Disney. If the film is about Walt Disney then it is the story of a stubborn and big-headed author who refuses to listen to wise old Walt and constantly causes all sorts of headaches. If it's about both of them finding a middle ground then it'll take a very skilled writer to pull it off; and even then they may resort to a cheap cop-out by historically revising the ending to be more happy.
How many would know of Mary Poppins had the film never been made? Probably not a lot. But the question is not whether she'd be well-known, but whether it was worth the price? At the end of the day is it worth seeing something you love and work so hard on changed into something you can barely tolerate by a man that refused to listen? Or is it better to be forever ignored but content with what you have written?
Moviefan12: Something I'd like to bring up that you touched upon is that this film is about both Walt Disney and PL Travers but that is just one part of it. We will come to that the second part later on. To further address this, I am going to quote the poster.
Where Her Book Ended, Their Story Began
This line shows that this film is about Walt Disney and PL Travers but it also touches upon the next part and that is film also looks to be more about PL Travers then Walt. Take for example that in the trailer, we see flashbacks to Traver's childhood. So in short, this is a film that is both about Walt Disney and PL Travers but with greater emphasis on PL Travers.
Ratin8tor: And that is where the film is going to struggle the most. Whilst it's great that they're focusing on the author, at the end of the day it was still something that she regretted and ended up disliking the entire process. What we have in motion is a tragedy of an author who lost a lot when it came to the process, which is either going to be what is shown on screen or changed to make it more 'happy'.
I'd like to finish with a quote from a New Yorker article that discussed the story of Mary Poppins' adaption to screen and P L Travers thoughts on it. The article can be found here: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/19/051219fa_fact1?currentPage=all But the quote I end on is thus:
"In the midst of the celebrating crowd, it would have been easy to overlook the sixty-five-year-old woman sitting there, weeping. Anyone who recognized her as P. L. Travers, the author of the Mary Poppins books, could have been forgiven for assuming that her tears were the product either of artistic delight or of financial ecstasy (she owned five per cent of the gross; the movie made her rich). Neither was the case. The picture, she thought, had done a strange kind of violence to her work. She would turn the personally disastrous première into a hilarious dining-out story, with Disney as the butt of her jokes. But she had a premonition that the movie she hated was about to change everything for her. Writing to a friend, she remarked that her life would never be the same."
That is the ending to the film if the film is a faithful retelling. And whilst it will no doubt be good, it is going to be tragic. It will reveal a side of Walt Disney that people probably didn't want to see. And we are going to see an author's dreams ruined.
They made have saved Mr Banks, but it ruined P L Travers.
Moviefan12: I don't believe there is much more that I can add to this. Other then I hate that dang poster but back on topic, it looks as though, we both have a legitimate concern about how this film is going to handle the relationship between Walt and PL Travers. It shall be interesting to see how faithful the film is to what really happened. R8, thanks again for joining me to discuss our feelings on this upcoming film.
You misspelt Ratin8tor :P One too many 'n'
ReplyDeleteI'll go in and fix it.
Delete