Movie: Saving Mr. Banks
Writers: Kelly Marcel, Sue Smith
Director: John Lee Hancock
Studio: Walt Disney Studios
It’s hard not to enjoy Saving Mr. Banks because it is, in true Disney fashion, a sweet (or should I say sugary?) story about overcoming differences with a mixture of humor, drama, and triumph. Yes, it’s a bit incestuous — or maybe just a great PR move for Disney to make a movie about one of their most successful and cherished movies of all time: Mary Poppins. It is also Disney making one of their biggest attempts in recent history at Oscar gold.
Saving Mr. Banks isn’t going to bring them a best picture win (It isn’t that good), but the film does have one of the best performances of the year: Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers, the author of Mary Poppins, is absolutely brilliant. Thompson, who is great in nearly everything, owns each scene she is in and helps blind the audience to the flaws within the film. Disney should be thanking her.
The story focuses on the behind the scenes battle between Travers and Walt Disney (played by Tom Hanks) over the film rights to Mary Poppins. Hollywood does love making movies about making movies, and this one is another big celebration of how wonderful the movie industry is.
Some critics feared the film would become one big ad for how great Disney (the man) was, but I was actually rather surprised at how Hanks approached the character. Hanks isn’t over the top. Yes, Disney looks like a good guy and saves the day by telling a sentimental story about his own relationship with his father, which melts Travers’ cold English heart; however, Hanks’ Disney feels pretty genuine or maybe just “Tom Hanks-y.” Paul Giamatti brings the sweetness in his role as Travers’ driver, Ralph, and the cast is rounded out by excellent turns from B.J. Novak, Bradley Whitford, and Jason Schwartzman. But even with these strong performances, the film falls short.
For starters, there’s an extremely unnecessary amount of flashback scenes, which are meant to give the audience an understanding of Travers by showing her childhood in Australia and her relationship with her alcoholic father, played by Colin Farrell (Was it just me or did he look 10 years younger in this movie?). These scenes weren’t showing anything that complicated, yet the filmmakers thought we needed scene after scene to get the point. We didn’t. Most of these scenes were boring, and it took forever for the “Mary Poppins” figure to appear in the form of Travers’ aunt, played by the fabulous Rachel Griffiths. Honestly, I would have rather they cut all of these scenes and just had Thompson give a monologue about her character’s childhood.
But my biggest issue with the film goes a bit deeper. Saving Mr. Banks’ most problematic flaw is that it simplifies the underlining ideas in the film and misses a great opportunity to truly explore different creative approaches and ownership over creative works. Should someone be allowed to take your piece and make it his or her own? How important is the author? Can someone else’s vision of your work be just as good or better than the original piece?
On the surface, the film is showing this creative battle between Travers’ version of Mary Poppins and Disney’s vision for her material. But the audience knows Disney wins. When Travers begins the film by strongly opposing making it a musical or having any animation in it, we, the audience, know she loses the battle. It’s okay that she loses the battle, but how she loses it avoids the bigger issues at play here.
The film boils down or excuses Travers’ objections by making them strictly tied to her emotional connection to her father and her desire to see him as a good man (That’s where the title comes from). This is what connects Disney and Travers in the end — they both had difficult but loving fathers. This seems like the easy way out of all these conflicts. Yes, Travers has an emotional connection to her material (most writers do), but she also spends most of the film pointing out rather accurate or valid critiques of Walt Disney. These critiques are never faced head on.
Travers finds Disney’s taste vulgar, over the top, and ridiculous. This is best showcased in one of her first scenes in California. She arrives at her hotel to find her room full of Disney merchandise (balloons, stuffed animals, a fruit basket, champagne, and, of course, a Mickey Mouse). With disgust, she quickly packs all of this into the closet. Later in the film, when Walt forces her to go to Disneyland with him, she says, upon entering the park, “Is it all like this?” The implication is “God, I hope not.” Thompson is perfect in both of these scenes bringing both humor and critique to her actions and words.
She also questions the idea of creating such a fantasy-filled world that will only leave children unprepared for the realities that face them (Considering this is all taking place in the early 1960s, a lot of terrible realities are awaiting everyone). She doesn’t want her work turned into some sweet story with songs and dancing. As she hurls these critiques with perfect British wit, we have to ask ourselves, “Is she right?” But the film doesn’t give us much chance to do that. Before we know it, she’s dancing around the workroom singing “Let’s Go Fly at Kite,” and the filmmakers hope the audience is too. Many of her other critiques are laughed off as cultural differences. (Oh, those silly British!)
I wanted a deeper discussion on these issues. I wanted both Disney and Travers to truly make their case. There’s no arguing that Walt Disney is one of the greats when it comes to family-friendly entertainment. That’s not to say the company has maintained that greatness. There have been missteps along the way, but his version is the classic Disney we hold on to and Mary Poppins is part of that. I’m not arguing that Disney shouldn’t have won the real life battle, but I wanted his character to truly make a case for taking Travers work and making it is own, and I wanted her to make the audience see why her vision is also important and perhaps serves a different purpose.
In the end, Saving Mr. Banks feels like a bit of a tease. It’s almost the film it could be, but not quite, which makes it more disappointing. It’s enjoyable, but it feels like a Disney-ifed version of the truth (surprise, surprise). I guess P.L. Travers lost the battle twice.
