2013 movie
Rating: 17/20 (Jen: 17/20)
Plot: Walt Disney, the guy who created Mickey Mouse, tries to convince P.L. Travers, the woman who created Mary Poppins, to let him make a movie adaptation based on her nanny. She's not very easy to work with.
Here are something you need to know about me before reading my thoughts about this movie: Mary Poppins makes me horny. Travers' books, so much weirder than the Disney musical, are arousing. The Disney movie gives me a raging hard-on from beginning to end, and I can't see a chimney sweep or a carousel without immediately feeling the need to hide my crotch. Seeing the Mary Poppins in the England part of Epcot Center last time we were there nearly ended my marriage. I've actually avoided watching Mary Poppins the last several years because it's more than likely just going to result in a mess that I have to clean up. I would strongly recommend that you see Mary Poppins or at least know Mary Poppins intimately (typing those words made me tingle) before seeing this because it enriches the experience. It's about Disney trying to make a Mary Poppins movie, but really it's about so much more. I was reminded of a lot of things as I watched this--the unparalleled creativity of the folk at Disney, the force that was Walt Disney, how terrific those songs from Mary Poppins are, how much work and love goes into the making of a movie, and how much more meaning there is burbling beneath the surface of movies we love. Man, those songs are good. And watching B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the Shermans playing and sometimes even creating "A Spoonful of Sugar" or "Let's Go Fly a Kite" or "Chim Chim Cher-ee" (my personal favorite) was wonderful. Novak and Schwartzman can't get in the way of what the big personalities in this are doing, and they don't. They represent the creative spirit, react to Travers' unpleasantness, and stick in the background. I love what they and their songs represent though--the power of music to transform the soul, to fuel the imagination, and to unleash buried memories. Paul Giamatti's limousine driver in this is one of his more touching characters, and I really liked the evolution of the relationship between his Ralph and Travers although it's the sort of thing that could only happen in a movie like this. And Colin Farrell is pretty amazing as Travers' dad in the numerous flashbacks, nailing loving father and tragic disappointment. I didn't know the story behind the story going in, but once I figured out how it was all going to go, it was impossible not to get choked up. Of course, the heart of this story is the conflict between Disney himself and the difficult author. Emma Thompson's performance is easily one of the best I can recall seeing in a long, long time. She made me laugh more than a few times, saying the sorts of things that I wish I could say, and she made me tear up a few times, too. She had Travers' voice down, at least to my ears when compared to the actual recordings of Travers played during the credits, but a lot of the greatness was because of her body language, facial tics, and just the way she could glare at another character. A good glare has to be developed. Tom Hanks got himself a mustache but looked a little too healthy. Maybe if he would have lost a bunch of weight like McConaughey or like Hanks did in Castaway, he would have been nominated for an Oscar again. Or maybe writers Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith should have just given Disney AIDS. I don't think everything else about this story was 100% accurate anyway, was it? Hanks is the type of actor who knows exactly when to step on the gas during a performance. There are subtleties in the performance including a lot of little things he does to make his Disney authentic, but he really shines in a lengthy speech near the movie's climax. It's impossible to dislike Walt Disney when watching this movie, and I suppose the Disney people wouldn't want it any other way. Speaking of Tom Hanks, here's a question: Would any of you have been able to predict that somebody who looks like Tom Hanks would have a career with so many iconic roles? I wouldn't have. Saving Mr. Banks is a movie about movies and has so much to say about the power of imagination. It brought feelings of nostalgia, made me laugh, and made me cry, and you can't really ask more from a movie than that. It had just the perfect amount of magic for a movie about Disney. Delightful stuff, friends. See it if you're a fan of what Disney does.
Great review. This is such a sweet movie, with some shockingly dark elements. Everyone is great, and the scene near the end with Disney and Travers had me reaching for kleenex's that I never carry. A 16.
ReplyDeleteI liked half of the movie...
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the half I DIDN'T like: The flashbacks with the dad. It became so redundant and obvious that it lost its emotional effectiveness on me. Why did they have to drag it out? I get it, she loves her dad. I get it, the dad is a drunk who gets fired a lot. I get it, the mom resents her dad for being so affable yet so immature and irresponsible. I get it, the dad chooses liquor over his family. I get it, Mary Poppins is based on the aunt. I get it, SHE LOVES HER DADDY! Did they have to drag all of that out??
Now the half of the movie I like: you know, the part that everyone paid money to see. The part that got it's Oscar cred...the actual reenactments of Disney and Travers. That's where the money is. I thought the entire cast (in this portion of the movie) were delightful. Not only did they act well, they reacted well. The faces they pull and the genuine awkwardness with the Travers character was poignant and believable. Speaking of Travers, Thompson was brilliant. She controls her characters in such a way, and this was a role meant for her. The story was moving and well worth telling (unlike that stretched-out, battered dead horse of a backstory).
I wish the movie could have focused more on the narrative at hand, and not dipped so blatantly into flashbacks. I kept waiting for Hanks to return, and the music to start again, and another behind the scenes Mary Poppins element to be riddled with awkwardness and charm. 14/20
I almost agree with you, but I'd really have to watch this again to see what individual flashback scenes were superfluous. However, my thoughts are that the movie told two separate stories that enriched one another, and you just didn't seem to like one of them. Couldn't somebody just as easily say that they liked the flashback stuff and the Disney part of the story felt drawn out? I get it, Disney's desperate. I get it, Travers is really hard to deal with. I get it, those Shermans wrote great songs.
ReplyDeleteGranted, that's not as likely because that was the entertaining, more feel-good part of the movie.
Also, weren't there parallelisms in the two stories that were important?
No...no one is going to choose the melodramatic, soap opera flashbacks over Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson. Ok...maybe the kind of people who value the Real Housewives shows and think that Paris Hilton, Honey Boo Boo, and Snookie are all famous for some kind of "talent."
ReplyDeleteThe narrative being told is why Mary Poppins was written in such a way. The root is the father; everything else evolved as it went. The father backstory is stale at some point. The rest of the movie is still being driven somewhere and changing and evolving.
I think you're right that there were two story lines here, and that's why I gave this movie a 14. I hate it when screenwriters, producers, and directors try to make a story more than it really is. You can tell the father stuff is filler at certain points. And the difference between the two narratives is that the characters are still evolving and a in the Disney era. Plus, the stuff about the father wasn't even historically accurate. PL Travers mentioned things about her father, but none of that was dictated and represented through any testimonials. At least the Disney stuff was recorded and there were plenty of people around to give its authenticity something of value.
Wait a second...you're watching Disney movies for historical accuracy?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read, it seems that the Disney/Travers part of the story wasn't nearly historically accurate either. That doesn't really bother me though. I'm not going to let a little truth get in the way of storytelling. Ben Affleck taught me that, both with Argo and Gigli.
I do think you're being too hard on the melodramatic part of the story though. I thought Farrell did enough to keep that part alive.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I did like Farrell. But, I still don't think he did enough. He did what he could with what writing he was presented. I didn't like the dialogue as well as the Disney stuff and I thought the scenes were elementary. I mean, I know it's from a child's eyes, but does it have to look and sound like a child wrote it...that's the melodrama by the way.
ReplyDeleteAs for the historical accuracy, you're right about the Disney portion, but at least it has more cred, Plus, that was yet another reason why we all tuned into that movie: for the dirt on Travers and Disney.
I forgot to mention your parallelisms. There were direct connections between the two stories (the aunt and Mary Poppins, the sad children, and most importantly the dad and Mr. Banks). But, again, the audience gets it early on. The revelation that Poppins represents the aunt is later in the movie, but we have the middle stuff to get through. SEVERAL scenes of the father being drunk. SEVERAL scenes of the father playing with PL Travers.
I'm always going to be hard a melodrama. It's not appropriate for a movie of that stature. It's been a while since Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks have had to subject themselves to a movie with that much melodrama. I didn't expect it at all with this one.
I have a higher tolerance for melodrama because I like silent movies.
ReplyDelete