Film Review: SAVING MR. BANKS

We went to see SAVING MR. BANKS, starring Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson, over the holiday break.  I expected to like it, and I did.  It was a very good story, nicely told with the use of flashbacks to give us insight into the character of P. L. Travers, the author of MARY POPPINS.  I didn't go to the film believing that it was a documentary, but I have to admit that I wasn't terribly aware of what was fact and what was fiction as I watched.

Did that affect my enjoyment of the film?  Not one bit.  I thought most everything about it was good.  I don't expect academy award nominations for the actors, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them get them.  The performances were good and believable, especially Thompson and Paul Giametti as the apparently fictional limo driver who chauffeurs Mrs. Travers around Los Angeles.   Hanks was good as Walt Disney himself, but trying to play a character who so many, including me, have seen either in video footage or on TV back in the old days has to be difficult.  I never quite got over the feeling that I was watching Hanks play Disney instead of watching Walt Disney himself, if that makes sense.

I highly recommend it to anyone, not just Disney buffs and Disney fans.  It's a very good film that deserves accolades.

It's come to my attention that there is raging debate on Facebook and in the blogosphere over the inaccuracies and liberties taken within the story and the visual presentation.  Most of the critics seem to like the film on the surface but are disturbed that people will see it and think it an accurate historical depiction of the events surrounding the making of MARY POPPINS.

I can see that many of the specifics are not accurate, and also I can see from checking the three biographies of Mr. Disney that I own that there is disagreement on the facts surrounding the relationship between Disney and Travers.  I noted that Jeff Kurtti, a noted Disney historian, presented a letter that Travers wrote to Disney thanking him for the film and praising it.  But I have read in too many places that Travers didn't like certain parts of the films, including the songs, and that her criticism often was held back until she was talking to someone who revealed that they didn't like Walt Disney.  I don't know.

I think that in general, the film gives an accurate representation of the general mood surrounding the relationships between Disney and Travers and the production team of MARY POPPINS, but uses a lot of artistic license to make it a good story.  Much like Walt didn't want to make Rudyard Kipling's JUNGLE BOOK, but Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK, Disney wanted first and foremost to make a film that would work well on the big screen and not necessarily be faithful to every little detail.  And they succeeded in doing that.

That's my take.  I'll probably buy it on DVD.  I already bought a biography of P.L. Travers and I'll probably make it a point to watch THE BOYS when I get a chance because of this movie and the discussions that I've read.

*****

Please take a look at my book DOING DISNEY, available for Amazon Kindle at $2.99.  Thanks!

*****

Disney On Stage: Mary Poppins in New York

Yes, I know they're not very good pictures! I took them from the top of a double decker bus as we drove past. Hence the bad angles and the slight blurriness. (Of course, some of my other pictures are a little blurry too...so maybe I'm just sorta unsteady with the camera.)

But there it is anyway: The New Amsterdam Theater on 42nd Street, just a half block west of 7th Avenue, which is in the heart of Times Square, pretty much. And of course, the main attraction there: Mary Poppins.

We'd seen it before in Chicago, but we wanted to do a Broadway Show while in New York, and we needed one that was definitely appropriate for young (8 and almost 10) kids. And we knew we all liked it, and it had been almost a year since we saw it. So Disney got our vote for our Broadway experience.

If you're interested in what I thought about the musical, you can
read about that here. So what I'll say about this production is that the theater is really gorgeous. It's small, and we had excellent seats on the main floor, about 20 rows back. I could see everything. They supply booster seats for the kids (mine didn't need them, since we were able to position them behind small kids who were on booster seats) which is great since a lot of the audience members were small children who would have been blocked by a row of adults in front of them.

The production itself was similar - the sets were even more lavish in this theater but otherwise it was the same. The performances were all excellent. In Chicago we saw the original Broadway performers (I think), Ashley Brown as Mary and Gavin Lee as Bert. Here in New York we saw Laura Michelle Kelly, who was the London star and who sings on the CD you can buy at Borders. She was excellent and has a spectacular voice.

I wonder how long it will be till Disney remakes the movie using this plot instead of their Walt Disney plot? I think it might actually be worth remaking if they give us this story, which I'm led to believe is more like the book than the movie was. (P.L. Travers apparently signed off on this one, something she never really did with the movie.)

Anyway, it was a very good experience, worth every penny of the (rather expensive) ticket price!

*****

Mary Poppins - The Musical

We went to see the Disney/Cameron Mackintosh presentation of Mary Poppins at Chicago's Cadillac Palace Theater last week, and it was a resounding hit with all members of my family. My two boys, Disney nuts both, were entranced by the music and the action, and my wife thought it was one of the best musicals she's ever seen.

I have to agree with my family members. It was a triumph! Spectacular scenery and effects, wonderful performers and a familiar story made for a really entertaining afternoon. It features the stars of the Broadway version, Ashley Brown as Poppins herself, and Gavin Lee as Bert. Almost all of the familiar songs from the Disney movie (except "I Love To Laugh") were part of the show, though reworked into the story in slightly different order and to slightly different purposes.

The story itself is different than the one told in the movie. I've not read the P.L. Travers book, so I can't say how closely it follows that story. But as most Disneyphiles know, Walt and Ms. Travers didn't see eye to eye on the version that Disney brought to the screen, and she hated the final product. When she was approached about bringing the story to the stage, she allowed it on the condition that no one from Disney would be involved in the creative process. I don't know how strictly this was interpreted, but it did apparently preclude the Sherman Brothers from writing new songs for the musical (though they were still writing in the nineties when this began to be conceived, according to the Wikipedia article).

Anyway, the story they've come up with is in fact better, deeper, darker, and more emotional than the Disney version. There is more about George Banks' own problems and how they reflect on the Banks household. There is the undercurrent of marital discord, however understated it might be. And there is a more realistic, believable reason for Mr. Banks' concerns about his job at the bank.

The sets were outstanding. The Banks house opens to the audience like a lifesized dollhouse, and the park and the bank sets were really well done. I wondered how they would handle "Jolly Holiday" without animation, but they did it with color, and it was a very effective number.

And when Mary Poppins flies off into the sky, it connects you right back to the beloved movie.

I don't know if we'll get the chance, but I'd love to go see it before it leaves Chicago.