The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20131229174628/http://www.laweekly.com/2013-12-12/film-tv/saving-mr-banks-mary-poppins/

Saving Mr. Banks Is a Corporate, Borderline-Sexist Spoonful of Lies

<em>Saving Mr. Banks</em> Is a Corporate, Borderline-Sexist Spoonful of Lies

How stubborn was Walt Disney? He spent 26 years wheedling Mary Poppins author P.L. Travers to sell him the film rights to her book — call it determination or bullying. Travers thought he was a hack who would louse up her story with cartoon penguins. Walt thought she was a pest. And half a century after his magic-nanny movie scored 13 Oscar nominations, his studio has polished up his heroic quest like a bronze of Alexander the Great liberating Egypt. Suck on that spoonful, old lady.

Saving Mr. Banks, a fictionalized account of two weeks Travers spent on the lot in Burbank, is proof that Walt has thawed and secretly reclaimed Disney's reins. Not only is he awarding his feat a second round of applause, to play himself he's cast no less than Tom Hanks, America's dad, a man who still looks huggable doused in Somalian pirate blood. Hanks' Walt has a soft belly, a hard head and the twang of a boy raised on a Missouri farm. Instead of out-arguing Travers' qualms, he simply smothers them in sugar. Watching the two go head-to-head is like watching a melted marshmallow drape itself over a spike. (Though if you look closely, Hanks' eyes flicker with a steely glint.)

Against a charmer like that, Emma Thompson's tweedy Travers doesn't stand a chance, not that director John Lee Hancock gives her one. Audiences who love Walt Disney's Mary Poppins are forced to dislike its author, who loathes everything about it: the musical ditties, Dick Van Dyke, even Mr. Banks' mustache. That's not all she hates. Travers despises children, California, stuffed animals, Jell-O and fun. Cookies are vulgar. Disneyland, she sniffs, is sickening.

Thompson is good in a punishing role. In her first scene, she stares down the camera as if it's a dog who might nip her heels. She keeps her neck tight, her mouth pinched and her nose aloft, as though she's sniffing for trouble. When she clicks into the room in her sensible pumps, screenwriter Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and bouncy songwriters Richard and Robert Sherman (Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak) shiver. Her Travers is as unpleasant as a pine needle pillow, and she's as far away from the actual woman as "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is from being a real word.

In reality, Travers was a feisty, stereotype-breaking bisexual — a single mom who adopted a baby in her 40s, studied Zen meditation in Kyoto, and was publishing erotica about her silky underwear 10 years before Walt had sketched his mouse. Now that's a character worth slapping on-screen, instead of this stiff British stereotype determined to steal joy from future generations of children. With her longtime girlfriend and then-adult son erased, this frigid Travers seems like she may not even know how babies are made. Maybe Mary Poppins could sing her a song about it.

Why does it matter that Saving Mr. Banks sabotages its supposed heroine? Because in a Hollywood where men still pen 85 percent of all films, there's something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control by asking to be a co-screenwriter. (Another battle she lost — Mary Poppins' opening credits list Travers as merely a "consultant.") Just as slimy is the sense that this film, made by a studio conglomerate in a Hollywood dominated by studio conglomerates, is tricking us into cheering for the corporation over the creator. We take sides because we can't imagine living in a world without the songs the Sherman brothers wrote for the film: "Let's Go Fly a Kite," "Feed the Birds," "Chim Chim Cher-ee." We wouldn't have had to either way; if Mary Poppins had collapsed, Walt planned to package up the songs wholesale for Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

As a feint toward empathy, Saving Mr. Banks splices in Travers' hardscrabble childhood in Australia. Her father (a charismatic Colin Farrell) was a yarn-spinning drunk, her mum (Ruth Wilson) a wispy depressive. In them, we see traces of what will become both her inspiration and irritants: disorder, whimsy and an instant suspicion of imps like Walt.

Her history is true enough, but it's also the kind of missing-puzzle-piece pat psychology Travers would have loathed — not to mention a fictionalized excuse for Hanks' Walt to play Dr. Phil and solve her kiddie traumas. The real Walt didn't bother — he deliberately decamped to Palm Springs as soon as her plane touched down. Neither Walt invited her to Mary Poppins' premiere. So she invited herself, a 65-year-old crasher at a party that should have been in her honor.

Walt was popsicled two years later. Travers lasted another three decades. But while Saving Mr. Banks feels like his risen-from-the-grave attempt to pretend that Travers only cried during the film because it reminded her of her daddy, the disgruntled writer got her own eternal revenge on Walt, Burbank and the sunny country that's made Mickey Mouse its international ambassador: Not only did she forbid the studio from making a sequel, in her will, she decreed that no American would ever be allowed to tamper with her Mary Poppins again.

SAVING MR. BANKS | Directed by John Lee Hancock | Written by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith | Walt Disney Studios | Citywide

 
My Voice Nation Help
24 comments
b.touch
b.touch

I should point out four things, one of which has already been pointed out:


1. Walt Disney was cremated and buried, not cryogenically frozen. I'm sure the author uses the urban legend sarcastically, but too many people accept it as actual fact.

2. That the film focuses solely on the conflict over the rights to "Mary Poppins" is a good move from a storytelling point of view as it allows for one central conflict and something adaptable into a three-act structure. Travers' adopted son was present in an earlier draft of the screenplay...

3....but even the version of the screenplay that Disney eventually bought focused only on Travers vs. Disney. Moreover, "Saving Mr. Banks" was rather notably developed by its British screenwriters and director outside of the Disney organization, and Disney bought the rights to the production and, according to all involved, made very little changes between what was written and what ended up on the screen (their biggest note was to not show Walt Disney smoking onscreen). "Saving Mr. Banks" was on the 2011 Black List, and a ScriptShadow review of that version of the screenplay was posted in April 2012. Perhaps the filmmakers preemptively whitewashed their story to potentially please the Disney organization in an effort to get the rights to depict Walt Disney and the film version of "Mary Poppins" (the original intent), but the Disney organization did not order them to do it.

4. As already stated, the screenplay was written by two female authors, the primary of which, Kelley Marcel, was active with the project through production.

filmpastor
filmpastor

It's a good thing we don't have any audio recordings of the sessions Travers spent with the Disney folks. And it's a good thing that nobody from those sessions is still alive. If those were the case, it would be harder to sell the politically correct, revised version of all this.


Oh, wait...

joeangier
joeangier

Great review Amy. this reminds me why I keep reading the LA Weekly.

facebook41
facebook41

A good writer can make her point without making painfully obvious how big is the chip on her shoulder. The screech owl who penned this piece is not a good writer.

writer.mara
writer.mara

Dear Pamela,


I hated the dancing penguins, too. And your books are awesome.


Love, Mara

chaos0311
chaos0311

I actually wonder if it was a shabby treatment or a mutual hatred.. She clearly hated fun (and by the way the writer of this article almost throws in your face) men in general. If she hated Walt, Disneyland or California for that matter why even bother taking the offer! If she did it for the money then I believe you can add whore to the list people have given her. And was she just that much of a bitch that she had to COME BACK all the way to the premier (as stated before ) that she wasn't even invited to? She knew she was going to hate it no matter what, so why go or even look at Walt sideways for not inviting her? I wouldn't throw a party and invite some who hated people. 


joshwatchintv
joshwatchintv

She was bi and wrote about underwear! We should ignore that she actually, literally hated the film, wept openly at the premier, and that there exist 76 hours of audio recording of the two weeks of these meetings that served as the source material for the script. Audio in which she actually is patently aggressive.

Did she need to be? Maybe. But just because she was incredibly progressive for her time doesn't mean she also couldn't be fierce and mean. It's on the tape. It happen. And then when the stage musical was being developed, she only granted the rights *to that* if Mackintosh assured that Disney would have no creative involvement. Stereotypes are rooted in truth, and the first-hand accounts and audio recordings of these meetings prove that this Travers is not far from the truth. She DID hate the penguins, she DID hate Dick Van Dyke (which he has recounted himself many times) and she DID try to fervently argue against dancing penguins. And the Sherman brothers DID have a hard time selling her on their songs.

And, yeah - female screenwriters. So.

Sasbot
Sasbot

I don't really see what place her sexuality had in this tale tbh. When there is a film about men we don't claim it's sexist that it doesn't mention their sexuality so why does it matter here? 


I liked her character (although the opening with her glaring at the camera was a tad too cheese for me) and as soon as I got home I researched her. Reading about her sexuality didn't change my opinion of her although the issue with the twins was concerning. 

Of course a Hollywood film is going to be kind to Walt Disney and, frankly, I don't mind. I went the cinema to see a film about a story I loved as a child. Like all good films I was caught up in it and, being relatively sensible, I am able to separate a good film from the real life tale without it upsetting me. Anyone who goes the cinema to get hard facts is deluding themselves, surely we all know that? 

srslypissedoff
srslypissedoff topcommenter

The movie is wonderful - deliberately magical - and Travers is presented as highly unlikeable. At the end of the film you hear the real Travers on tape and she was even more awful than we see in the film. Travers also adopted a boy from Ireland who was a twin and never told him until his twin showed up at her door! That is truly deplorable, unforgivable and utterly selfish behavior. Someone posted the Daily mail link and that was an informative article as well.

Yeah, so Hollywood whitewashed this story and presented Walt in a sympathetic light?

Are we really surprised?

oxygenman9
oxygenman9

"Why does it matter that Saving Mr. Banks sabotages its supposed heroine? Because in a Hollywood where men still pen 85 percent of all films, there's something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control by asking to be a co-screenwriter."

Pretty convenient that you forget to mention that the script for Saving Mr. Banks was penned by two women.

cadavra
cadavra

Wow, someone got up on the wrong side of the slab this morning.


BANKS is wonderful. Nicholson needs to find an actual axe to grind.

blazonsoul
blazonsoul

What an awfully cynical article of opinion. And, I haven't even watched the film yet. I wonder if the author of this article derived any moral significance from the film at all? It just sounds like a lot of disenfranchisement from the corporate world and feminist tout rather than applause of the uncanny and clever acting skills of the lead cast or appreciation for Walt bringing this touching story to the masses. 

Penderghast
Penderghast

OH, yes, turn this delightful film into an anti-feminist tirade. Tell me, MS. Nicholson - what if said female author was a cantankerous, disturbed, unreasonable, corrosive and poisonous bitch, as the real Ms. Travers has been characterized by anyone who knew her, including her own family? Does she get a pass just the same, in your opinion, because she's a woman?


If so, you're the sexist, kiddo.

altoidboy615
altoidboy615

I went to a screening in which the original songwriter (Richard Sherman) was there for a Q&A.; He stated that most of the film is true to life; in fact, the first drafts were far removed from true to life and were then revised to be as close of possible to the truth. 


He said the only part that was not quite true to life was Travers attending the premiere. That was a little glamorized, as she was still not happy with the film.


He also said it was amazing how accurately the movie portrayed the [lack of] chemistry between Disney and Travers.

richardstarr
richardstarr topcommenter

I wish someone had the guts to do the real story, and that Tom Hanks had the balls

to play Walt true to life.  Now THAT would be fun, but we know it won't ever happen and

certainly not with clips from the film.


kmepring
kmepring

@chaos0311 Really shows Walt's commitment to making the film. I hate when people say he "commercialized" it because when people commercialize things, they ask once or twice and then give up because it's not worth the trouble. He kept it up for YEARS because, well, he promised his daughters, though personally, I think he really wanted to do the story himself - it seems like his thing. 

joshwatchintv
joshwatchintv

@altoidboy615This is what amazes me about this "review;" there's a very particular point of view with which the author decided to approach the subject matter and she herself is ignoring all the source material - including the people still alive who witnessed or were a part of the production process - that supports this portrayal of Travers. 


Write an opinion piece about more women in Hollywood and I'll support you 100%. Try to say that a person is being vilified when they're accurately portrayed just because she was also a progressive bisexual who wrote lusty passages, and I call BS.

jonomiller77
jonomiller77

@altoidboy615 I too was at that Q&A; and I completely agree.  Richard Sherman was the best part on that panel and that included Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson and Colin Farrell.

richardstarr
richardstarr topcommenter

@chaos0311@richardstarr

The article does a good job of giving the details.

I'm not saying its unbiased, but I have read reports prior this

talking about the shabby treatment she was given by Disney

(Not that unusual, to be honest) as well as the fact she made

sure they would never do another one which is a shame.

I actually liked the Disney movie, but I accept that it was not

her vision and respect it.  Tom Hanks is, quite frankly, going

to present a much more likeable version than Walt than existed

in reality.  

 
Loading...