by Jon Forsythe features editor
Disney’s recent film “Saving Mr. Banks” recounts the true tale of how P.L. Travers’ novel “Mary Poppins” became a Disney film. Unlike most film adaptions, it took Travers over 20 years to agree with Disney on what the film should include. “Saving Mr. Banks” portrays two strong-willed characters grappling for control of the film, each motivated by external forces.
For P.L. Travers (played by Emma Thompson), “Mary Poppins” was not just a book – it was a part of her. The novel’s characters resembled people from Travers’ own childhood. The abuse Mary received from her father mirrored Travers’ difficulty with her own father. She could not bear to see her novel – which represented her childhood – misconstrued by a presumptuous film.
Meanwhile, Walt Disney (played by Tom Hanks) was also especially motivated to create an extraordinary film out of “Mary Poppins.” His own daughters had become enthralled by the novel and begged their father to make it into a movie. Desiring to please his children, Disney fought for what he held as vital to the film. Often, Travers disagreed with his perspectives.
Together with a creative team of cinematographers, musicians and graphic designers, Disney attempted to persuade Travers to give him the rights to create the film. Again and again, Travers disapproved of Disney’s ideas.
However, Travers began to run into financial struggles. Economically, she needed the movie deal, but she remained unrelenting in her demands for control in the film-making process. Aware of the situation, Disney hoped to charm Travers into selling him the rights for the new film. He pulled out all the stops, taking her to Disneyland and seeking to find out what was holding her back from giving him the rights for the film.
Eventually, she relented and allowed him to create the film as he desired. Travers was not initially invited to the release of the film, because Disney was unsure of how she would respond. She, however, obtained a ticket to the event and saw her work in its first appearance on the silver screen. At first, she was disappointed with the finished project. However, as the film concluded, she was overcome with emotion because of the redemptive sequence in the character resembling her own father.
Reviews on “Saving Mr. Banks” vary greatly. Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine says, “The picture finally succeeds as the kind of fantasy that its two main characters consorted in, individually and, on one project, together.”
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone adds, “Thanks to Thompson and Hanks, this movie about the making of a movie hits the sweet spot. There’s magic in it.”
However, some deem it too sentimental, or even self-serving. David Thomson of The New Republic writes, “‘Saving Mr. Banks’ is a merciless film. It hits you with every sentimental low blow it can think of. Then it pounds you again. And when you’re down, it jumps on you.”
Colin Covert of the Minneapolis Star Tribune comments, “‘Saving Mr. Banks’ is a shameless wad of corporate PR, a feel-good, self-serving Disney film about the making of a Disney film.”
Whatever your reaction to the film, “Saving Mr. Banks” tells the fascinating true story of a mere work of fiction that can encapsulate so much emotion for an individual.
—–
This piece is considered a “standard” article in our print edition.
Fresh Craft: new creations — music, books, plays, and the lot — that may influence the future of art