← Back to Reviews
in
Plot - Iconic entertainment mogul Walter Elias 'Walt' Disney (Hanks) has long held a desire to produce a screen adaptation of the Mary Poppins novels written by P.L. Travers (Thompson). It is a desire that has went unfulfilled for 20 years however, due to the fact that Travers has always refused his requests because he she holds a great disdain for his animated films. Now however her financial situation has demanded that she at least consider submitting to his pleas and agree to the big screen adaptation, but only if she retains final say on whether the project goes ahead or not. Bringing her out to California, Disney tries everything in his power to make her happy. He teams her up with the creative team tasked with bringing the film to the big screen but is met by one complaint after another from the disagreeable Travers. Her behaviour and connection to the Mary Poppins character leave Disney greatly confused, unaware that the answers lie in Travers' past and her relationship with her father, Travers Robert Goff (Farrell).
In the future, when people reflect on the cinematic year that was 2013 it's unlikely that this film will be amongst the first that jumps into their mind. It's not as incendiary or 'cool' as The Wolf of Wall Street. It's not as ground-breaking as Gravity. It's not as powerful or important as 12 Years a Slave. It's not as inventive or original as Her. It's hasn't imprinted itself upon the public's consciousness the way that Frozen has. In 5, 10, 20 years time I imagine all of those films will still be remembered while this one may quickly fade from the minds of cinema audiences. And yet for all of that, Saving Mr Banks has won a place in my heart like few other films of 2013 have. The film made me laugh, it moved me (almost to tears on a couple of occasions) and as the end credits stopped rolling it had left me with a lovely, warm glow inside and a smile on my face. I just thought it was really rather delightful.
On the surface of things this film is about the making of the Disney classic, Mary Poppins. Beyond that however the film is about how our past, and in particular our childhoods, informs and moulds our character and our lives as we grow up. And it's about how sometimes we have to let go of the past if we are ever to move on, even if the future before us is unclear and perhaps just a touch frightening. The film to's and fro's between two separate story threads; the strained making of the film in Hollywood and P.L. Travers' childhood years in Australia. Now admittedly on its own the Australia segments come off as rather trite, pat and very heavy on the melodrama. If that was the whole film it would not be able to stand up on its own. It's when it is combined with the other half of the film however that it works, as we see how they are inextricably linked. And this is to the credit of the film's writers, Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith. While it doesn't match Emma Thompson's omission in terms of shock (more on that later), I also think that they were quite unlucky not to receive a nomination for their smart and witty script. The script impresses the longer the film goes, continually revealing extra layers to the story as it illuminates more and more how both the character of P.L. Travers and her creation of Mary Poppins were influenced by her childhood in Australia, and in particular the relationship with her father.
It is from her father that the young Pamela Travers, or Helen Goff as she was known at the time, gets her creativity and flair for imagination that she would display in her tales of the magical nanny, Mary Poppins. Her father had his demons however, alcohol in particular. His behaviour and inability to hold down a job also inform both her and her work. It has created a bitterness and pain within her, and a need to build walls to keep people from getting too close. It also creates a bit of a paradox in her work, one that rather flummoxes Walt Disney. He struggles to balance the fantasy and the whimsy of a flying nanny with the more straight-laced approach she has and that she wants the film to have, wanting it to help prepare children for the harshness and cruelties of the world. In the role of her father is Colin Farrell, who I've got to say I had some reservations about. And while it may have taken me a little while to accept him in the role I've got to say that in the end I was really quite impressed with his contribution. And as the young Helen Goff, or Ginty as her father calls her, Annie Rose Buckley is really quite adorable in her big screen debut and with a considerable presence. Amongst child actresses I think she really could be one to watch in the next few years. Their scenes together have a really sweet and touching quality to them.
Now before I move onto talking about the wonderful performances at the heart of the film I have to ask the question, who exactly has Tom Hanks p*ssed off over at the Academy? Once thought of as one of the Academy's golden boys it has now been 13 years since his last nomination, with this year's ceremony certainly being the greatest example of him being overlooked. The fact that his incredible performance in Captain Phillips went unrewarded was an absolute shock to me. And while this wasn't close to that level of snubbage, I think he can once again feel slightly unfortunate not to have earned a nomination in the Supporting Actor category for his impressive turn as the iconic Walt Disney. He is pretty much a perfect fit for the role. As a man renowned for bringing joy into the lives of children all over the world, casting just about the most likeable and charming man in movies is about as spot-on a piece of casting as you can get. For the large majority of the time his Walt Disney is utterly endearing and full of spirit and enthusiasm; the kind of person who can enter a room and and just makes every single person feel like the most special person in that room. Alongside that loveable uncle persona however there are also hints of a slightly darker undercurrent to the character; a slightly oily and manipulative individual who isn't used to not getting his own way, and who still sees money as the bottom line. Now it might only be a hint at the negative side of the Walt Disney character, but for a film from Disney themselves it's perhaps a lot more than you'd expect.
While Hanks may have been unlucky not to land a nomination, the biggest snub this film received was certainly the fact that Emma Thompson was not recognised for her terrific performance as P.L. Travers. She is tremendous in the role, just carrying the film beautifully. P.L. Travers was a very intriguing person who led a very interesting life, and while this film may only shine a light on a small part of her life, Thompson ensures that she remains a fascinating character throughout, if an extremely awkward one. For a number of reasons she really shouldn't be all that likeable. She wears a constant sneer of disappointment and disapproval on her face, and is completely oblivious to social niceties and the notion of small talk. With her ridiculous demands she is almost impossible to work with; at one point she actually insists that the colour red cannot feature whatsoever in the film because she “has gone off the colour.” And yet for all this you never come close to disliking the character because Thompson is so engaging, and also suggests a real sadness to her that engages your sympathies.
And Thomspon's line delivery and comic timing are just splendid throughout. Her character never says anything that she intends to be humourous, but the way that Thompson delivers it certainly makes it so. I just love the disgust and contempt in her voice when she utters “responstible is not a word” after hearing the latest creation from the Disney songsmiths. There's also a great little moment where she gets so annoyed with one of the songsmiths that she strictly sends him out of the room like a school teacher disciplining a student by telling him to stand outside. Together Thompson's Travers and Hanks' Disney engage in a great battle of wits and wills throughout the film; the prim and proper author against the jovial charmer. And they have a great chemistry together that makes their conflict so much fun. The scenes that feature the actual planning of the film also have a great spark to them as we see Thompson clash with the film's writing team, portrayed spiritedly by Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak and Bradley Whitford. And in a minor role Paul Giamatti also adds some real warmth and heart. In fact the whole film is really well acted.
In visual terms Saving Mr Banks is really quite a lovely film to behold. The cinematography of John Schwartzman presents a series of crisp, handsome images imbued with a warm, vibrant colour palette. Images that highlight the period setting and distinguish between the three distinct locations in which the film unfolds. There's the segment set in Australia that depicts Pamela's childhood, revelling in the country's wild and ruggedly beautiful expanses and shot with a beautifully warm, golden glow to evoke its nostalgic nature. The scenes set in England are very brief but have a lovely, quaint quality to them. While Travers' time in LA is marked more by the urban expanses, the extravagance on show and the slightly hollow veneer of Hollywood. Just like the scenes in Australia, the scenes take place predominantly in bright sunshine. But whereas the Australian sunshine had a warm, nostalgic vibe here it feels much more harsh and foreboding. Helping Schwartzman to create some of these beautiful images are numerous fine examples of both production and costume design that really heighten the film's charming period detail. I also enjoyed the shrewd direction of John Lee Hancock. There was nothing very showy about it but it was a controlled, finely crafted effort, with a few clever, subtle shots that generated laughs such as focusing in on Travers' tapping feet to show she's actually enjoying one of the songs for once, the reveal of a huge Mickey Mouse stuffed toy or the hiding of the sheet music for “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.”
Oh and there's also a great soundtrack from Thomas Newman that captures both the sadness and the magical whimsy of the film. Newman was rewarded for his work with an Oscar nomination in the Best Score category. It's just a shame that the Academy didn't see fit to further reward this charming film.
Conclusion - As a film that details the making of a Disney production and concerns itself with their iconic style, it is very fitting that Saving Mr Banks is a classic example of the Disney formula, with all the positive and negative factors that will produce depending on the viewer. So yes the film is indeed rather melodramatic, corny and sentimental; all things that P.L. Travers herself worried about and railed against. But it is also delightfully charming, full of heart and with just a little sprinkling of magic. Throw in a sharp script and two great performances at its heart (with Thompson in particular in sparkling form) and you've really got something. Given her attitude towards the films of Disney, in all likelihood P.L. Travers would have hated this film, but I most certainly did not. I can see this being the type of film I could watch over and over again on a rainy Sunday afternoon or on a bank holiday, that I could watch so much that it could become a real favourite.
Thank you everyone for all the response and feedback to my Southern Comfort review. I'll reply to some of it in time but right now I just wanted to get another review out there.
Oh and I'd like to apologise for the lack of variety from my reviews recently in that every one just now seems to be really positive. I've not a grumble about a film for a while but it's just the way it's worked out. It's been a mix of revisiting old favourites I already knew I liked/loved, a couple of new releases that I had high hopes for liking/loving and did so and just some films that really grabbed my attention. Because of how I've felt for most of the year a lot of the time I've just not felt like I had the energy or motivation to write about film I wasn't all that keen on. That said there is a bit more balance coming down the line.
All that said on to the review
Oh and I'd like to apologise for the lack of variety from my reviews recently in that every one just now seems to be really positive. I've not a grumble about a film for a while but it's just the way it's worked out. It's been a mix of revisiting old favourites I already knew I liked/loved, a couple of new releases that I had high hopes for liking/loving and did so and just some films that really grabbed my attention. Because of how I've felt for most of the year a lot of the time I've just not felt like I had the energy or motivation to write about film I wasn't all that keen on. That said there is a bit more balance coming down the line.
All that said on to the review
|
|
Year of release
2013
Directed by
John Lee Hancock
Written by
Kelly Marcel
Sue Smith
Starring
Emma Thompson
Tom Hanks
Colin Farrell
Paul Giamatti
Jason Schwartzman
Annie Rose Buckley
Saving Mr Banks
+
2013
Directed by
John Lee Hancock
Written by
Kelly Marcel
Sue Smith
Starring
Emma Thompson
Tom Hanks
Colin Farrell
Paul Giamatti
Jason Schwartzman
Annie Rose Buckley
Saving Mr Banks
+
Plot - Iconic entertainment mogul Walter Elias 'Walt' Disney (Hanks) has long held a desire to produce a screen adaptation of the Mary Poppins novels written by P.L. Travers (Thompson). It is a desire that has went unfulfilled for 20 years however, due to the fact that Travers has always refused his requests because he she holds a great disdain for his animated films. Now however her financial situation has demanded that she at least consider submitting to his pleas and agree to the big screen adaptation, but only if she retains final say on whether the project goes ahead or not. Bringing her out to California, Disney tries everything in his power to make her happy. He teams her up with the creative team tasked with bringing the film to the big screen but is met by one complaint after another from the disagreeable Travers. Her behaviour and connection to the Mary Poppins character leave Disney greatly confused, unaware that the answers lie in Travers' past and her relationship with her father, Travers Robert Goff (Farrell).
In the future, when people reflect on the cinematic year that was 2013 it's unlikely that this film will be amongst the first that jumps into their mind. It's not as incendiary or 'cool' as The Wolf of Wall Street. It's not as ground-breaking as Gravity. It's not as powerful or important as 12 Years a Slave. It's not as inventive or original as Her. It's hasn't imprinted itself upon the public's consciousness the way that Frozen has. In 5, 10, 20 years time I imagine all of those films will still be remembered while this one may quickly fade from the minds of cinema audiences. And yet for all of that, Saving Mr Banks has won a place in my heart like few other films of 2013 have. The film made me laugh, it moved me (almost to tears on a couple of occasions) and as the end credits stopped rolling it had left me with a lovely, warm glow inside and a smile on my face. I just thought it was really rather delightful.
On the surface of things this film is about the making of the Disney classic, Mary Poppins. Beyond that however the film is about how our past, and in particular our childhoods, informs and moulds our character and our lives as we grow up. And it's about how sometimes we have to let go of the past if we are ever to move on, even if the future before us is unclear and perhaps just a touch frightening. The film to's and fro's between two separate story threads; the strained making of the film in Hollywood and P.L. Travers' childhood years in Australia. Now admittedly on its own the Australia segments come off as rather trite, pat and very heavy on the melodrama. If that was the whole film it would not be able to stand up on its own. It's when it is combined with the other half of the film however that it works, as we see how they are inextricably linked. And this is to the credit of the film's writers, Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith. While it doesn't match Emma Thompson's omission in terms of shock (more on that later), I also think that they were quite unlucky not to receive a nomination for their smart and witty script. The script impresses the longer the film goes, continually revealing extra layers to the story as it illuminates more and more how both the character of P.L. Travers and her creation of Mary Poppins were influenced by her childhood in Australia, and in particular the relationship with her father.
It is from her father that the young Pamela Travers, or Helen Goff as she was known at the time, gets her creativity and flair for imagination that she would display in her tales of the magical nanny, Mary Poppins. Her father had his demons however, alcohol in particular. His behaviour and inability to hold down a job also inform both her and her work. It has created a bitterness and pain within her, and a need to build walls to keep people from getting too close. It also creates a bit of a paradox in her work, one that rather flummoxes Walt Disney. He struggles to balance the fantasy and the whimsy of a flying nanny with the more straight-laced approach she has and that she wants the film to have, wanting it to help prepare children for the harshness and cruelties of the world. In the role of her father is Colin Farrell, who I've got to say I had some reservations about. And while it may have taken me a little while to accept him in the role I've got to say that in the end I was really quite impressed with his contribution. And as the young Helen Goff, or Ginty as her father calls her, Annie Rose Buckley is really quite adorable in her big screen debut and with a considerable presence. Amongst child actresses I think she really could be one to watch in the next few years. Their scenes together have a really sweet and touching quality to them.
Now before I move onto talking about the wonderful performances at the heart of the film I have to ask the question, who exactly has Tom Hanks p*ssed off over at the Academy? Once thought of as one of the Academy's golden boys it has now been 13 years since his last nomination, with this year's ceremony certainly being the greatest example of him being overlooked. The fact that his incredible performance in Captain Phillips went unrewarded was an absolute shock to me. And while this wasn't close to that level of snubbage, I think he can once again feel slightly unfortunate not to have earned a nomination in the Supporting Actor category for his impressive turn as the iconic Walt Disney. He is pretty much a perfect fit for the role. As a man renowned for bringing joy into the lives of children all over the world, casting just about the most likeable and charming man in movies is about as spot-on a piece of casting as you can get. For the large majority of the time his Walt Disney is utterly endearing and full of spirit and enthusiasm; the kind of person who can enter a room and and just makes every single person feel like the most special person in that room. Alongside that loveable uncle persona however there are also hints of a slightly darker undercurrent to the character; a slightly oily and manipulative individual who isn't used to not getting his own way, and who still sees money as the bottom line. Now it might only be a hint at the negative side of the Walt Disney character, but for a film from Disney themselves it's perhaps a lot more than you'd expect.
Film Trivia Snippets - Despite what the film shows, P.L. Travers never did come to care for the film. After viewing the film at the première she would not watch it again for another 20 years. In 1977 she conceded that she had “seen it once or twice, and I've learned to live with it. It's glamorous and it's a good film on its own level, but I don't think it is very like my books." She was so displeased with what she saw as a vulgar and disrespectful adaptation that she refused to allow any of her other Mary Poppins novels to be filmed, despite Walt Disney pleading with her to do so. In fact such was her anger that in 1994, thirty years after the release of the film, Cameron Mackintosh approached her about a musical stage version and she refused, citing the film as the reason she would never allow another adaptation. Eventually she agreed to give permission to the project but with several caveats; no Americans were allowed to take part in the production, and not a single person from the film version, not even the Sherman brothers who composed all of the film's songs, were allowed to participate. /// The production team were absolutely meticulous about every detail of Tom Hanks' portrayal of Walt Disney, right down to measuring the exact length of his moustache. /// In the film we see P.L. Travers request that all of the working sessions between herself and Disney's creative team be recorded on audiotape. And this really happened. In total the tapes amounted to an astonishing 39 hours, all of which were made available to the screenwriters and later on both Hanks and Thompson. /// The film's cinematographer, John Schwartzman, is actually the half-brother of Jason Schwartzman who stars in the film as Richard Sherman. /// Tom Hanks said that Disney CEO Robert A. Iger called personally and asked him to portray Walt Disney, especially since the company had not originally developed the script it had acquired, and now wanted to make certain it had someone it could trust to play its iconic large-than-life founder to move ahead with the risky project. /// Tom Hanks is actually a distant cousin of Walt Disney.
While Hanks may have been unlucky not to land a nomination, the biggest snub this film received was certainly the fact that Emma Thompson was not recognised for her terrific performance as P.L. Travers. She is tremendous in the role, just carrying the film beautifully. P.L. Travers was a very intriguing person who led a very interesting life, and while this film may only shine a light on a small part of her life, Thompson ensures that she remains a fascinating character throughout, if an extremely awkward one. For a number of reasons she really shouldn't be all that likeable. She wears a constant sneer of disappointment and disapproval on her face, and is completely oblivious to social niceties and the notion of small talk. With her ridiculous demands she is almost impossible to work with; at one point she actually insists that the colour red cannot feature whatsoever in the film because she “has gone off the colour.” And yet for all this you never come close to disliking the character because Thompson is so engaging, and also suggests a real sadness to her that engages your sympathies.
And Thomspon's line delivery and comic timing are just splendid throughout. Her character never says anything that she intends to be humourous, but the way that Thompson delivers it certainly makes it so. I just love the disgust and contempt in her voice when she utters “responstible is not a word” after hearing the latest creation from the Disney songsmiths. There's also a great little moment where she gets so annoyed with one of the songsmiths that she strictly sends him out of the room like a school teacher disciplining a student by telling him to stand outside. Together Thompson's Travers and Hanks' Disney engage in a great battle of wits and wills throughout the film; the prim and proper author against the jovial charmer. And they have a great chemistry together that makes their conflict so much fun. The scenes that feature the actual planning of the film also have a great spark to them as we see Thompson clash with the film's writing team, portrayed spiritedly by Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak and Bradley Whitford. And in a minor role Paul Giamatti also adds some real warmth and heart. In fact the whole film is really well acted.
In visual terms Saving Mr Banks is really quite a lovely film to behold. The cinematography of John Schwartzman presents a series of crisp, handsome images imbued with a warm, vibrant colour palette. Images that highlight the period setting and distinguish between the three distinct locations in which the film unfolds. There's the segment set in Australia that depicts Pamela's childhood, revelling in the country's wild and ruggedly beautiful expanses and shot with a beautifully warm, golden glow to evoke its nostalgic nature. The scenes set in England are very brief but have a lovely, quaint quality to them. While Travers' time in LA is marked more by the urban expanses, the extravagance on show and the slightly hollow veneer of Hollywood. Just like the scenes in Australia, the scenes take place predominantly in bright sunshine. But whereas the Australian sunshine had a warm, nostalgic vibe here it feels much more harsh and foreboding. Helping Schwartzman to create some of these beautiful images are numerous fine examples of both production and costume design that really heighten the film's charming period detail. I also enjoyed the shrewd direction of John Lee Hancock. There was nothing very showy about it but it was a controlled, finely crafted effort, with a few clever, subtle shots that generated laughs such as focusing in on Travers' tapping feet to show she's actually enjoying one of the songs for once, the reveal of a huge Mickey Mouse stuffed toy or the hiding of the sheet music for “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.”
Oh and there's also a great soundtrack from Thomas Newman that captures both the sadness and the magical whimsy of the film. Newman was rewarded for his work with an Oscar nomination in the Best Score category. It's just a shame that the Academy didn't see fit to further reward this charming film.
Conclusion - As a film that details the making of a Disney production and concerns itself with their iconic style, it is very fitting that Saving Mr Banks is a classic example of the Disney formula, with all the positive and negative factors that will produce depending on the viewer. So yes the film is indeed rather melodramatic, corny and sentimental; all things that P.L. Travers herself worried about and railed against. But it is also delightfully charming, full of heart and with just a little sprinkling of magic. Throw in a sharp script and two great performances at its heart (with Thompson in particular in sparkling form) and you've really got something. Given her attitude towards the films of Disney, in all likelihood P.L. Travers would have hated this film, but I most certainly did not. I can see this being the type of film I could watch over and over again on a rainy Sunday afternoon or on a bank holiday, that I could watch so much that it could become a real favourite.