Review: Saving Mr. Banks

A film that details the tug-of-war between Australian-born author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) and Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) over plans to bring Travers’ Mary Poppins character to the silver screen. Travers is a humourless, crotchety snob of a woman, who is fiercely protective of her work, worried that the House of Mouse will try and turn it into a cartoon. However, financial difficulties see her nonetheless make the journey to California to meet with avuncular Disney, and his team which include screenwriter Don DaGradi and songwriters Richard (Jason Schwartzman) and Robert Sherman (B.J. Novak). Even as she agrees to come to California, she has yet to actually sign on the dotted line, and makes everyone’s lives a living hell. At one point she even argues against the colour red being used in the film. However, flashbacks to her unhappy childhood in rural Australia with a well-meaning but deeply troubled father (Colin Farrell) and mentally unstable mother (Ruth Wilson), show there’s much more going on here than simply a snobby bitch thumbing her nose at crass Hollywood filmmaking. Paul Giamatti plays Travers’ personally assigned limo driver Ralph, a thoroughly decent and genial family man with a disabled child, who tries his best to get the woman to lighten the hell up for chrissakes. Kathy Baker is sadly underused as Disney’s loyal secretary.

 

Although one might be sceptical of a film about the battle over “Mary Poppins” from none other than Disney (Especially with Tom Hanks playing Walt Disney himself), this 2013 film from director John Lee Hancock and writers Kelly Marcel (The lame TV series “Terra Nova”) and Sue Smith is nothing to be sceptical about at all. It’s wonderfully entertaining, interesting, funny, and moving. Hancock more than makes up for the condescending and clichéd “The Blind Side” with his directorial effort here. I’ve purposely avoided watching “Mary Poppins” over the years for mental health reasons (“The Sound of Music” is as far as I’ll go, thank you very much and that took more than three decades of courage), but I always knew this was going to be one of the better films of the year, with its expert cast and fascinating true Hollywood story. It doesn’t disappoint, even though the supposedly Australian locations (All shot in California) for flashbacks are not remotely convincing (Palm trees? Really? Did they honestly think they were gonna get away with that?). Actress Ruth Wilson never quite gets her Aussie accent right, either, valiantly as she tries. She probably should’ve tried an Irish one, which might fit the period better anyway, given our colonial/convict roots. The flashback scenes are actually the most important in the film, really. They detail just why Mrs. Travers is so adamant about holding on to her story. Because in many ways “Mary Poppins” was indeed her story, and Mr. Banks was inspired by her father. I’m not normally a fan of flashbacks, but they are absolutely key here, and California or not, the locales do indeed look lovely. Colin Farrell is actually inspired and excellent casting as Travers’ father. He gets all of the shadings of this sad character down perfectly. He’s a well-meaning, but troubled alcoholic. As funny as this film can be, it’s the sadness that really resonated with me. It makes me want to watch “Mary Poppins” even less because of what Disney did to the film. Even in this supposedly Disney-fied version of the true story, you end up seeing things from Travers’ point of view. In fact, she hated the film even more strongly than is depicted here, so if anything Travers has been softened more than Walt Disney. Yes, Disney himself is cleaned up a bit, but the film shows what this story meant to Travers and what Disney did to it, so even Uncle Walt ends up rather tainted, Tom Hanks or not. One of the best scenes in the film that really brings it all home is when the inane songs intrude on Travers’ flashbacks of unhappy domestic issues from her childhood. It says it all, really. I also thought it was priceless that Disney would invite Travers on a tour of Disneyland.

 

Aside from the absolutely fascinating true story itself, the film’s strongest assets are the lead performances by Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Mrs. Travers was said to be a most unpleasant, humourless woman, and Emma Thompson, lovely as she appears to be in real-life, is immediately perfect in the role. Yes you feel that she lays the snobbery on a bit thick, but a) This is a Disney film not a docudrama b) She’s bloody marvellously entertaining in the role, and c) The end credits have an audio recording of the real Travers, revealing that Thompson actually isn’t exaggerating things at all. The woman really was difficult and didn’t suffer fools in the slightest. Holy crap she’s scary. She was a spectacularly horrible person, perhaps with a good reason at times, but still…yikes. The first scene with screenwriter Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and the two Shermans (Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak, the latter stealing scenes as the most outspoken of the two brothers) is hilarious in how immediately and incredibly rudely she shuts them down. You’d be scared to open your mouth ever again. The fact that Travers would probably hate this film too is just the icing on the cake, really (It’s amazing that Disney got “Mary Poppins” made given that he ended up pretty much making it the way he wanted anyway, despite Travers’ objections). I must say, though, that Travers was right: Burton and Guinness are greats, Dick Van Dyke…no way. I much prefer watching Bradley Whitford embarrassingly sing in a terrible cockney accent here than Dick Van Dyke sing in an even worse one in “Mary Poppins”. At least Whitford is hilarious.

 

It’s to Thompson’s credit that although wonderfully funny in the role, and wonderfully horrible, she lets you see the scarred, fiercely protective human being inside. It’s no caricature, though it might be harder to make that argument had one not heard the real Travers. The casting of Tom Hanks as Walt Disney reveals the film’s bias, no doubt, but he’s the only actor I can think of who could pull the role off and indeed he gives a highly enjoyable performance (He’s also a distant relation of the man!). And since no other studio would really want to tell the story of a successful film from Disney’s archive, worrying about the filmmakers appeasing the studio is pretty pointless, really. It’s the only way the film would’ve gotten made. Neither Hanks nor Thompson exactly disappear into their roles, but both are persuasive and good fun, Thompson especially. I also must make mention of Paul Giamatti, who is perfectly cast, makes something out of nothing, and underplays quite nicely here. Rachel Griffiths is an absolute hoot as the ‘real’ “Mary Poppins”, a wonderful cameo.

 

A terrific entertainment, but also a very sad film about a most unpleasant woman, who was fiercely protective of a story very personal to her. Thompson dominates, and the film will make you think about “Mary Poppins” in a whole new way, more than likely. I’m still not fucking watching it, though. This isn’t the lightweight, simplistically pro-Uncle Walt film you might expect. Two great stars in a terrific, fascinating true story that I can’t imagine anyone not named P.L. Travers disliking, but I think it will probably appeal most strongly to film buffs nonetheless. You absolutely must stay for the end credits, to truly appreciate this film. My vote for best film of 2013.

 

Rating: B