What's new

Saving Mr. Banks Review (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
21
I enjoyed watching Emma play , i doubt it would be the sameWithout her in it. It gave me nostalgic feelings and i enjoyed the flashbacks andThe landscapes with it ... The movie is not great but its allright As for the truth , as said before it is not a doc but a disney movie I guess and opinions are subjective remember
 

Hanson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
5,272
Real Name
Hanson
Whenever a movie is based on a true story and is marketed as such, there should be repercussions when they embellish history. The extent to which they do so is a gray area -- it is now expected that they will create composite characters and out of whole cloth scenes for dramatic effect. Where Banks crosses the line for me is that the ending of the movie is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what happened. Travers never accepted the Disney version, and her tears at the screening were ones of rage. She salted the earth in her will to ensure Disney never adapted another Poppins book. To go past implying and instead outright claim that Travers eventually succumbed to Disney’s Christ-like love and learned to embrace the film is not just hogwash, but practically a desecration of her corpse. It is totally pissing on her grave, and while she may not be the most savory person, it’s immoral to present her in that fashion considering how she would have exploded in anger at the notion. You can cry, “It’s a M-O-O-O-O-VIE” all you want, but this is basically character assassination. Shouldn’t there be a higher standard to fact based movies than, “these people existed”. If you want to create a fiction, then by all means do so, but let the audience know – American Hustle changed most of the character names and started with, “Some of this actually happened”. This is a far cry from the revisionist history that Banks represents.

And to paint Travers as some kind of artistic whore because she assented to adapting her work is a horrible mischaracterization. She only agreed because she was given full script approval, which she thought would shield her from completely compromising her work. But Disney tricked her by locking her out of the editing room and inserting carton penguins into the final product among other things. I think it’s crazy that on a forum that, in the past, had members who wouldn’t watch widescreen versions of Kubrick films because he said that he wanted full frame editions for home video, the pressure Disney put on Travers to relinquish her ideals and to Disney-fy the story is by and large treated without scorn and in some posts actually celebrated. I guess the old place has changed.

Every time a movie that’s “based on a true story” goes well past “dramatized” to outright “lying” should be called out. “It’s just a movie” or "it's a movie, not a documentary" is a lame response that makes the problem worse. It’s the banal acceptance of lies and promulgation of moral rottenness.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
The reason we don't crucify Disney for making creative changes to Travers' story is because he was 100% absolutely correct in every decision he made that altered her book to make that film. When you end up being right about how to present a project no one gives a crap who had the original, less interesting idea.As for accepting movies bases on outright lies, etc., may I point you in the direction of Lawrence of Arabia.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Hanson said:
Every time a movie that’s “based on a true story” goes well past “dramatized” to outright “lying” should be called out. “It’s just a movie” or "it's a movie, not a documentary" is a lame response that makes the problem worse. It’s the banal acceptance of lies and promulgation of moral rottenness.
I'm not accepting lies, I just don't have a problem accepting that "Based on a true story" means that some of the movie is going to be pure fiction. I see no need for a movie to be a slave to history because there might be a handful of morons that don't realize that every movie that is based on a true story has some embellishment, combining of events & people or just flat-out lies for the sake of the story/entertainment or to make the protagonist look better.
 

Hanson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
5,272
Real Name
Hanson
Obviously, no one walks into Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer and comes out poking holes in the historical inaccuracies. But Travers is not about a well known historical figure, so it's not really obvious to most viewers what is real and what is fiction (which doesn't require them to be "morons"). And it's not simply that Banks is historically inaccurate -- even most documentaries play fast and loose with the facts. What disturbs me about the movie is that it's like a piece of Stalinist era propaganda that completely distorts reality in the most self-serving manner possible considering it's from the Walt Disney company. I've been trying to come up with an analogy that doesn't involve Hitler, but all I can come up with is a Google funded documentary about Steve Jobs where he tells everyone on his deathbed how much Android has won him over and call off the lawsuits. I mean, people would lose their shit if that came out and rightfully so.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Hanson said:
But Travers is not about a well known historical figure, so it's not really obvious to most viewers what is real and what is fiction (which doesn't require them to be "morons"). And it's not simply that Banks is historically inaccurate -- even most documentaries play fast and loose with the facts.
I don't know a thing about P.L. Travers or the making-of Mary Poppins but I still didn't see Saving Mr. Banks and accept everything that I saw as a fact. When I saw the movie, I assumed that Walt Disney didn't hop a plane to London (and I believe that it's been said in this thread that scene was completely made up) but that scene still works fine as part of a fictionalized movie and works better as the climax of the movie than the likely boring or undramatic reality of what really happened.

As for documentaries playing fast and loose with facts, that's entirely different topic. I'd completely agree that that would be heinous abuse of the audience's trust because anything that's presenting itself as a documentary should be factual.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
I haven't seen this yet (in fact, I'm not sure whether I've actually ever seen Mary Poppins). I have no problem with "based on a true story" films changing history for artistic purposes. That said, however, I can see where Hanson is coming from -- if this film is portraying the *exact opposite* of what really happened, then that's a little weird.
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,955
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
Hanson said:
And to paint Travers as some kind of artistic whore because she assented to adapting her work is a horrible mischaracterization. She only agreed because she was given full script approval, which she thought would shield her from completely compromising her work. But Disney tricked her by locking her out of the editing room and inserting carton penguins into the final product among other things. I think it’s crazy that on a forum that, in the past, had members who wouldn’t watch widescreen versions of Kubrick films because he said that he wanted full frame editions for home video, the pressure Disney put on Travers to relinquish her ideals and to Disney-fy the story is by and large treated without scorn and in some posts actually celebrated. I guess the old place has changed.
Full script approval does not mean final cut approval. Two radically different things.

Kubrick was a filmmaker; Travers is a novelist. What works well on the page does not necessarily translate to the screen. There is absolutely no need to adhere slavishly to the source material when it won't work on in a movie.

Nothing has changed. What is constant is celebrating the movie.
 

Hanson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
5,272
Real Name
Hanson
Jason_V said:
Full script approval does not mean final cut approval. Two radically different things.
Understood, which is how Disney was able to lock her out of the editing room. However, she did not understand the distinction/was not told about it. When she inquired about cutting the film, she was told she was not welcome in the editing bay due to the lack of editorial approval. This deception is completely whitewashed in the movie.
What is constant is celebrating the movie.
Having not seen Mary Poppins, that aspect is lost on me. This movie is a tribute to Dear Leader. Your attitude towards Dear Leader will color your perceptions -- glorious tribute or revisionist propaganda?

One of the big problems with this movie that I am just now able to articulate is that it is a Disney movie about Disney. So it's not a simple matter of changing around facts to in the service of entertainment -- Banks is Disney's attempt at rewriting history altogether. The fact that Travers is dead makes that objective even easier. There was a lot of bad blood between Disney and Travers, and this movie looks a lot like revenge.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Disney as a company didn't create the film. It was developed outside of the studio and brought to them because the rights holders knew that at some point they'd need access to Disney controlled material in order to make the film. There were three options at that point: 1) Disney becomes involved in financing the film, 2) Disney allows use of their material via licensing, 3) the film does or (more likely) does not get made without being able to use those materials. The first option occurred.

In regards to the film content, Disney made a single request - do not show Walt smoking (which the film creatively sidesteps). All other aspects of the story - historical changes and all - were done before Disney the company became involved.
 

Hanson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
5,272
Real Name
Hanson
Right, because if the producers had brought a movie project to Disney about how Walt deceived Travers into relinquishing the rights to her material which she went apeshit over and ended up hating the movie, Disney, and, by proxy, America, that would have totally been greenlighted. Making Travers look like a horrible person who was "saved" by Disney did nothing to grease the wheels.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
What you described isn't a movie anyone is interested in seeing, though. That's the #1 reason it wouldn't get made - by anyone. (And nobody would have wanted to see the film of Mary Poppins that Travers' decisions would have given us. She may have been a great author of children's books, but her ideas on how to make that property into a movie were generally terrible).
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,955
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
Hanson said:
Understood, which is how Disney was able to lock her out of the editing room. However, she did not understand the distinction/was not told about it. When she inquired about cutting the film, she was told she was not welcome in the editing bay due to the lack of editorial approval. This deception is completely whitewashed in the movie.

Having not seen Mary Poppins, that aspect is lost on me. This movie is a tribute to Dear Leader. Your attitude towards Dear Leader will color your perceptions -- glorious tribute or revisionist propaganda?

I have one last comment here and then I'm done with this thread because you're bordering on trolling and being offensive (with the Dear Leader bull).

Ignorance is not and never has been a defense. Travers could have said "I didn't know" but whose fault is that? Not Disney's. It's hers, pure and simple. I can say to a cop I didn't know what the speed limit was, but I'm still getting a ticket. I could say to my boss I didn't know I couldn't use my work computer to look at porn, but I'd still be fired.

That's just a defense. Ever. And now I'm done.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
Every time a movie is made based on historical events, there are those who rant over inaccuracies, and act like it's an atrocity and people are being deceived (remember the Argo thread?). You don't use movies to learn history. The reason these types of movies use the terms "based on" a true story, is because that gives them a lot of latitude to tell whatever story they want. Same thing goes when adapting a novel: "based on the Mary Poppins books by P. L. Travers" allowed the Disney studio to make all sorts of outrageous (and wonderful) changes to Miss Travers' works.
Saving Mr. Banks is a great movie. I've read several biographies on Walt Disney and I knew instantly that the majority of Saving Mr. Banks was fiction, but I thoroughly enjoyed it anyway.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland
Also, the fact remains that the facts are out there, as has been evidenced by the myriad discussions about how the film has changed them. So they are there for people to read, if they choose to. And people are free to write books, magazine articles, etc about the real Travers and her feelings about Disney and the final film of Mary Poppins. Or make a documentary. Frankly, I thought the story would have made a much better documentary with the real story than a feature film with a whitewashed story. I do think the harder, real story is far more interesting than the overly sentimentalized tale they told. And it would have better represented the reality of Travers as well. But, that ship sailed, for better or worse.IMO, in the scheme of things, Travers is not so famous and this film is not so good that this will forever enshrine this view of her. Big fans of Disney and Mary Poppins (the film) know the real story, and casual fans will see the film, find it interesting (or not) and then quickly forget about it. It's not like the case of Richard III, who is now forever thought of as a villain and a child murderer based on Shakespeare's play.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
JohnMor said:
But, that ship sailed, for better or worse.
Ha ha! Clever. Walt's words to Travers after the premiere when she wanted to discuss new changes: "Pamela, that ship has sailed."
 

Hanson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Messages
5,272
Real Name
Hanson
Brandon Conway said:
What you described isn't a movie anyone is interested in seeing, though.
I don't know why you keep saying that. A warts and all biopic of Walt Disney would be totally fascinating and completely interesting. A lot of people would want to see a movie about Evil Walt and his nefarious machinations. Good luck making it, though. It would be radioactive.

Let me offer this: say they made a movie about the making of Mary Poppins and it's revealed that Travers actually wrote all the songs, but the Sherman Brothers lifted her notebook and took credit for them. I mean, it's not a documentary so it's okay, right? Sure it's a total fabrication and spits on the memory of Robert Sherman, but it's a goddamn movie, not a history lesson. Even if it's marketed as a true story.

Please tell me that's acceptable.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Hanson said:
I don't know why you keep saying that. A warts and all biopic of Walt Disney would be totally fascinating and completely interesting. A lot of people would want to see a movie about Evil Walt and his nefarious machinations. Good luck making it, though. It would be radioactive.

Let me offer this: say they made a movie about the making of Mary Poppins and it's revealed that Travers actually wrote all the songs, but the Sherman Brothers lifted her notebook and took credit for them. I mean, it's not a documentary so it's okay, right? Sure it's a total fabrication and spits on the memory of Robert Sherman, but it's a goddamn movie, not a history lesson. Even if it's marketed as a true story.

Please tell me that's acceptable.
"Evil Walt" is a myth in its own right. If anyone wants to make that film more power to them.

Anything is acceptable in fiction, even when based on true events. Allenby was portrayed as allowing Damascus to descend into chaos. Hitler was killed in a theater fire. As JohnMor points out, Richard III murdered children. This is nothing new. Is your story compelling? That's ultimately all that matters for the film. The problem I see is people can't accept the fictionalized film experience for limited one that it is, as though they have no other means to determine the truth of history.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Brandon Conway said:
Anything is acceptable in fiction, even when based on true events. Allenby was portrayed as allowing Damascus to descend into chaos. Hitler was killed in a theater fire. As JohnMor points out, Richard III murdered children. This is nothing new. Is your story compelling? That's ultimately all that matters for the film.
That's how I look at it too. I know a fair amount about the sinking of the Titanic and the Jim Cameron movie- which was touted as being highly historically accurate (far more than Saving Mr. Banks anyway)- shows First Officer Murdoch shooting two people and then himself. I'm being kind when I say that Cameron was on very shaky ground historically speaking to depict that but from a dramatic standpoint, it works for the movie.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland
TravisR said:
That's how I look at it too. I know a fair amount about the sinking of the Titanic and the Jim Cameron movie- which was touted as being highly historically accurate (far more than Saving Mr. Banks anyway)- shows First Officer Murdoch shooting two people and then himself. I'm being kind when I say that Cameron was on very shaky ground historically speaking to depict that but from a dramatic standpoint, it works for the movie.
Great example! There is no historical evidence of that, and Murdoch's family was quite angry over it. But because there's no evidence to the contrary and he was among the dead, he was viewed as "fair game" for the event in the film, which may not have even happened at all.

Although, I do also understand Hanson's point to a degree, especially since so many viewers do NOT view these films as fiction. They see "based on a true story" and it is history to them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,821
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top