Tom Hanks as Walt Disney, Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers
“SAVING MR. BANKS” My rating: B+ (Opening wide on Dec. 20)
125 minutes | MPAA rating: PG-13
“Saving Mr. Banks” — a serio-comic look at Walt Disney’s tireless courtship of “Mary Poppins” author C. L. Travers — can be viewed either as a charming explanation of how one of the best family films of all time came to be made, or as an infuriating example of corporate self aggrandizement.
While cognizant of the latter, I’ll go with the former.
The latest from director John Lee Hancock (“The Rookie,” “The Blind Side”) is set during Travers’ two-week visit to L.A. in the early 1960s, arranged so that Disney — who more than two decades before had sworn to his wife and daughters that he would bring their favorite heroine of children’s literature to the screen — could coax, canjole and charm the dubious author into signing over the movie rights to her books.
Disney was nothing if not determined. Without authorization he had been working for years on the a screenplay and his in-house tunesmiths — brothers Robert and Richard Sherman — already had written the songs for what would be one of the greatest movie soundtracks of all time.
“Mr. Banks” — a film about the Walt Disney Company made by the Walt Disney Company — stars Tom Hanks as Uncle Walt and Emma Thompson as Travers. They’re very good — especially Thompson — though I can’t help wondering how much of my massive emotional response to the film was the result of hearing snippets of the Sherman Brothers’ songs. All it takes is a few bars of “Chim Chim Cheree” or “Feed the Birds” to remind the viewer that it’s time to rewatch “Mary Poppins.”
As envisioned by screenwriters Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith, Travers is a rather fusty resident of London whose books have stopped selling and who is being urged by her agent to think seriously about selling out to the Philistines. She takes a dim view of Hollywood and especially the cartoony world created by Disney.
B.j. Novak and Jason Schwarzman as the musical Sherman Brothers
Walt, for his part, is used to getting what he wants, though he puts on a solicitous show, pouring on the charm and regaling Travers with personal stories from his less-than-perfect childhood in Kansas City (where his twice-a-day newspaper route amounted to virtual slavery). He even treats his guest to a special-access trip to Disneyland, an experience the dour lady ranks right up there with gout and oral surgery.
It takes little effort to imagine the fun these two actors could have with such iconic characters. Toss into the mix Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak as the musical Sherman Brothers (Travers insists that their lyrics represent the proper use of the Queen’s English) and Bradley Whitford as screenwriter Don DaGradi — not to mention Paul Giamatti as the friendly chaffeur who chisels away at Travers’ icy facade — and you can see the possibilities.
Where “Saving Mr. Banks” takes a big chance is in a series of extended flashbacks to Travers’ childhood in
Colin Farrell as the real-life “Mr. Banks”
Australia. Her mother (Ruth Wilson, recently seen as the red-headed serial killer in cable’s “Luther”) is neurotic and her bank clerk papa (Colin Farrell) is a hopeless drunk who lubricates his way through a series of ever-less-impressive jobs.
Finally his stern, nanny-like sister (Rachel Griffiths) arrives to hold down the fort as he wastes away. From our first glimpse of her umbrella and ramrod-straight carriage, it’s obvious that this was the inspiration for Mary Poppins.
And it also becomes apparent that Mr. Banks, the bank clerk father in “Mary Poppins” and the namesake of this movie, represents a fictionalized (if not precisely idealized) version of Travers’ doomed father. Small wonder she’s reluctant to give her creation over to Hollywood — the book is a complex bit of wish fulfillment for her beloved papa. What Disney suggests is sacrilege.
I prefer the film’s “modern” passages to the Australian flashbacks, but I’m not sure that the project would work without the latter laying the groundwork for a big payoff.
Hanks is a mix of the garrulous and the imperious as Disney. But the real star of the film is Thompson, who makes Travers a weirdly compelling (and deadpan huilarious) character. The problem (if you care about such things), is that the film makes Travers an uptight Brit grand dame…when in fact she was bisexual, never married, lived for years with a woman, and raised an adopted son (none of this is even hinted at).
Worst of all, the film has Travers being so moved watching “Mary Poppins” at its premiere that she weeps…and is handed a hankie by Disney. In fact, Travers hated the movie and rebuffed all of Hollywood’s efforts to make a sequel.
So what do you want from your movies? A feel-good experience or the uncomfortable truth? “Saving Mr. Banks” lays out yout options.
| Robert W. Butler
Butler's Cinema Scene 
Just a quick correction–that’s P.L. Travers. Helen Lydon Goff was an actress on the Australian stage (mostly playing in Shakespearean plays), and her stage name was Pamela Lyndon Travers. When she started writing, it was seen that a woman couldn’t write this type of book, so she used the initials from her stage name to become P.L. Travers. (Sadly, that thought isn’t antiquated. Look at J.K. Rowling.)
I watched it today. I really liked it. I’ll never watch “Mary Poppins” in the same light again.
Not many people in the theater, but the biggest laugh came when Walt Disney was describing winters in Kansas City. Because, it took me 45 minutes of working on my car and warming it up just to be able to see out of the windows!
But, as always, great review!
I saw the premier at Napa Valley film fest and i heard q and a with John Lee Hancock and Producer and my impression was Disney did not make it but gave permission for Walt to be depicted in a film for first time. They apparently let Hancock and Producer get on with it without interferng and the only slight disagreement was about showing Walt smoking in it.Said he was a chain smoker but only saw one shot of him putting one out.. i largely agree with your review thinking that although Thompson was an excellent actress that the repetition of her behaviour went on too long as did the film by about 20 mins.Glad to hear shesdid not like film as her showing emotion at the premiere seemed out of character. Interesting depiction of the 60s however!.
Saw it yesterday at a 5:15 showing and it was almost full. Agree it was too long by 15-20 minutes. And most of the unsatisfying extra baggage came with the flashbacks that quickly became an unwelcomed intrusion stopping the forward motion of the 1960s story. We needed less of the back story but more content when it did appear. The wrap up at the end of the movie pulled the various flashback pieces together but was too little too late. Plus the flashbacks should have been much grittier. They all looked like “Little House in the Outback” and that would only apply if they were Travers’ filtered memories which they were not. The pretty visuals conflicted with the oblique message of the childhood traumas.
On the other hand, a very interesting non-fiction story with intriguing characters and uniformly good acting along with strong cultural resonance. I wondered why Travers insisted on being called “Mrs” yet we never saw a “Mr”. Given your info, Bob, about her bi-sexuality, relationships and adopted son there is another movie to be made that is more firmly grounded in the full reality of her life. Leave Disney out of it.
I initially gave the film a B- but now I think C+.
On 2nd thought, I guess the flashbacks may have been ment to be filtered through Travers’ memory so I guess my observation would be that it might have been more interesting to see her early life in a more truthful, harsher reality. Memories don’t always come with a gauze filter and a golden glow, especially traumatic memories. This could have heightened the differences even further between her young experiences, then how she chose to filter those experiences for her story and then how Disney was attempting to filter it even further in a way she found unacceptable. More room to travel from A to B to C.