Saving Mr Banks

[Zazu]

She may be dead, but she's not gone. The film was based in part on over seven hours of recorded story sessions. Stay through the credits and you'll hear her original remarks ... and attitude.

I think the film (largely thanks to the biography that was also a major source) made an honest attempt to put her attiude in the proper perspective of her personal history. A courtesy not always offered to Persons Of Attitude.

I've studied what history exists to know that much of the film was as accurate as might be, considering the constraints and demands of the media. I'm also aware of what sections were fabricated or modified for theatrical purposes, and I don't think they did any serious disservice to the memories of either Travers or Disney.

Biographical histories are always going to be difficult, just as it's difficult to understand the motives of any historical person, recent or ancient. I think this film did a good job of staying true to the facts and personalities, while also telling a good enough story to make it watchable.

I saw "Mary Poppins" on its first release. I was awed. Today, I'm still impressed by the technologies that were introduced in that film, and by some outstanding performances, particularly Andrews and Tomlinson. Time has made more obvious the flaws, or at least the primitive nature of some of the effects and technologies, but that awareness does not detract from the story. Today, with "Saving Mr. Banks" and the publications it was inspired by and which it generated, we can see "Mary" in a new light, one that adds some depth to the original story, and more than a bit of poignancy.

Was it an accurate biography? Of course not. Films have their own internal logic, and their own commercial requirements, and unlike real life, must be logical. I think better questions are: Was it an honest biography? and Was it a good and worthy story?

For me, the answer is yes on both counts.

Of course, Travers would have hated this film too, but perhaps now we can better understand why.

[drcorey]

She may be dead, but she's not gone. The film was based in part on over seven hours of recorded story sessions. Stay through the credits and you'll hear her original remarks ... and attitude.

I think the film (largely thanks to the biography that was also a major source) made an honest attempt to put her attiude in the proper perspective of her personal history. A courtesy not always offered to Persons Of Attitude.

I've studied what history exists to know that much of the film was as accurate as might be, considering the constraints and demands of the media. I'm also aware of what sections were fabricated or modified for theatrical purposes, and I don't think they did any serious disservice to the memories of either Travers or Disney.

Biographical histories are always going to be difficult, just as it's difficult to understand the motives of any historical person, recent or ancient. I think this film did a good job of staying true to the facts and personalities, while also telling a good enough story to make it watchable.

I saw "Mary Poppins" on its first release. I was awed. Today, I'm still impressed by the technologies that were introduced in that film, and by some outstanding performances, particularly Andrews and Tomlinson. Time has made more obvious the flaws, or at least the primitive nature of some of the effects and technologies, but that awareness does not detract from the story. Today, with "Saving Mr. Banks" and the publications it was inspired by and which it generated, we can see "Mary" in a new light, one that adds some depth to the original story, and more than a bit of poignancy.

Was it an accurate biography? Of course not. Films have their own internal logic, and their own commercial requirements, and unlike real life, must be logical. I think better questions are: Was it an honest biography? and Was it a good and worthy story?

For me, the answer is yes on both counts.

Of course, Travers would have hated this film too, but perhaps now we can better understand why.

yeah, I always sit thru the credits for stuff, and when the work tapes started playing, I thought, here is a rehash, but the travers voice wasn't of Thompson that played travers. so I sat and listened while everyone left the theatre. and I think, wow, bits of a real work tape.
only other work tapes I have heard were of peggy lee doing the cats and paul frees mansion work tapes.
so this was nice. I wish Disney would release more vault stuff.

[DisneyMom]

She may be dead, but she's not gone. The film was based in part on over seven hours of recorded story sessions. Stay through the credits and you'll hear her original remarks ... and attitude.

I think the film (largely thanks to the biography that was also a major source) made an honest attempt to put her attiude in the proper perspective of her personal history. A courtesy not always offered to Persons Of Attitude.

I've studied what history exists to know that much of the film was as accurate as might be, considering the constraints and demands of the media. I'm also aware of what sections were fabricated or modified for theatrical purposes, and I don't think they did any serious disservice to the memories of either Travers or Disney.

Biographical histories are always going to be difficult, just as it's difficult to understand the motives of any historical person, recent or ancient. I think this film did a good job of staying true to the facts and personalities, while also telling a good enough story to make it watchable.

I saw "Mary Poppins" on its first release. I was awed. Today, I'm still impressed by the technologies that were introduced in that film, and by some outstanding performances, particularly Andrews and Tomlinson. Time has made more obvious the flaws, or at least the primitive nature of some of the effects and technologies, but that awareness does not detract from the story. Today, with "Saving Mr. Banks" and the publications it was inspired by and which it generated, we can see "Mary" in a new light, one that adds some depth to the original story, and more than a bit of poignancy.

Was it an accurate biography? Of course not. Films have their own internal logic, and their own commercial requirements, and unlike real life, must be logical. I think better questions are: Was it an honest biography? and Was it a good and worthy story?

For me, the answer is yes on both counts.

Of course, Travers would have hated this film too, but perhaps now we can better understand why.

Now I am even more excited to see this movie. Thank you Zazu.

[WEDFan]

As I understand it, the screen writer wrote it independent of Disney and it remained unproduced for a long time since shortly after completing it, she realized that no one other than Disney would want to produce it since even if it wasn't completely complementary, it provided publicity for Disney and their movie.

Of course, since Disney eventually picked it up, I'm sure that they sanitised some parts, but from what I hear it's not too bad, especially given how these things generally go. I know Hanks thought Disney should be shown smoking as he did, but that was felt to be inappropriate. All he eventually got was a scene where he's stubbing out a cigarett.

Some elements are pretty much directly from primary sources. Some are made up whole cloth. That's pretty typical these days for anything based on true events.

[BRWombat]

Here's a little more background, confirming WEDFan's info:

In this interview -- which is hilarious, by the way -- Tom Hanks also confirms that the script did not originate in-house. The script was shopped to the company, and Bob Iger felt like Disney didn't have much choice but to make the film, because the only alternatives would be to let another studio do a film portraying Walt Disney, or to prevent the movie from being made at all, which would make them look even worse.

Spoiler -- highlight to read:
I loved the pictures of the actual people -- P.L. Travers, Walt, the Sherman brothers -- and the recording during the credits, which did as much as anything to confirm the truth of the script. But what really brought tears to my eyes, and not in a happy way, was what happened during the film a couple of times: Walt's hacking cough. <sniff>

[drcorey]

True, if Walt was in better health he would have seen fantastic things happen to his parks.

[Buggy]

Regarding the smoking, according an interview I saw with Hanks, the MPAA gives any movie where a character is smoking an automatic R rating, so they couldn't show Walt smoking.

Hanks also said that there are photos of Walt pointing with two fingers, and that the reason he was pointing with two fingers was because a cigarette had been airbrushed out. I don't know if that was true, but it does make me wonder how much of it contributes to the origin of the Disney point.

[Big Wallaby]

As far as pictures where a cigarette has been airbrushed out of Walt's hands, this is true. One I know for sure is on one of the ships. They also airbrushed out the smoke.

[BRWombat]

As far as pictures where a cigarette has been airbrushed out of Walt's hands, this is true. One I know for sure is on one of the ships. They also airbrushed out the smoke.

This one:

[Big Wallaby]

Yup.