Saving Mr Banks
Bill and I went on our date tonight, and through a comedy of errors, ended up seeing Saving Mr Banks, which was totally all right by me because I'd wanted to see it anyway. Bill wanted to see American Hustle.
My Parents: What are you going to see tonight?
Bill: Saving Mr Banks.
Me: That's not true! We're going to flip a coin.
Bill: And then we'll see Saving Mr Banks.
Me: Don't be silly. If it's heads, we'll see Saving Mr Banks. If it's tails, we'll see not American Hustle.
So outside the theater, we tossed the coin, and sure enough, it was tails. American Hustle it was. Except, as it turned out, we'd remembered the start times to the two movies incorrectly, and American Hustle had already begun. So, alas, we saw Saving Mr Banks instead.
(I'm not entirely sure that Bill believes it was a mistake.)
The movie was really good. I'm not sure I liked it half as much as I liked Gravity, but the costumes were fantastic and Emma Thompson was her usual Emma Thompsony self, and Tom Hanks was gentle and endearing, which are two traits I'm pretty sure he's trademarked by now. And I remember enough of Mary Poppins (the movie), so I was able to catch all the sly nods, and appreciate the renderings we saw of potential costumes and set/prop design.
The structure of the movie was very well done - there were lots of flashbacks to PL Travers's childhood in Australia, and her relationship with her father (which, as it turns out, is vital to how she feels about Mary Poppins). One of the overall themes of the movie was how much Travers values her character of Mary Poppins - she calls Mary Poppins and the Bankses her family, and she's not wrong. Because they are family, very literally speaking, the characters are stand-ins her own real-life family, except in a more fantastical light. It's through the flashbacks, which are definitely tied to the real-time events through song or motion or turn-of-phrase, which highlight exactly how strong her feelings are for the characters.
In some ways, I think the stronger story was within the flashbacks - the journey of Travers as a child, and in particular her father, who is unveiled within the flashbacks to be an alcoholic suffering from tuberculosis (we assume, anyway). And she thinks the world of him, and will blame The Aunt (who is clearly the genesis behind Mary Poppins herself) for letting him die. What's fantastic about the flashbacks is that they're very much through the eyes of Child!Travers, who can't be more than 10 or so, and thus is a very unreliable narrator. We don't know why the family moves to the west coast of Australia (to an area that looks vaguely like the Outback, if not Southern California), or why the father starts drinking. And I have to wonder which came first, the alcohol or the tuberculosis. It wasn't uncommon to tell tuberculosis patients to go to hot, dry climates in order to help their health, so it's entirely possible that the family moves West for the father's health, and not for his alcoholism. (And it's implied that the father is in a great deal of pain - perhaps he turns to the alcohol to assist with countering that? I don't know. It's a thought, at least.)
But this is what struck me most about the story. At the very beginning, Travers says that she won't let Disney have Mary Poppins, because he'll make a movie that is song and dance, has animation, and has happy little messages of hope and twittering goodwill. She says this, quite defiantly, and is determined not to budge. She spends three-quarters of the movie not budging.
And then...she does. A near complete 180, and she allows Disney not only to make the movie, but to make the movie she swore she wouldn't let him make. She doesn't win a single round, doesn't get to put her foot down about anything, doesn't choose anything, not even Mrs Banks's first name. (She suggests Mavis. They go with Winnifred.) It's as if her opinions about her own writing, which Disney has professed from the moment he appears on the screen to love - her opinions don't count. She's treated as a cross which must be borne before filming can begin.
Worst...remember, this is the same film that is telling us how terribly important this story is to Travers. That it's not just a story - it's the story of herself, her father, her mother, and how she lost or nearly lost them. It's personal in a way that I think few people can really grasp. In one moment, the film tells us this. In the next, it's tossing it all away in favor of some cheerful songs with nonsense words and a few dancing penguins.
I will be honest and say I spent most of the last quarter of the movie trying desperately not to cry, and not quite understanding why.
Now, at the end of the movie, Disney gives a lovely speech about how by saving Mr Banks on film, Travers will be allowing her characters to save her father every time they see the movie. That it's a loving tribute to him, and not the travesty she fears. And it's a good speech, it's a fine speech, and obviously, it's a speech that works because of course right after that, Travers signs the papers on the dotted line and Disney goes off to make the movie (and doesn't even invite her to the Hollywood premiere; she ultimately crashes it). And we see Travers watch the movie at the premiere, and she's crying, and we know it's because she's watching all these scenes and words and songs that remind her of her own childhood and relationship with her father and all the rest, because we've seen her childhood, so we understand the significance. And we're supposed to see Disney as the man who gave Travers the closure she'd been desperately seeking. Her savior, in a way.
(But here's the thing: in a way, wasn't he? I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't read the books until I was much older, and only because I had seen and loved the movie. Would the books still be around today if the movie hadn't kept them alive? Would any of us know Mary Poppins at all, had Disney not succeeded in convincing PL Travers to sign those papers?)
Now, maybe you're thinking that I'm going on the feminist bent here, that this is just another case of a man validating (or not validating) a woman's writing and her emotional attachment to it. And maybe it is, but I don't think that's why I was crying. I think it had more to do with the fact that what Travers had written was so intensely personal, and that's something I can relate with, because a lot of what I write is personal. Maybe not quite as intense as what she writes, but...it's there. (And perhaps that's why it doesn't get more attention - I tend to shy away from becoming too personal, on the personal things. The central story in Heart2 (and some of the one in Heart3) is incredibly personal to my own experiences, but I admit, I shied away from the really scary bits. Maybe because I'm still too close to them, maybe because I don't know that I want to put them up for display just yet.
(And if I ever write Heart4 - which is not part of the arc, and therefore I don't feel the same pressure to write it - that'll be even more so a slice from my own life, and that's probably why I'm scared to write it.)
So yeah, crying. Maybe because Travers did what I'm afraid to do? Or maybe because she did it - showed the deepest secrets of her childhood and her heart - and no one ever realized, until this one man did - and he wanted to introduce animated, dancing penguins.
I can't but help think that it would make anyone cry, really.
So.
Backing away from that. Excellent movie. I'm not sure I like the message, but I liked the movie, maybe in part because it gave me the message, and it's an awfully good one to receive. Not that you should be afraid to be brave and write what scares you - but that you should be afraid and write anyway.
This turned out to be less review of the movie, and more review of my thoughts of the movie. Sorry about that. If you're wondering: yes, go see it. But if you're a writer, consider bringing tissues.
My Parents: What are you going to see tonight?
Bill: Saving Mr Banks.
Me: That's not true! We're going to flip a coin.
Bill: And then we'll see Saving Mr Banks.
Me: Don't be silly. If it's heads, we'll see Saving Mr Banks. If it's tails, we'll see not American Hustle.
So outside the theater, we tossed the coin, and sure enough, it was tails. American Hustle it was. Except, as it turned out, we'd remembered the start times to the two movies incorrectly, and American Hustle had already begun. So, alas, we saw Saving Mr Banks instead.
(I'm not entirely sure that Bill believes it was a mistake.)
The movie was really good. I'm not sure I liked it half as much as I liked Gravity, but the costumes were fantastic and Emma Thompson was her usual Emma Thompsony self, and Tom Hanks was gentle and endearing, which are two traits I'm pretty sure he's trademarked by now. And I remember enough of Mary Poppins (the movie), so I was able to catch all the sly nods, and appreciate the renderings we saw of potential costumes and set/prop design.
The structure of the movie was very well done - there were lots of flashbacks to PL Travers's childhood in Australia, and her relationship with her father (which, as it turns out, is vital to how she feels about Mary Poppins). One of the overall themes of the movie was how much Travers values her character of Mary Poppins - she calls Mary Poppins and the Bankses her family, and she's not wrong. Because they are family, very literally speaking, the characters are stand-ins her own real-life family, except in a more fantastical light. It's through the flashbacks, which are definitely tied to the real-time events through song or motion or turn-of-phrase, which highlight exactly how strong her feelings are for the characters.
In some ways, I think the stronger story was within the flashbacks - the journey of Travers as a child, and in particular her father, who is unveiled within the flashbacks to be an alcoholic suffering from tuberculosis (we assume, anyway). And she thinks the world of him, and will blame The Aunt (who is clearly the genesis behind Mary Poppins herself) for letting him die. What's fantastic about the flashbacks is that they're very much through the eyes of Child!Travers, who can't be more than 10 or so, and thus is a very unreliable narrator. We don't know why the family moves to the west coast of Australia (to an area that looks vaguely like the Outback, if not Southern California), or why the father starts drinking. And I have to wonder which came first, the alcohol or the tuberculosis. It wasn't uncommon to tell tuberculosis patients to go to hot, dry climates in order to help their health, so it's entirely possible that the family moves West for the father's health, and not for his alcoholism. (And it's implied that the father is in a great deal of pain - perhaps he turns to the alcohol to assist with countering that? I don't know. It's a thought, at least.)
But this is what struck me most about the story. At the very beginning, Travers says that she won't let Disney have Mary Poppins, because he'll make a movie that is song and dance, has animation, and has happy little messages of hope and twittering goodwill. She says this, quite defiantly, and is determined not to budge. She spends three-quarters of the movie not budging.
And then...she does. A near complete 180, and she allows Disney not only to make the movie, but to make the movie she swore she wouldn't let him make. She doesn't win a single round, doesn't get to put her foot down about anything, doesn't choose anything, not even Mrs Banks's first name. (She suggests Mavis. They go with Winnifred.) It's as if her opinions about her own writing, which Disney has professed from the moment he appears on the screen to love - her opinions don't count. She's treated as a cross which must be borne before filming can begin.
Worst...remember, this is the same film that is telling us how terribly important this story is to Travers. That it's not just a story - it's the story of herself, her father, her mother, and how she lost or nearly lost them. It's personal in a way that I think few people can really grasp. In one moment, the film tells us this. In the next, it's tossing it all away in favor of some cheerful songs with nonsense words and a few dancing penguins.
I will be honest and say I spent most of the last quarter of the movie trying desperately not to cry, and not quite understanding why.
Now, at the end of the movie, Disney gives a lovely speech about how by saving Mr Banks on film, Travers will be allowing her characters to save her father every time they see the movie. That it's a loving tribute to him, and not the travesty she fears. And it's a good speech, it's a fine speech, and obviously, it's a speech that works because of course right after that, Travers signs the papers on the dotted line and Disney goes off to make the movie (and doesn't even invite her to the Hollywood premiere; she ultimately crashes it). And we see Travers watch the movie at the premiere, and she's crying, and we know it's because she's watching all these scenes and words and songs that remind her of her own childhood and relationship with her father and all the rest, because we've seen her childhood, so we understand the significance. And we're supposed to see Disney as the man who gave Travers the closure she'd been desperately seeking. Her savior, in a way.
(But here's the thing: in a way, wasn't he? I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't read the books until I was much older, and only because I had seen and loved the movie. Would the books still be around today if the movie hadn't kept them alive? Would any of us know Mary Poppins at all, had Disney not succeeded in convincing PL Travers to sign those papers?)
Now, maybe you're thinking that I'm going on the feminist bent here, that this is just another case of a man validating (or not validating) a woman's writing and her emotional attachment to it. And maybe it is, but I don't think that's why I was crying. I think it had more to do with the fact that what Travers had written was so intensely personal, and that's something I can relate with, because a lot of what I write is personal. Maybe not quite as intense as what she writes, but...it's there. (And perhaps that's why it doesn't get more attention - I tend to shy away from becoming too personal, on the personal things. The central story in Heart2 (and some of the one in Heart3) is incredibly personal to my own experiences, but I admit, I shied away from the really scary bits. Maybe because I'm still too close to them, maybe because I don't know that I want to put them up for display just yet.
(And if I ever write Heart4 - which is not part of the arc, and therefore I don't feel the same pressure to write it - that'll be even more so a slice from my own life, and that's probably why I'm scared to write it.)
So yeah, crying. Maybe because Travers did what I'm afraid to do? Or maybe because she did it - showed the deepest secrets of her childhood and her heart - and no one ever realized, until this one man did - and he wanted to introduce animated, dancing penguins.
I can't but help think that it would make anyone cry, really.
So.
Backing away from that. Excellent movie. I'm not sure I like the message, but I liked the movie, maybe in part because it gave me the message, and it's an awfully good one to receive. Not that you should be afraid to be brave and write what scares you - but that you should be afraid and write anyway.
This turned out to be less review of the movie, and more review of my thoughts of the movie. Sorry about that. If you're wondering: yes, go see it. But if you're a writer, consider bringing tissues.