Saving Mr Banks

[azriona]

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'

Comments

[azriona]

That's what she said in the course of the movie, too, even during the scene where she was watching it. Disney noticed her crying, and leaned over to comfort her, and Travers said she was crying because she hated animation. And Disney sat back, and sort of smirked, because he assumed (and we were obviously meant to believe) that it was her trying to save face.

I can believe that she'd refuse to let Disney touch the others - but then, I'm not entirely sure he'd have wanted to make those movies as badly as he wanted to make this one. I don't recall that Walt Disney was as focused on sequels as the current Disney shops, which seem to make nothing but. Having made the one, he'd consider himself absolved of any promises to his daughters, and he'd have Mary Poppins in his creative stables already. Plus, Walt Disney died only a couple of years after Mary Poppins was released; Roy might not have cared so much about Mary Poppins, and therefore wouldn't have pressed as hard to make another movie with her.

I'm not saying they wouldn't

[talloakslady]

My mother read Traver's books to us when we were kids--all of the Mary Poppins series. So to me, the movie was a huge let-down. It was definitely not the Mary Poppins I knew. Mary wasn't a very nice person: strict beyond belief. The books would have endured as has Winnie the Pooh (also a disaster to a purist.) However, I love Tom Hanks and think Disney did a lot of good work that made my childhood happier.

[azriona]

Would they, though? Maybe, but I have to wonder if it would have been more of a niche audience. And certainly there are a lot more kids who know Mary Poppins from the movie, and not the books, and are shocked when they go and read them. (I was, anyway; I can understand why Travers would have been so horrified by what Disney did. But then - she knew it going in. She must have: by 1961, Disney had a track record. She knows it in the movie; I can't imagine that she didn't have a inkling in real life, too.)

[azriona]

Oh, I'm sure of it. (Though as I read more about it online, it appears that Disney wasn't so much producer as they are distributor. Meh. I'm pretty sure the Disney shop was well aware of the movie and had a hand in its production, because no prop or set designer worth their salt would have tried to do this without contacting Disney for access to their historical records. And Disney keeps pretty good historical records.)

And in the end, you have to remember this isn't a documentary, it's a movie based on actual events, and therefore, there's been licenses made to tell the story in a way that works for movie-making. It's...oh, god, here we go...it's basically Real Person Fanfic.

And that's the problem with RPF, and one of the reasons I don't like it much. It's much to easy to forget that you're watching RPF, and then you start assuming that things in the story may have occurred in real life. (As I admittedly do above.) The movie implies that Travers Goff died of tuberculosis; but there are reports online that he died of

[earlgreytea68]

I haven't seen the movie, but I had heard that Disney made a movie that was the opposite of what Travers felt her books were about, and I think what struck me most about that (especially as both a writer and a fan consumer) was how much our stories *do* belong to us once we release them into the world. Yes, there's a copyright somewhere in there, but if Disney wants to see that the story involves dancing penguins, even if you don't think your story had anything at all to do with dancing penguins, at a certain point don't you sacrifice the ability to dictate how other people view your work?

I don't say this to diminish how she viewed her work, because God knows I don't think I'm very good at letting go and letting people see my work the way they wish, but, anyway, I've been giving a lot of thought about that.

[azriona]

at a certain point don't you sacrifice the ability to dictate how other people view your work?

Oh, yes, absolutely. And I think that's something that wasn't exactly spelled out in the course of movie - that Disney had every right to view Mary a different way than Travers did. And in signing her name to the papers giving him the movie rights, she's essentially given up control. (Apparently - and this is not in the movie, but I've seen it in a couple of locations - after the premiere, Travers went to Disney and said that the animation scene would have to go. And Disney just looked at her and said, "Pamela, that ship has sailed", and walked away.)

Thing is, he's right - she'd long since given up any right to have any say in the making of the movie. Just as any author does who puts their work in the public sphere. You can try to tell people what you meant by the green light at the end of the dock, but you can't make it an absolute rule. People will interpret that green light any darn way they want, and quite a few you didn't

[earlgreytea68]

I'm so impressed by people who can do that.

[azriona]

People who can let go, or people who can write out their lives on paper?