Saving Mr. Banks

[Tazicket]

Forgot to mention - when the credits started, a lot of the people in my theater stood up and started leaving. But, when the audio recording started playing, everybody froze where they were and just listened. People were just standing frozen on the stairs mesmerized.

It was one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

 

[sukhakuli]

Dh and I saw it yesterday, and thought it was fabulous. I've been an Emma Thompson fan for years, but she really put out an amazing performance. I thought Tom Hanks was OK, something seemed to be missing, I'm not sure what. And Colin Ferril (sp?) was fabulous as well, but I couldn't stop thinking about Fright Night, I have to say. Paul Giamotti was wonderful as well, but I also have a hard time not seeing him as John Adams. I guess I'm funny like that.

I would not take children to see this movie. The dramatic scene with the mom is very inappropriate for children, and the last few scenes the father was in were very graphic, as well. The PG-13 was deserved, IMO.

But, dh and I thought it was wonderful. Funny, nostalgic, and heart wrenching. I lost my father recently, and it was very touching.

 

[SandrA9810]

I think some of the darker scenes would go right over a younger child's head. I believe it deserved the rating it did for what was going on in the movie. It's still a clean movie with no cussing or sexuality. I didn't find the scenes graphic, but more intense and complex.

 

[snykymom]

I had seen the stage version of Mary Poppins, and was shocked at how dark and cruel it was (more like Roald Dahl than Walt Disney). I was glad that I had a 23 year old, and not a child seeing it - I would not have brought a child to that show! It was based on the books more than on the movie.

Saving Mr. Banks certainly explained a lot of that darkness.

 

[AndyLL]

I had seen the stage version of Mary Poppins, and was shocked at how dark and cruel it was (more like Roald Dahl than Walt Disney). I was glad that I had a 23 year old, and not a child seeing it - I would not have brought a child to that show! It was based on the books more than on the movie.

Saving Mr. Banks certainly explained a lot of that darkness.

Agreed. Banks was cruel... bordering on abusive in the play we saw.

We did have an eight year old with us and known of us really enjoyed it.

 

[ilovemk76]

I have read the first two MPs books. I cannot fathom the appeal of the books for young girls.

 

[pat fan]

I admit I have never read the books, but in the movie Traverse gets very upset when she thinks they are portraying Mr.Banks as too cruel by tearing up the letter. If he's worse in the books, why was she upset? Or was that "made for movie" stuff?

 

[ilovemk76]

I admit I have never read the books, but in the movie Traverse gets very upset when she thinks they are portraying Mr.Banks as too cruel by tearing up the letter. If he's worse in the books, why was she upset? Or was that "made for movie" stuff?

You have to see the movie to understand her reaction.

 

[jlmarr]

The 50th anniversary Mary Poppins DVD has an excellent extra called Becoming Mr Sherman - a talk with Richard Sherman and Jason Schwartzman, who plays him in the movie. Some interesting discussion of the making of both movies.

 

[pat fan]

You have to see the movie to understand her reaction.

I did see the movie. I did not read the books. In the movie she doesn't want him portrayed so badly, but it sounds like the in the books he's even worse. I didn't understand how if she wrote him so cruelly, why would it bother her to see him portrayed LESS cruel in the movie and complain that he was too cruel? Make sense???

 

[eliza61]

I did see the movie. I did not read the books. In the movie she doesn't want him portrayed so badly, but it sounds like the in the books he's even worse. I didn't understand how if she wrote him so cruelly, why would it bother her to see him portrayed LESS cruel in the movie and complain that he was too cruel? Make sense???

I hate it when in order to understand the movie you have to read the books.

I couldn't understand why she was so god awful rude. while her father was an alcoholic, they portrayed him as very loving. I mean I found her extremely disdainful to absolutely everyone. I could understand her not liking Mr. Disney because of his previous work but she was simply nasty to everyone she came in contact with.

 

[Hrhpd]

I admit I have never read the books, but in the movie Traverse gets very upset when she thinks they are portraying Mr.Banks as too cruel by tearing up the letter. If he's worse in the books, why was she upset? Or was that "made for movie" stuff?

We saw it last night and did enjoy it. But a whole bunch of the movie was "made for movie" stuff. Obviously, since it was a Disney movie, it portrayed Disney in a great light.

However, there is something to be said that PJ Travers never allowed Disney to touch her stuff again, even putting it into her will. Disney wanted to do a sequel, but she would never again allow Disney or anybody affiliated with the movie to touch her stuff again.

She was horrible, but Disney was not the understanding saint they portrayed either.

It was a good film as a fictional film.

 

[java]

Saw it today with dd16 and we both liked it. Favorite scene was by the tree with Ralph and mrs Travers.

 

[mumto3girls]

Saw the movie last night with my 13 year old DD and some others from our Mother/Daughter book club. I absolutely loved it and watching movies is not my thing. I also took my 10 year old DD along and both girls liked it a lot. I left DD 7 at home. I thought it might be too mature for her and after seeing it, I think that was the right call.

 

[ilovemk76]

I did see the movie. I did not read the books. In the movie she doesn't want him portrayed so badly, but it sounds like the in the books he's even worse. I didn't understand how if she wrote him so cruelly, why would it bother her to see him portrayed LESS cruel in the movie and complain that he was too cruel? Make sense???

I think she did not realize that, when she wrote the books, how much Mr. Banks was her father. When they got to the movie, decades later, she did not want to have her father portrayed as the mean guy he was in the books and, from all accounts, in real life.

Oddly, after her father died, she did live a charmed life. Her mother's family was well off and well connected. She went to a boarding school in England and then lived a very nice life for many years to come.

I thought it was twisted how she changed her name from her birth name (Helen) to Pamela (I have not seen any reason why she took that name) Lyndon (her real middle name) Travers (her father's first name). She was never married, yet she wanted to be called Mrs. Travers. She wanted to be married to her father? It was like she wanted to hide from her true identity (Goff).

By all accounts, she was a horrible mother to the boy (some say she adopted both of the twin boys but only kept one - records are unclear) she adopted.

 

[ilovemk76]

I hate it when in order to understand the movie you have to read the books.

I couldn't understand why she was so god awful rude. while her father was an alcoholic, they portrayed him as very loving. I mean I found her extremely disdainful to absolutely everyone. I could understand her not liking Mr. Disney because of his previous work but she was simply nasty to everyone she came in contact with.

I don't see how reading the books really helped with the movie. Her back story was the link that you needed. The movie provided that.

 

[Hrhpd]

I think she did not realize that, when she wrote the books, how much Mr. Banks was her father. When they got to the movie, decades later, she did not want to have her father portrayed as the mean guy he was in the books and, from all accounts, in real life.

Oddly, after her father died, she did live a charmed life. Her mother's family was well off and well connected. She went to a boarding school in England and then lived a very nice life for many years to come.

I thought it was twisted how she changed her name from her birth name (Helen) to Pamela (I have not seen any reason why she took that name) Lyndon (her real middle name) Travers (her father's first name). She was never married, yet she wanted to be called Mrs. Travers. She wanted to be married to her father? It was like she wanted to hide from her true identity (Goff).

By all accounts, she was a horrible mother to the boy (some say she adopted both of the twin boys but only kept one - records are unclear) she adopted.

According to her biography:

Marriage: She had a long time roommate/friend: Madge Burnand.

She took the name Pamala when she started out as a Shakespearean actress in Sydney at 17 because it was a popular name.

She did not have a privileged life and she did not go to boarding school in England. She didn't emigrate to England until 18 to pursue literary dreams.

In fact, her mother lost her inheritance after her father died due to the bank her money was in going bankrupt. They had to sell their house and live in a tin roofed shack, relying on handouts from aunts. She had a very hard childhood.

She did go to boarding school in Australia.

While she did cry at the premier, it had nothing to do with the way Banks was portrayed. Disney withheld the info that there would be animated scenes in the movie. When she saw it, she demanded that they be removed as she had specified no animation. Disney turned his back on her and told her the ship had sailed and while she had script approval, she did not have editing approval. Her anger at Disney lying to her is why she forbid Disney or anybody associated with the movie to ever work on any of her books again.

In her will, she also specified this, adding that only English born writers could adapt her works.

Records are very clear that she only adopted one of the boys. The other brother (Tony) showed up at 17 on Travers doorstep to meet his brother.

 

[SamRoc]

She was horrible, but Disney was not the understanding saint they portrayed either.

It was a good film as a fictional film.

I thought that about Disney too. Especially when he didn't invite her to the premiere of the film. He basically made the film the way he wanted anyway as she had script approval but not film editing rights.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ravers-20131228,0,5785246.story#axzz2oue0yuHT

Interesting discussion of the movie.

 

[asta]

My opinion of Travers changed after reading about her actual life. I got the impression from the movie that she lived a rather closed off, almost the life of an old maid. From what I have read she was quite the opposite. She seemed to be rather promiscuous going from one affair with older married men to others. It was even hinted that she might have had an affair with the roommate. The whole ordeal with the adopted son sounds a little off. Whether she agreed to adopt one or both she ended up only taking the one and then lied to him about his heritage. I'm glad the movie left all of that out.