Saving Mr. Banks
3/4
Starring: Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson, Annie Rose Buckley, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, Bradley Whitford, Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak, Ruth Wilson
Rated PG-13 for Thematic Elements and Some Unsettling Images
These days, it seems that almost every Oscar hopeful is a biopic of some kind. From "Patton" to "Schindler's List" to "Rush," biographies mean gold statues. The reason, I think, is that the audience knows who the person is, and the characters are more realistic and intelligent than in the majority of fictional movies.
"Saving Mr. Banks" is about the relationship between Walt Disney and P.E. Travers ("Mrs. Travers, please!") during the making of the classic adaptation of her beloved character, Mrs. Poppins. It's not necessarily the most cinematic tale, but it is interesting and the acting is strong (with Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson as the leads, that shouldn't come as a surprise).
Twenty years ago, Walt Disney (Hanks) made a promise to his daughters that he would bring Mrs. Poppins to the screen. And for twenty years, the author who created her, P.E. Travers (Thompson) has stubbornly refused to do so. Now, she's out of money and not writing any more books, her agent begs her to sign over the rights. When he tells her that all she has to do is go to LA for two weeks to see what they're doing, she agrees on the stipulation that she can refuse to give permission if she doesn't like it. So, Walt introduces her to Don DaGradi (Whitford), the screenwriter and Robert (Novak) and Richard (Schwartzman) Sherman, the songwriters, to see if they can't come to some sort of an arrangement. It does not go well.
The subplot of the film deals with young P.E. Travers, called Ginty (Buckley) and her father Travers Goff (Farrell). Ginty loves her father, who nurtures her imagination and passion for creativity. But Travers is an alcoholic, and that fractures their relationship.
Both stories are on equal playing field, which is the ideal for movies that tell two stories at once (although few succeed in doing this). Much of the reason is that the performances are strong across the board. Hanks and Thompson are in top form as the showman as the showman and stubborn writer, and Buckley is adorable as the young Ginty and Farrell is excellent as the loving but troubled Travers.
The potential problem the film faced is what to do with Disney. There's no way that the Walt Disney Corporation would allow their namesake to be portrayed as anything less than a flawless man, so there's a risk that he would become boring. The filmmakers sidestep that problem by making him really care about the project and being determined to get the film made. The casting of Hanks also helps tremendously. Disney is basically a P.T. Barnum clone; he's always showcasing something and trying to make Mrs. Travers as happy as possible so she'll sign over the rights (including getting her a personal limo with a genial driver named Ralph (Giamatti)). For her part, Mrs. Travers is as difficult and demanding as possible, although she has her reasons for doing so ("They're family to me," she says at one point).
I wouldn't be surprised if both Hanks and Thompson get Oscar nominations. Hanks in particular is a shoo-in, for either this film or "Captain Phillips" (Academy rules prevent an actor from receiving a two nominations in the same category...for my money, his performance as Rich Phillips is more deserving). Thompson is always wonderful to watch, and she gives Mrs. Travers the depth that she requires and deserves.
But the best performance is not from Hanks or Thompson. It's Colin Farrell. From "Minority Report" to "Horrible Bosses," Farrell has always shown tremendous talent, even in awful movies like "Seven Psychopaths" and the "Total Recall" remake. But he's never really gotten the chance in an Oscar contender. While a nomination for him is up in the air, he deserves it.
The first two thirds of the film are effective (but not perfect...Mrs. Travers's stubbornness is as uncomfortable as it is amusing because of how likable DaGradi and the Shermans are), the third half is troubled. Director John Lee Hancock tries to tie Travers to the character Mr. Banks, but it doesn't work. Maybe it's because I haven't seen "Mary Poppins" in ages, but I didn't know who Mr. Banks was. Furthermore, it's unclear what exactly Travers needs to be redeemed from (if it's from his alcoholism, than it's still problematic because it's unclear what effect that has on Ginty personally).
So the question remains, do the first two acts redeem the third enough for me to recommend the film? Yes. The performances by the cast and the story are strong enough to carry us through the film. And while the relationships between Travers and Mr. Banks & Aunt Ellie (Rachel Griffiths) and Mrs. Poppins aren't developed enough, the connection between Walt and Mrs. Travers is.
And by the way, the PG-13 is just a marketing ploy. There's nothing in here that makes this inappropriate for families (actually, the scene that probably "earned" the rating will probably go over the little kids' heads).
Starring: Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson, Annie Rose Buckley, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, Bradley Whitford, Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak, Ruth Wilson
Rated PG-13 for Thematic Elements and Some Unsettling Images
These days, it seems that almost every Oscar hopeful is a biopic of some kind. From "Patton" to "Schindler's List" to "Rush," biographies mean gold statues. The reason, I think, is that the audience knows who the person is, and the characters are more realistic and intelligent than in the majority of fictional movies.
"Saving Mr. Banks" is about the relationship between Walt Disney and P.E. Travers ("Mrs. Travers, please!") during the making of the classic adaptation of her beloved character, Mrs. Poppins. It's not necessarily the most cinematic tale, but it is interesting and the acting is strong (with Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson as the leads, that shouldn't come as a surprise).
Twenty years ago, Walt Disney (Hanks) made a promise to his daughters that he would bring Mrs. Poppins to the screen. And for twenty years, the author who created her, P.E. Travers (Thompson) has stubbornly refused to do so. Now, she's out of money and not writing any more books, her agent begs her to sign over the rights. When he tells her that all she has to do is go to LA for two weeks to see what they're doing, she agrees on the stipulation that she can refuse to give permission if she doesn't like it. So, Walt introduces her to Don DaGradi (Whitford), the screenwriter and Robert (Novak) and Richard (Schwartzman) Sherman, the songwriters, to see if they can't come to some sort of an arrangement. It does not go well.
The subplot of the film deals with young P.E. Travers, called Ginty (Buckley) and her father Travers Goff (Farrell). Ginty loves her father, who nurtures her imagination and passion for creativity. But Travers is an alcoholic, and that fractures their relationship.
Both stories are on equal playing field, which is the ideal for movies that tell two stories at once (although few succeed in doing this). Much of the reason is that the performances are strong across the board. Hanks and Thompson are in top form as the showman as the showman and stubborn writer, and Buckley is adorable as the young Ginty and Farrell is excellent as the loving but troubled Travers.
The potential problem the film faced is what to do with Disney. There's no way that the Walt Disney Corporation would allow their namesake to be portrayed as anything less than a flawless man, so there's a risk that he would become boring. The filmmakers sidestep that problem by making him really care about the project and being determined to get the film made. The casting of Hanks also helps tremendously. Disney is basically a P.T. Barnum clone; he's always showcasing something and trying to make Mrs. Travers as happy as possible so she'll sign over the rights (including getting her a personal limo with a genial driver named Ralph (Giamatti)). For her part, Mrs. Travers is as difficult and demanding as possible, although she has her reasons for doing so ("They're family to me," she says at one point).
I wouldn't be surprised if both Hanks and Thompson get Oscar nominations. Hanks in particular is a shoo-in, for either this film or "Captain Phillips" (Academy rules prevent an actor from receiving a two nominations in the same category...for my money, his performance as Rich Phillips is more deserving). Thompson is always wonderful to watch, and she gives Mrs. Travers the depth that she requires and deserves.
But the best performance is not from Hanks or Thompson. It's Colin Farrell. From "Minority Report" to "Horrible Bosses," Farrell has always shown tremendous talent, even in awful movies like "Seven Psychopaths" and the "Total Recall" remake. But he's never really gotten the chance in an Oscar contender. While a nomination for him is up in the air, he deserves it.
The first two thirds of the film are effective (but not perfect...Mrs. Travers's stubbornness is as uncomfortable as it is amusing because of how likable DaGradi and the Shermans are), the third half is troubled. Director John Lee Hancock tries to tie Travers to the character Mr. Banks, but it doesn't work. Maybe it's because I haven't seen "Mary Poppins" in ages, but I didn't know who Mr. Banks was. Furthermore, it's unclear what exactly Travers needs to be redeemed from (if it's from his alcoholism, than it's still problematic because it's unclear what effect that has on Ginty personally).
So the question remains, do the first two acts redeem the third enough for me to recommend the film? Yes. The performances by the cast and the story are strong enough to carry us through the film. And while the relationships between Travers and Mr. Banks & Aunt Ellie (Rachel Griffiths) and Mrs. Poppins aren't developed enough, the connection between Walt and Mrs. Travers is.
And by the way, the PG-13 is just a marketing ploy. There's nothing in here that makes this inappropriate for families (actually, the scene that probably "earned" the rating will probably go over the little kids' heads).
Comments
Post a Comment