Director: John Lee Hancock
Writers: Kelly Marcel, Sue Smith
Stars: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Annie Rose Buckley
How much Hollywood hokum are you prepared to swallow? That should be the operative question heading into “Saving Mr. Banks.”
Don’t get me wrong: There’s lot to like about the film, a telling of how Walt Disney persuaded the author of “Mary Poppins,” P.L. Travers, to allow for a film adaptation of the book. It’s headlined by two outstanding performances from two of our finest actors, and it’s an intriguing look at the creative process.
However, there’s also this: “Saving Mr. Banks” is blatant Oscar bait, aimed at the aging, Old Hollywood-idealizing demographics of the Academy Awards electorate. It’s a love letter by Disney (the corporation) to itself, complete with loads of product placement of the theme parks, the movie library and even Mickey and Goofy. And it’s a white-washing of Walt Disney the man, leaving out anything negative or unsavory from his biography. Not since the Google commercial that was “The Internship” has a movie been so obvious a feature-length advertisement for a specific company.
Also, everything I’ve read indicates that the events of the film are about 180 degrees away from what actually happened. The film is a full-throated defense of Hollywood B.S. and print-the-legendism over reality, while incorporating the world’s most tired screenwriting crutch, attributing any and all motives to daddy issues. And its conclusion is that there’s only one thing that can melt the heart of a troubled, cold-hearted grouch, and that one thing is a Disney movie.
All of that is true. But I’m not ashamed to admit that, on some level, I fell for it.
Helmed by John Lee Hancock- who also directed “The Blind Side” and believe me, it shows- “Saving Mr. Banks”depicts author Travers (Emma Thompson), as a sad, bitter, hostile middle-aged woman, scarred by the childhood in which she was raised by her loving but alcoholic father (played in flashbacks by Colin Farrell.) Reluctant for years to okay a movie adaptation of her book, she’s at last persuaded by Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) to come to Hollywood and participate in the movie.
In between the childhood flashbacks, which roughly form the plot of “Mary Poppins,” we’re let into the creative collaboration behind the movie, which included screenwriter Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and composers the Sherman brothers (Jason Schwatzman and BJ Novak). Can this team of Hollywood magic makers get this unhappy Brit to help them create a classic movie, and maybe make her smile in the process? What do you think?
So what rescues this film from transparent manipulation? Mostly, it’s Tom Hanks, who’s just wonderful here. It’s always risky when an iconic actor plays an iconic real-life person, but the actor manages it here, especially in a long monologue that essentially spells out the movie’s thesis statement. After years of spending most of his time either producing or starring in lackluster projects like “Larry Crowne,” it’s so great that Hanks has his leading-man authority back, in both this and “Captain Phillips.”
I haven’t seen “Mary Poppins” in a long time, and I’d imagine most people my age or younger (I’m 35) haven’t either, so I’m sure “Saving Mr. Banks” will be a tough sell to anyone not enamored with old-Hollywood glamour and Disney mythology. When I saw the film I was seated in front of four little old ladies who sussed out the plot out loud throughout, and sang along with all of the songs. That- especially the ones with Oscar votes- are this film’s primary demographic.
In all, “Saving Mr. Banks” adds up to a perfectly fine movie that will likely get considerably more Oscar nominations than it probably deserves.
