The way “Saving Mr. Banks” ought to have gone

I didn’t like Saving Mr. Banks, which I thought could more accurately have been called “Walt Disney’s Revenge.”  It’s obvious that, by the early 1960s, P.L. Travers was a deeply disturbed woman.  Contemporaneous records (including the tapes that Travers insisted be made of her talks with the Disney people) reveal that Walt Disney showed great charm and kindness in dealing with her, so that reflects well on Walt.  However, a movie that has Emma Thompson, a talented mimic, portraying the damaged Travers wasn’t my cup of tea.  I think I would have liked this version better:

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    I, on the other hand, liked it.  And Walt’s been dead a long time, I doubt his shade is directing things in search of vengeance.  It’s a story largely unknown, very few people had any idea what a weirdo Travers was – by American standards.  (In England she was just another eccentric.)  I thought it was done pretty nicely.

  2. says

    My only big objection was the gratuitous slap at the Catholic church.
     
    Among the instances of “artistic license” they admit to, the film-makers apparently ramped up the “evil nun” far beyond the actual facts of the case.  That whole scene at the end where Ms. Travers “confronts” her tormentors is (apparently) mostly fiction.  It DOES fit the current U.S. meme about the church, though.
     
    Nope….not Catholic.  But I’m a committed Christian and we’re pretty much the last group it’s OK to do this to.  So I tend to call it out.

Leave a Reply