‘Saving Mr. Banks’ Depicts a Walt Disney With Faults

Rumors Rocks

Mouseketeer
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/movies/saving-mr-banks-depicts-a-walt-disney-with-faults.html?_r=0

1017DISNEY-articleLarge.jpg


BURBANK, Calif. — In the coming movie “Saving Mr. Banks,” a comedic drama about the turbulent making of “Mary Poppins” in the 1960s, Walt Disney acts in a very un-Disney way. He slugs back Scotch. He uses a mild curse word. He wheezes because he smokes too much.

The real shocker? Walt Disney Studios made the film.

jpdisney-articleInline.jpg


“Saving Mr. Banks,” which stars Tom Hanks as the mustachioed founder of the Walt Disney Company and Emma Thompson as the cantankerous novelist P. L. Travers, is a small movie that cost less than $35 million to make. But its existence says something big about Disney: despite its well-earned reputation for aggressively managing its image, it can get out of the way and let filmmakers lead.

“Wow, this was so not the battle I anticipated,” said Alison Owen, the independent producer behind “Saving Mr. Banks,” which also pokes fun at Disney’s sometimes-syrupy brand of entertainment. “Disney behaved impeccably.”

Every studio is controlling, but Disney, with its vast merchandise and theme park divisions, has a particular reputation in Hollywood — fairly or not (and the studio argues not) — for having a more narrowly focused and synergistic approach to filmmaking. In recent years the studio has made some headway in courting leading live-action writers and directors, but some still self-edit: Disney will never make this movie, so let’s not even try.

Those involved in “Saving Mr. Banks,” which closes the London Film Festival on Sunday, were nervous even after the script was successfully lobbed over the Disney transom. Would the company try to turn the film into a type of corporate video?

“I was a bit afraid because we wanted to be honest about Walt,” said the director, John Lee Hancock, who chose the film as his follow-up to “The Blind Side” (2009). “I imagined the moment when Disney would say, ‘Sorry, we like him better as a god than a human.’ To their credit, they were smart enough and brave enough to realize that a human Walt was not only a better character, but was easier to love.”

Mr. Hancock gently added, “Sometimes somebody else can tell you more about your father than you can.”

“Saving Mr. Banks,” which does not arrive in theaters until Dec. 13 but is already generating serious Oscar buzz, in particular for Ms. Thompson, got its start at Disney one evening in November 2011. Sean Bailey, the studio’s president for production, received a call from a lieutenant, Tendo Nagenda. There was a script, written by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith outside the Disney system, that required immediate attention. It was very good, Mr. Nagenda advised, but it also potentially touched a third rail: Walt Disney was a lead character.

“It very quickly went all the way to the top,” Mr. Bailey said, referring to Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chairman and chief executive. The company swiftly considered all of its options. One of them was to buy the script simply to park it, so that the movie’s portrayal of Walt Disney never reached theaters.

“Do we buy it defensively?” Mr. Bailey said in an interview, describing the discussions at Disney headquarters here. “Do we say we’re not going to buy it, but it could be difficult for you if you take it anywhere else? Or do we buy it and make it?”

Mr. Iger, who has made balancing Disney’s heritage with innovation one of his hallmarks, asked what the studio saw in the script. Boring into Disney bedrock was worth the risk, the movie team responded, because the project hit on multiple themes. On its surface, “Saving Mr. Banks” is about the lengths Walt Disney went to for “Mary Poppins.” But it also serves as “an exploration of storytelling, why storytelling matters in the world, and how storytelling can change people’s lives,” Mr. Bailey said.

It is also about coming to terms with one’s past, he added.

Mr. Iger signed off and went an unusual step further, personally calling Mr. Hanks to ask him to consider the Disney role. “We have never depicted Walt before, so you can imagine how much trust was needed,” Mr. Bailey said.

Mr. Hanks and Disney’s studio chairman, Alan F. Horn, in turn went to meet with Diane Disney-Miller, Walt Disney’s sole surviving child. A spokeswoman for Mrs. Miller, who is 79, said she was unavailable for an interview because of “medical issues.” But she might be pleased: For years, Mrs. Miller has worried that her father has become too much of a corporate mascot, even going as far as to open a museum aimed at depicting his human side.

“My kids have literally encountered people who didn’t know that my father was a person,” Mrs. Miller, who with her husband, Ronald, has seven children, said at the museum’s 2009 opening.

It will be a busy couple of months for her father, who died in 1966. An unrelated Disney film project, the new animated short film “Get a Horse,” arrives in November attached to the full-length feature “Frozen” and uses his old voice recordings for Mickey Mouse’s lines.

But while “Get a Horse” is an overt celebration of the studio’s heritage, “Saving Mr. Banks” at times lampoons the company’s style. “I won’t have her turned into one of your silly cartoons,” Ms. Thompson’s character says of Mary Poppins. No, she says, a visit to Disneyland would not change her mind; in fact, she would be “sickened” to visit that “dollar-printing machine.”

And in one scene that has gotten big laughs in early screenings, Ms. Thompson’s cranky writer arrives at her hotel for meetings with Walt Disney to find her room stuffed with balloons, caramel corn and toys. Shoving a stuffed Mickey Mouse into a corner, she snaps, “You can stay there until you learn the art of subtlety.”

Life imitated art last year when Ms. Thompson arrived for filming and found that Disney had done the same thing to her hotel suite. “Believe it or not,” Mr. Bailey said with a twinkle in his eye, “we do have a sense of humor.”
 
Thanks for posting, this is fantastic. I am so glad they choose to allow this story to be told with some honesty. They are correct; a real person with flaws is easier to love than a perfect icon.
 
The man smoked so much he died of lung cancer. Who ever said he didn't have faults?
 


I am very excited to see the movie that brings Walt to life. After reading Bob Thomas's biography on Walt it will be interesting how closely they resemble each other.
 
1) Alas.
2) From someone whose opinion I trust, they say the movie has major problems with the truth.
3) Just like the other Hank's film (eg, Captain Phillips) there was A LOT of poetic license.
4) In fact, the crew of the ship were on TV denouncing some of the "facts" in the movie.
5) My acquaintance likened "Saving" to "Captain Phillips".
 
I wonder what parts of the story they are taking liberties with? I always wanted to see a true story about Walt.
 


1) Alas.
2) From someone whose opinion I trust, they say the movie has major problems with the truth.
3) Just like the other Hank's film (eg, Captain Phillips) there was A LOT of poetic license.
4) In fact, the crew of the ship were on TV denouncing some of the "facts" in the movie.
5) My acquaintance likened "Saving" to "Captain Phillips".

Hi Rusty,

There was a lot of stuff going on with the crew and about who got paid for what as consultants on the movie and quite a lot of hard feelings.

I can't say it was 100% right on fact, but you can't put much trust in the few that went on TV complaining.


AKK
 
Just because some crew members disagree, doesn't mean they are right and the captain is wrong. Same with this story about Disney. There are so many factors that affect any story including money.

Historians know that after any event, the witnesses will never agree 100% and often disagree profoundly. Some don't see or hear everything, or in the stress misinterpret, or simply see or remember things incorrectly. Then, after the human limitations with interpreting events, human limitations of greed, jealousy, and many other emotions will also impact how someone interprets events. You can never know with 100% accuracy everything that happened in an event, even if you were there!

Also, some poetic license is required to tell a story. Looks to me like Disney is doing a pretty good job of showing us some of the aspects of what Walt was like, and for this Tom Hanks is perfect. And the captain was a hero whether or not the story is perfect.

In that sense there has never been a book or movie made that ever told the "truth" 100%, nor do I expect them to.
 
Just because some crew members disagree, doesn't mean they are right and the captain is wrong. Same with this story about Disney. There are so many factors that affect any story including money.

Historians know that after any event, the witnesses will never agree 100% and often disagree profoundly. Some don't see or hear everything, or in the stress misinterpret, or simply see or remember things incorrectly. Then, after the human limitations with interpreting events, human limitations of greed, jealousy, and many other emotions will also impact how someone interprets events. You can never know with 100% accuracy everything that happened in an event, even if you were there!

Also, some poetic license is required to tell a story. Looks to me like Disney is doing a pretty good job of showing us some of the aspects of what Walt was like, and for this Tom Hanks is perfect. And the captain was a hero whether or not the story is perfect.

In that sense there has never been a book or movie made that ever told the "truth" 100%, nor do I expect them to.

Amen! :worship:
 
1) Alas.
2) From someone whose opinion I trust, they say the movie has major problems with the truth.
3) Just like the other Hank's film (eg, Captain Phillips) there was A LOT of poetic license.
4) In fact, the crew of the ship were on TV denouncing some of the "facts" in the movie.
5) My acquaintance likened "Saving" to "Captain Phillips".

What does one movie have to do with the other? Tom Hanks didn't write or direct either of them. Wh not complain that Turner and Hooch wasn't realistic?
 
Just because some crew members disagree, doesn't mean they are right and the captain is wrong. Same with this story about Disney. There are so many factors that affect any story including money.

Historians know that after any event, the witnesses will never agree 100% and often disagree profoundly. Some don't see or hear everything, or in the stress misinterpret, or simply see or remember things incorrectly. Then, after the human limitations with interpreting events, human limitations of greed, jealousy, and many other emotions will also impact how someone interprets events. You can never know with 100% accuracy everything that happened in an event, even if you were there!

Also, some poetic license is required to tell a story. Looks to me like Disney is doing a pretty good job of showing us some of the aspects of what Walt was like, and for this Tom Hanks is perfect. And the captain was a hero whether or not the story is perfect.

In that sense there has never been a book or movie made that ever told the "truth" 100%, nor do I expect them to.

Well said Sir!:thumbsup2

AKK
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top