Saving Mr. Banks - 3/5
"I know what he's going to do to her. She'll be cavorting and twinkling, and careening towards a happy ending like a kamikaze!"
Saccharine. That's a term Disney movies have often been associated with, watered down versions of the truth conjured by the whimsies of a man-child. Be it Pocahontas' appalling sugarcoating of the woman's tragic fate or Peter Pan's shallow treading of what it truly means to never grow up, Disney had always found a way to manipulate those stories somehow to serve its own grandiose favor, thereby keeping the cash machine running. It's not hard to understand why Travers and certain fans of her famous book would have a problem with Disney landing his grubby hands on her work. In fact, the sentiment was almost mutual for myself.
But there's an important reason why I chose to watch this film prior to my upcoming viewing of "Mary Poppins" (for the first time, might I add). I saw a little while ago a review of that classic film on how "Saving Mr. Banks" had convinced him to rewatch that film again, which piqued my curiosity. I knew of this pseudo-autobiography, how it, much like many of Disney's films and other autobiographical films, distorted the truth to cover up the ugly parts of reality, such as how Travers detested the adaptation of Poppins rather than be moved by it, even 20 years after its release. If anything, her hate grew stronger with the two decades' passing. She was bitter till the bitter end. She didn't win that battle, but self-indulging happy souls at the House of Mouse would prefer a more pleasant story to sell the movie. But of course, I wanted to be proven wrong, which was the whole point of watching it. I wanted to be moved and cry like how Disney had deluded imagined Travers did during the premiere.
There was a very crucial quote in the film that eventually determined how I eventually felt about Saving Mr. Banks. "Because that's what we storytellers do. We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again." Yes, it's fiction - for some parts of it. Yes, perhaps the truth was something uglier one shouldn't belittle or dismiss. In the eyes of some, this film might even be self-congratulatory (a sentiment I would agree with). But, just because it's the truth doesn't mean it's all we should remember and focus on. The movie's poignant message on what Walt Disney's motivation was - to inspire hope in spite of dark times and memories - there was a sincerity to it that I could accept. It reminds me the purpose of these "saccharine", happy films, of why people need to feel that things will get brighter tomorrow, come what may. It's a very 'safe' movie, an inevitable outcome under the production of the Mouse Company, but due to moments that shine a ray of light, like the aforementioned quote this paragraph, I feel it's unfair to dismiss it as simply such. There is some magic at work in the House of Mouse even by today's cynical standards. The magic is flawed like this film, like Walt himself, but I feel it's a necessary existence.
And bringing such a flawed story to life wasn't easy for the actors either, but they managed to breathe life into it nonetheless. Both Hanks and Thompson are wonderful in their respective roles, especially on the former's part. Usually with Hanks, I feel like his performances have been more stale with his growing age, and therefore more repetitive. But with Mr. Banks, he feels quite suitable for the role indeed, playing up the eccentricities and childishness that come with Disney. Thompson is terrific, of course, but that goes without saying - I hardly knew a role of hers I didn't like. Playing a bitter old bag must've been painful, but she pulled it off regardless. Bonus points for making her likable too with her witticism mixed in with sarcasm. And Colin Farrell - god, as usual, he's a delight to watch. His breadth in acting never ceases to amaze me.
When I watch Poppins for the first time, armed with my knowledge of Travers' sentiment and Walt's naive and admirable motivations, I think I'd appreciate it more now than without this viewing. I think that's something meaningful.