Saving Mr. Banks

[Brian in Mesa]

Saving Mr. Banks

Release Date: December 13, 2013 (limited; wide: Dec. 19)
Studio: Walt Disney Pictures
Director: John Lee Hancock
Screenwriter: Kelly Marcel
Genre: Biography, Comedy, Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for thematic elements including some unsettling images)
Website: Disney.com | Facebook

Starring: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman, Bradley Whitford, Annie Rose Buckley, Ruth Wilson, B.J. Novak, Rachel Griffiths, Kathy Baker

Plot Summary: Two-time Academy Award®–winner Emma Thompson and fellow double Oscar®-winner Tom Hanks topline Disney's "Saving Mr. Banks," inspired by the extraordinary, untold backstory of how Disney's classic "Mary Poppins" made it to the screen.

When Walt Disney's daughters begged him to make a movie of their favorite book, P.L. Travers' "Mary Poppins," he made them a promise - one that he didn't realize would take 20 years to keep. In his quest to obtain the rights, Walt comes up against a curmudgeonly, uncompromising writer who has absolutely no intention of letting her beloved magical nanny get mauled by the Hollywood machine. But, as the books stop selling and money grows short, Travers reluctantly agrees to go to Los Angeles to hear Disney's plans for the adaptation.

For those two short weeks in 1961, Walt Disney pulls out all the stops. Armed with imaginative storyboards and chirpy songs from the talented Sherman brothers, Walt launches an all-out onslaught on P.L. Travers, but the prickly author doesn't budge. He soon begins to watch helplessly as Travers becomes increasingly immovable and the rights begin to move further away from his grasp.

It is only when he reaches into his own childhood that Walt discovers the truth about the ghosts that haunt her, and together they set Mary Poppins free to ultimately make one of the most endearing films in cinematic history.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[DemsMyBoys]

I saw it today. I liked it very much but I'd recommend the PG-13 guideline be followed. All the attention has gone to Hanks and Emma Thompson but I thought Colin Farrell and Paul Giamatti made the movie. They were that good IMO.

 

[Chaplin]

Great movie. This is very much Emma Thompson's movie, although she spends most of it being thoroughly unlikable. Tom Hanks is great and embodies Walt Disney. It's interesting seeing an uncorrupted big businessman. For all intents and purposes, that's what Walt was.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Great movie. This is very much Emma Thompson's movie, although she spends most of it being thoroughly unlikable. Tom Hanks is great and embodies Walt Disney. It's interesting seeing an uncorrupted big businessman. For all intents and purposes, that's what Walt was.

I don't know how "incorruptible" Disney was. That's the image Disney would love for people to believe, but not sure it jibes with a lot of his history. There's long standing questions of anti-semitism running rampant throughout Disney back during his day, really negative depictions of Jews in cartoons (which from all accounts EVERYTHING got final approval from Walt), not to mention ties to Nazi sympathizers and his well known union-busting, not to mention gladly naming names of "communists" in the Red Scare hearings.

 

[PDXChris]

Great movie. This is very much Emma Thompson's movie, although she spends most of it being thoroughly unlikable. Tom Hanks is great and embodies Walt Disney. It's interesting seeing an uncorrupted big businessman. For all intents and purposes, that's what Walt was.

Lol...right. Besides all of his union busting/anti-semitism/possibly being a Nazi sympathizer and gladly naming names of "communists" in the Red Scare hearings...the guy was as incorruptible as they come.

 

[Cheesebeef]

lol...my first response was pretty snarky. I just think history has shown that Walt wasn't all that Disney's portrayed him as being. Lots of questions about his character throughout the years.

all that said, I thought Saving Mr. Banks was VERY good.

 

[Chaplin]

lol...my first response was pretty snarky. I just think history has shown that Walt wasn't all that Disney's portrayed him as being. Lots of questions about his character throughout the years.

all that said, I thought Saving Mr. Banks was VERY good.

I also think that along with growing to be incredibly huge, rumor and innuendo is at least partly driving all those accusations you mentioned. One the one hand, you have a company wanting their image to be as clean as possible. Certainly understandable. On the other hand, you have competitors and those that for some reason didn't like Disney (failed deals, bad movies) that would have no qualms of just throwing out words like "anti-semitism" and "racist" without having any proof of such. Perhaps he wasn't squeaky clean, but he certainly wasn't like most of the big company CEOs of today.

The reality is that even though she signed over the rights, Travers and Disney continued their strained relationship beyond the movie. They never did become friends.

 

[BigRedRage]

I don't know how "incorruptible" Disney was. That's the image Disney would love for people to believe, but not sure it jibes with a lot of his history. There's long standing questions of anti-semitism running rampant throughout Disney back during his day, really negative depictions of Jews in cartoons (which from all accounts EVERYTHING got final approval from Walt), not to mention ties to Nazi sympathizers and his well known union-busting, not to mention gladly naming names of "communists" in the Red Scare hearings.

not sure any of that has to do with corruption, seems more like where society was in those days.

Id say big business corruption problems are far worse these days than being a racist.

 

[Cheesebeef]

not sure any of that has to do with corruption, seems more like where society was in those days.

Id say big business corruption problems are far worse these days than being a racist.

cozying up to Nazi sympathizers in order to get in roads to distribution in Germany seems like the very definition of corruptible to me.

 

[BigRedRage]

cozying up to Nazi sympathizers in order to get in roads to distribution in Germany seems like the very definition of corruptible to me.

Meh, thats angel talk compared to todays big business people. I think most most anyone is corruptable but the guy did have a pretty squeeky resume for being as filthy rich as he was IMO

 

[Dr. Jones]

Oooooof.....

http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/meryl-streep-blasts-walt-disney-he-was-a-gender-bigot-with-racist-proclivities

Meryl Streep blasts Walt Disney: He was a 'gender bigot' with 'racist proclivities'

"Disney, who brought joy, arguably, to billions of people, was perhaps, or had some…racist proclivities," said Streep. "He formed and supported an anti-Semitic industry lobby. And he was certainly, on the evidence of his company’s policies, a gender bigot."
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention...-with-racist-proclivities#jL2hbOYyABaFqdP8.99

 

[UncleChris]

Oooooof.....

http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/meryl-streep-blasts-walt-disney-he-was-a-gender-bigot-with-racist-proclivities

Although this doesn't necessarily mean what she said is untrue, I've read in more than one place over the years that Streep is pretty much considered a ditz.

 

[AZZenny]

I've very indirectly had contact with 2-3 Disney friends/family/employees over the past 45 years. W/o exception, Walt was not depicted as anywhere near the nice, avuncular guy we like to imagine -- but he was very serious about protecting his image.

I just did a little digging around -- curious that while pretty much all writers on the topic agree how astute Walt was about controlling his image and his product, the fact that he certainly did personally approve material considered offensively racist and antisemitic even for the 30's and 40's, or his meetings with pro-Nazi artists or attendance at pro-Nazi gatherings, etc., are chalked up to his 'probable' naivete. Now was he unique or unusual? Hell no - Ford, Rockefeller, lots of major Capitalists were openly pro-Nazi and flatly extremely anti-Semitic. However, I fail to see that as adequate excuse for Disney or for any of the others. He was also, like most of his corporate peers, mindlessly sexist, racist, and anti-Union.

...and here we thought the Tea Party was a new phenomenon. It's just early 20th century robber barons redux.

 

[Chaplin]

Sexism in the 40s or 50s? You guys act like that was so unusual. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but that was completely normal back in those days. Being anti-Union doesn't mean anything either, that's an age-old quality of almost all big business Capitalists.

The racism angle is the only disconcerting thing about him. And that's iffy--Charlie Chaplin made the Great Dictator and is famously quoted as saying he wouldn't have made the movie had he known what was going on in Germany.

Back in the late 30s, nobody knew the horrors that the Nazis were doing. Sure, they were concerned because of the inherent fascism of the regime, but for all intents and purposes, the Germany as seen by the world of the 30s wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy led by evil Nazis, but a fascist state that appeared to be in a huge reawakening after the horrors of WWI. They had finally recovered from the physical and economic devastation that war brought them. At least that's how it appeared.

 

[Covert Rain]

Sexism in the 40s or 50s? You guys act like that was so unusual. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but that was completely normal back in those days. Being anti-Union doesn't mean anything either, that's an age-old quality of almost all big business Capitalists.

The racism angle is the only disconcerting thing about him. And that's iffy--Charlie Chaplin made the Great Dictator and is famously quoted as saying he wouldn't have made the movie had he known what was going on in Germany.

Back in the late 30s, nobody knew the horrors that the Nazis were doing. Sure, they were concerned because of the inherent fascism of the regime, but for all intents and purposes, the Germany as seen by the world of the 30s wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy led by evil Nazis, but a fascist state that appeared to be in a huge reawakening after the horrors of WWI. They had finally recovered from the physical and economic devastation that war brought them. At least that's how it appeared.

+1

I think you have to take times into consideration because things that were socially acceptable then are obviously not now. That doesn't make them any less desirable but from a contextual perspective I think much of what was above was the social norm and not exclusive to Disney.

Disney was a visionary that I am sure had a ton of personal faults. I admire him for his contribution to animation and film. I will leave the rest up to historical pundits.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Sexism in the 40s or 50s? You guys act like that was so unusual. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but that was completely normal back in those days. Being anti-Union doesn't mean anything either, that's an age-old quality of almost all big business Capitalists.

The racism angle is the only disconcerting thing about him. And that's iffy--Charlie Chaplin made the Great Dictator and is famously quoted as saying he wouldn't have made the movie had he known what was going on in Germany.

Back in the late 30s, nobody knew the horrors that the Nazis were doing. Sure, they were concerned because of the inherent fascism of the regime, but for all intents and purposes, the Germany as seen by the world of the 30s wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy led by evil Nazis, but a fascist state that appeared to be in a huge reawakening after the horrors of WWI. They had finally recovered from the physical and economic devastation that war brought them. At least that's how it appeared.

this feels incredibly naive to me...and quite frankly INCREDIBLY insulting as a Jewish person. By 1936, Germany had already moved into the the demiliatrized Rhineland and was making their intentions clear to expand their "empire" soon after...not to mention by the mid 30's the propaganda campaign against the Jews, pretty much painting them as the villains for everything wrong in began, leading the ghettos, Kristalnacht and eventually concentration camps again, soon after.

I mean...seriously, the idea that the Nazi's weren't looked at as a MAJOR problem for a host of different reasons in the 30's doesn't jive AT ALL with the reality of the history of the period.

Nobody knew the horrors the Nazi's were doing...give me a break. They weren't bashful about needing to eradicate the Jews from society and it was just a matter of time (a short matter) before they put their plan into action.

was Walt Disney like a secret scientologist? is that why you're rationalizing here?

 

[Dr. Jones]

this feels incredibly naive to me...and quite frankly INCREDIBLY insulting as a Jewish person. By 1936, Germany had already moved into the the demiliatrized Rhineland and was making their intentions clear to expand their "empire" soon after...not to mention by the mid 30's the propaganda campaign against the Jews, pretty much painting them as the villains for everything wrong in began, leading the ghettos, Kristalnacht and eventually concentration camps again, soon after.

I mean...seriously, the idea that the Nazi's weren't looked at as a MAJOR problem for a host of different reasons in the 30's doesn't jive AT ALL with the reality of the history of the period.

Nobody knew the horrors the Nazi's were doing...give me a break. They weren't bashful about needing to eradicate the Jews from society and it was just a matter of time (a short matter) before they put their plan into action.

was Walt Disney like a secret scientologist? is that why you're rationalizing here?

 

[Chaplin]

this feels incredibly naive to me...and quite frankly INCREDIBLY insulting as a Jewish person. By 1936, Germany had already moved into the the demiliatrized Rhineland and was making their intentions clear to expand their "empire" soon after...not to mention by the mid 30's the propaganda campaign against the Jews, pretty much painting them as the villains for everything wrong in began, leading the ghettos, Kristalnacht and eventually concentration camps again, soon after.

I mean...seriously, the idea that the Nazi's weren't looked at as a MAJOR problem for a host of different reasons in the 30's doesn't jive AT ALL with the reality of the history of the period.

Nobody knew the horrors the Nazi's were doing...give me a break. They weren't bashful about needing to eradicate the Jews from society and it was just a matter of time (a short matter) before they put their plan into action.

was Walt Disney like a secret scientologist? is that why you're rationalizing here?

Wow. What a horrible personal attack.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Wow. What a horrible personal attack.

A horrible personal attack? All I did above was point of you have no clue about how Nazi Germany was viewed back in the day and what they were OUTWARDLY doing to Jews and then posed a question as to why you'd be spinning what to me is a story completely at odds with facts.

Where's the attack here? Telling you you don't kno what you're talking about? People do that All the time? You PM'd me that I basically called you a racist in my last post, but Ive got NO CLUE how you got to that offense.

 

[Covert Rain]

One thing I would like to note about above. It was suggested that Disney himself turned in suspected communists and submersives but that is incorrect. As a bureau contact, Disney reported on the activities of Hollywood actors, writers, producers, directors, technicians and union activists suspected of political subversion.

That is a huge distinction and difference. He did not accuse anybody. He reported on those that the government already classified in that way. It should be mentioned that Ronald Reagan, Gary Cooper, Cecil B. DeMile, Clark Gable, Ginger Rogers, Barbara Stanwyck, and the likes of John Wayne did the exact same thing as did many that worked in Hollywood. In essence it was pure blackmail on the part of a very corrupt section of our government that went on a modern day witch hunt. As Chap stated above they falsely accused many actors and artists like Charlie Chaplin. They threatened to shut down anybody else that didn't cooperate to report on these suspects or they would pull you in front of a hearing. I wanted to clear that up because he was not accusing people to my knowledge or what I have read.

In terms of him having Nazi ties I also call that B.S. The two biggest things I have read as evidence is his business dealings and and association with Riefensthahl. Per Neal Gabler's biography:

“In 2006 Disney biographer Neal Gabler also claims in regards to Riefenstahl’s visit, the invitation was suggested to Disney by Jay Stowitts and that although Walt knew who Riefenstahl was, he didn’t know exactly what she represented in terms of politics, as he had no particular political leaning during the 1930s.” It is suggested that Riefenstahl used unusual camera angles, smash cuts, extreme close-ups, placing tracking shot rails within the bleachers and Disney was interested in his techniques...not his political leanings.

It should also be noted that companies like IBM, FORD, Chase bank, Coca Cola and a ton of other multinational companies did business with that regime prior to the war. They formed business relationships. I think it's easy to throw out words like "cozying up" when companies and businesses form relationships with other less than desirable countries. That doesn't mean they supported the actions or condoned. We have to be careful when making statements like that and oversimplifying those scenarios.

P.S. My +1 above was specifically referring to the social commentary about societal "norms" back then and not the history of Germans and Jews.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Ah, I love the Internet as I think Chap and Cheese are arguing roughly the same thing but as a History major who with a focus on Europe from way back when I can hopefully shed some light here...

1. Jewish persecution (more than the usual anti-Semitism that occurred (and still occurs to some degree) began in earnest in the early 1930's in Germany with the rise of Nazism.

2. At first it was mostly oppressive and dehumanizing type tactics not entirely dissimilar to what the United States South saw happen before the Civil Rights movement. Boycotting businesses, marriage laws, segregation measures, legal rights, etc. but not a tremendous amount of violence. Hitler at least at first couldn't politically get away with authorizing violent acts against Germans even if they were Jewish. While many around the world but specifically the United States cried foul of such laws and decrees by Nazi Germany, the anger was not widespread as many similar things were happening within our own borders. This could be what Chap meant by not knowing what was happening over there.

3. In 1938-1939 after Kristallnacht was when worldwide public fervor turned against the Nazi's (and ratcheted up after the ghetto's, internment camps that began housing more than just political dissenters, invasion of Poland, etc) and widespread violence was not only allowed but endorsed by public Nazi figures. They could take away their titles and property and rights but the government simply beating up or worse of someone's neighbor Hitler did not think he could pull off. Goebbels (probably the biggest anti-Semite the world has ever known including Hitler) then spun the vom Rath assassination into a widespread wave of violence against Jews in Germany effectively beginning the Holocaust as we know it.

4. So yes, while many across the world knew of what was happening in Germany and Europe the common Joe probably didn't think too much of the persecution until it inevitably leapt into violence.

I never usually get into the middle of these arguments but thought I'd shed a light from what I recall. The Holocaust class at UofA was one of the best courses I ever took for you high schoolers reading out there.

 

[Chaplin]

Ah, I love the Internet as I think Chap and Cheese are arguing roughly the same thing but as a History major who with a focus on Europe from way back when I can hopefully shed some light here...

1. Jewish persecution (more than the usual anti-Semitism that occurred (and still occurs to some degree) began in earnest in the early 1930's in Germany with the rise of Nazism.

2. At first it was mostly oppressive and dehumanizing type tactics not entirely dissimilar to what the United States South saw happen before the Civil Rights movement. Boycotting businesses, marriage laws, segregation measures, legal rights, etc. but not a tremendous amount of violence. Hitler at least at first couldn't politically get away with authorizing violent acts against Germans even if they were Jewish. While many around the world but specifically the United States cried foul of such laws and decrees by Nazi Germany, the anger was not widespread as many similar things were happening within our own borders. This could be what Chap meant by not knowing what was happening over there.

3. In 1938-1939 after Kristallnacht was when worldwide public fervor turned against the Nazi's (and ratcheted up after the ghetto's, internment camps that began housing more than just political dissenters, invasion of Poland, etc) and widespread violence was not only allowed but endorsed by public Nazi figures. They could take away their titles and property and rights but the government simply beating up or worse of someone's neighbor Hitler did not think he could pull off. Goebbels (probably the biggest anti-Semite the world has ever known including Hitler) then spun the vom Rath assassination into a widespread wave of violence against Jews in Germany effectively beginning the Holocaust as we know it.

4. So yes, while many across the world knew of what was happening in Germany and Europe the common Joe probably didn't think too much of the persecution until it inevitably leapt into violence.

I never usually get into the middle of these arguments but thought I'd shed a light from what I recall. The Holocaust class at UofA was one of the best courses I ever took for you high schoolers reading out there.

Definitely what I meant. And I took that same class at UofA. What the Nazis did was despicable, but the issue here (and then as well) is that nobody really understood the extent of it until later.

 

[UncleChris]

Sexism in the 40s or 50s? You guys act like that was so unusual. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but that was completely normal back in those days. Being anti-Union doesn't mean anything either, that's an age-old quality of almost all big business Capitalists.

The racism angle is the only disconcerting thing about him. And that's iffy--Charlie Chaplin made the Great Dictator and is famously quoted as saying he wouldn't have made the movie had he known what was going on in Germany.

Back in the late 30s, nobody knew the horrors that the Nazis were doing. Sure, they were concerned because of the inherent fascism of the regime, but for all intents and purposes, the Germany as seen by the world of the 30s wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy led by evil Nazis, but a fascist state that appeared to be in a huge reawakening after the horrors of WWI. They had finally recovered from the physical and economic devastation that war brought them. At least that's how it appeared.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Definitely what I meant. And I took that same class at UofA. What the Nazis did was despicable, but the issue here (and then as well) is that nobody really understood the extent of it until later.

you said no one knew what the Nazi's were doing in the late 30's...literally, that was your quote and it couldn't be more wrong. Kristallnacht was 1938. If that ain't late 30's I don't know what it is.

not to mention, the key thing Mao brought up, which I agree with, was that Joeschmoe didn't know what was going on. But Walt Disney wasn't Joe Schmoe. He was a titan of industry, world traveler with a company who's reach extended outside of America. If you think he was a clueless as to what was going on over there, then, again, I think you're incredibly naive.

 

[Covert Rain]

I think it's incredibly presumptuous to assume because he did business he had insider knowledge of everything happening over there. Especially when biographies indicate had no interest in politics.

Also was he really a "a Titan" at that time? His first huge hit Snow White came out in 37?! He was a visionary but I don't think you could classify him that way at that time. There company file BK once already and they were about to file again and had to get a loan to finish Snow White. Hardly a titan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk