turq, I especially like your point about critiquing any story by its own internal beauty rather than its adherence to facts which are well nigh impossible to ascertain, especially from the dim past.
Spoiler alert: Anyway, I thought the movie was going to focus on a writer attempting to maintain the integrity of her creation. That appealed to me. I was disappointed that it focused so much on her childhood. I'm pretty sure that my main problem with the movie was that I had just about zero sympathy for Ginty's father. Definitely my bad... However, it is fascinating to me how she as if healed the rift between her father and her aunt by creating a harmonious relationship between Mary Poppins and Bert, who I think is the doppelganger of Mr. Banks. On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:55 AM, TurquoiseB <turquoi...@yahoo.com> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > yeah, noozguru, I think that post of yours went in deep. I actually did not > enjoy Saving Mr. Banks though I love Emma Thompson and I thoroughly enjoyed > the character of her chauffeur. Harlan's rant did not "sink in deep" for me, and thus didn't prejudice my viewing of the movie in any way. Partly it's because I've interacted with Harlan Ellison in real life, know his tendency *to* rant, and also know that many of his rants can be reduced to "I didn't like this story because it's not the way *I* would have told it." Harlan is nothing if not narcissistic, petty, and jealous. That said, he is also severely limited by the buttons that are so easy to push in him. He was IMO *unable* to step out of "how he would have seen this famous confrontation between Travers and Disney" and see it as a screenplay on its own, examining one person's view of the confrontation. I was, and thus was able to appreciate it in the same way that I appreciate "Immortal Beloved." That is, as a fantasy or theory about someone famous -- pure fiction, just done well, and coherent within its own space. We'll never know if the real-life Beethoven was driven by the things that the writer of "Immortal Beloved" projected onto him, but it doesn't matter, because the projection itself was so masterful and beautiful. Similarly, we'll never know what the real-life reasons Travers had for writing "Mary Poppins" were, but the writer of "Saving Mr. Banks" created IMO a pretty compelling set of theories about them. IMO *all* biographies and *all* autobiographies are fiction. You know that going in. They are *not* fact. They're the story of an individual told from a particular point of view. There are other POVs. So the game is not *about* whether it's "true to life." No one has a "source" for what "true to life" entails, or access to an objective POV on the subject. Thus the only criterion with which I approach these things are, "Is it a good story? Does it stand on its own, and remain consistent to its own premises and assumptions?" > On Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:43 PM, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: > > What about that Harlan Ellison review on YouTube I pointed to a month ago? > And we get to thank Disney for the lame DMCA, oh eyepatch. ;-) > > On 01/23/2014 01:08 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > >This is a strange movie for *me* to be reviewing, and even stranger to be > >reviewing positively, but react to it positively I did. After all, it's a > >Disney movie, and worse, it's *about* Walt Disney, someone whose > >sensibilities with regard to fairy tales and the dilution of them I do not > >admire. > > > >And yet. I was charmed by many things in this film. > I felt that the script was wonderfully written, and > directed just as well. And there have been exactly > *zero* other films this year that knocked my socks > off by the strength of their "ensemble performances" > the way this one did. The combination of Emma > Thompson as the irascible P.L. Travers, arguing > tooth and nail with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks, better > than I would have imagined) over whether she was > going to give him the film rights to her book "Mary > Poppins" are pretty much unbeatable from start to > finish. Add to them Paul Giamatti as her limo driver > in L.A., Colin Farrell as her father in flashbacks, > and Annie Rose Buckley as Travers herself as a > child, and this is pretty much a dream cast, > crafting a dream. > > > >Yes, it's schmaltzy, yes, it's a bit of a tearjerker > in parts, and yes, it's manipulative. But it > *works*, and it's a damned pity that the Academy > Awards chose to ignore it, except for its musical > score. The Golden Globes, to their credit, at least > nominated Emma Thompson as Best Actress, and in my > opinion she acted circles around any of the other > nominees, or at least the ones whose films I've seen > so far. > > > >The real P.L. Travers was supposedly a total bitch > who, according to her own adoptive grandchildren, > "died loving no one and with no one loving her." > This film showed a better side of her, one that I > wish the old tyrant had gotten to see in life. If > she had, she might have lightened up a bit and > learned to laugh at herself a bit more, and thus had > a happier life. > > > > >
