[FairfieldLife] Re: Movie review: Saving Mr. Banks
--- 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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Movie review: Saving Mr. Banks
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,
[FairfieldLife] RE: Movie review: Saving Mr. Banks
I enjoyed this movie too. I think it may have been a special challenge for Emma Thompson to play someone so uptight, so closed in. I did not know that Travers was even worse as a human being than as Thompson played her out. One of my earliest spiritual epiphanies occurred in the parking lot of Disneyland (I had been there once before, some 15 years previously). I had watched a lot of the real Disney on TV in my youth. Something special about him. I had gone to Los Angeles to look over equipment offerings at a convention. I ended up really exhausted, and sick. I had a half day to kill, I went to Disneyland in Anaheim. I went on rides. I don't remember what I ate. I even went through that ride some old geezer sued the park for for having stranded him there for a few hours - It's a small world. As I left the park, I felt just miserable, but in thinking about what Disney had created I experience an overwhelming appreciation of what he had managed to accomplish and I just broke down and cried in the parking lot. A huge wave of release, followed by a deep silence. Probably the third or fourth spiritual experience I ever had, just a few months after the first one I ever had. I think I must have been (and still am in some ways) like Travers, closed in and tight, not really realising just how out of the stream of life I was. I was with someone years later in an amusement park in St. Louis. She felt such parks were superficial, but then realised that she observed that everybody she was watching seemed happy - everyone, not just a few here and there. Disney had a good heart, and he knew how to market feeling good, or perhaps out of necessity, he learned how to market it. Twenty two Academy Awards, and four honorary ones. Not bad. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Movie review: Saving Mr. Banks
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I enjoyed this movie too. I think it may have been a special challenge for Emma Thompson to play someone so uptight, so closed in. I did not know that Travers was even worse as a human being than as Thompson played her out. Emma started out in the business as a *comedian*, performing with people like Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. What a change she's seen over the years in the extent of her range, eh? One of my earliest spiritual epiphanies occurred in the parking lot of Disneyland (I had been there once before, some 15 years previously). I had watched a lot of the real Disney on TV in my youth. Something special about him. I had gone to Los Angeles to look over equipment offerings at a convention. I ended up really exhausted, and sick. I had a half day to kill, I went to Disneyland in Anaheim. I went on rides. I don't remember what I ate. I even went through that ride some old geezer sued the park for for having stranded him there for a few hours - It's a small world. As I left the park, I felt just miserable, but in thinking about what Disney had created I experience an overwhelming appreciation of what he had managed to accomplish and I just broke down and cried in the parking lot. A huge wave of release, followed by a deep silence. Probably the third or fourth spiritual experience I ever had, just a few months after the first one I ever had. I think I must have been (and still am in some ways) like Travers, closed in and tight, not really realising just how out of the stream of life I was. The moment in the film that captured a little of this for me was when Walt (Tom Hanks) was talking late at night with the writers and lyricists, who were complaining about Travers. Walt took her side and said that he'd been there, arguing a similar fight from her side, earlier in his career. Then Walt/Hanks tells the story of an early business partner who wanted to work with him, but insisted on Walt giving up the mouse. Walt held firm, because the mouse was family. Very nice moment, and nicely played on Tom Hanks' part. I was with someone years later in an amusement park in St. Louis. She felt such parks were superficial, but then realised that she observed that everybody she was watching seemed happy - everyone, not just a few here and there. Disney had a good heart, and he knew how to market feeling good, or perhaps out of necessity, he learned how to market it. Twenty two Academy Awards, and four honorary ones. Not bad. Part of why Saving Mr. Banks touched me was the relationship between Ginty (Annie Rose Buckley) and her father (Colin Farrell). Without the booze part, it reminded me of how I interact with Maya. Having had the privilege of watching a number of Disney movies with her, and seeing how she reacted, I have revised my opinion of Disney myself. As you say, he had a good heart, and that shows through much of what he created. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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.
