MovieChat Forums > Saving Mr. Banks (2013) Discussion > what a #itch. why did he try so hard to ...

what a #itch. why did he try so hard to please her?


Just saw this movie. I know it's not all true but everything I've read says this woman was a witch to deal with, even worse than the movie showed, nobody could stand her. Why did Disney bend over backwards to make her happy? Why would he even try to make a second movie when she went around giving interviews that she didn't like the first?

I'm not sure if the whole she was almost penniless thing was correct or not but if true then clearly she needed him more than he needed her. I wish he had told her to find another way to pay for her precious house. Sure I grew up watching Mary Poppins but my life would still be the same if I never saw or knew she ever existed. I liked saving Mr Banks but all I keep thinking about is some rude, nasty, made a lot of money she didn't deserve.

reply

#scratchthatitch

reply

I almost saw it as a battle of wills. In some sense, maybe good versus evil =).

reply

I think they tried to show her off as odd and stern and an extremely strong minded woman...but more often than not I would say she just came off as a total b-itch.

reply

My wife and I really enjoyed the film and were pleasantly surprised as we had not even heard about it until tonight. Honestly I too was mostly thinking the same thing. I was somewhat skeptical about the negative portrayal of Travers, but I suppose that audio recording at the end credits did much to convince me that it was fairly accurate afterall.

I don't blame P.L. Travers for wanting to protect her fictional character, just as Disney alluded to feeling intensely defensive of his Mickey Mouse. Also, recall the works of other authors that Disney pretty much made his own, like J.M. Barrie, A.A. Milne, the Brothers Grimm, Carrol Lewis, T.H. White, etc. Few of us can think of Cinderella or Snow White without thinking of Disney's animated version. Since the Mary Poppins story was at least partly autobiographical, Travers obviously had deep personal feelings about how her characters were portrayed. Just playing devil's advocate here, but just imagine how you might feel if the story of your childhood and family were going to be "Disney-fied" by an over-the-top enthusiastic, overwhelmingly familiar American.

Perhaps Disney could have used a better approach if he knew what kind of personality she had. Not the full court hardsell.

Now that being said, I still think that she was inexcusably discourteous and inconsiderate. It's fine to be stubborn, stern, and reserved and to present a professional opinion. But as she repeatedly admonishes others for their presumptuous familiarity, lack of proper formal etiquette, and fussing over her (to ingratiate themselves), she herself goes beyond the bounds of courteous behaviour many times, like delaying the plane with her luggage, throwing fruit from the hotel balcony into the pool, seating herself in Disney's office without being invited to, later barging into his office, etc. It's fine to decline or not eat food provided as hospitality, but why take it out on the service staff? or perhaps not consider that others in the room might want it? or is it necessary to quibble and snap back at someone trying to make friendly small talk? (just don't talk to the driver).

I'm alright with her voicing her artistic opinion about HER fictional character, but if she really treated people like that in real life, well, yes... she seemed like a b!#$&.

reply

It seems clear that the people who post that the PL Travers chapter in this film is a cold b..tchhave have never read the books, (or, I think, really watched the movie.) I don't know about real life, but I thought the PŁT character in the film was so damaged and traumatized that she had built a giant shell around herself for self-protection and constantly distanced herself from the possibility of any more hurt. We were shown how joyful and loving she was as a child, and that all fell apart. But as she said, the book characters were her family, although one that she had been able to save, unlike in real life, and she truly couldn't bear the thought of them devolving back into something ugly -- she had to fight for them, given what they represented to her.

A cold person could never have written those books, and many artists would rather protect their creations than take the cash and allow them to be altered out of recognition.

reply

This is a guilt-tripping, condescending cop-out.

Plenty of *beep* have created good and timeless art that may or may not have positively affected the lives of others; this does not vindicate their *beep* The real Travers died bitter and alone, despised by all her living relatives; if anything the film provides a "spoonful of sugar," as it were, if only to make her "protagonist" status palatable to most peoples.

None of us have the right to judge her as a person, having never known her... all we have is her acts. And they speak for themselves. Some people are too broken to ever overcome their troubles and are to be pitied, but sympathy and "defense" from random people they never knew doesn't strike me as something they'd appreciate, even in death. A person is responsible for their own life.

If she felt that strongly about protecting the integrity of her work she could have just gotten a regular day job like a normal person... downscale your cost of living if that's what it takes. You make a business deal that makes you a ton of money, you honor it and don't act like a spoiled freakin' child.

Disney, the Shermans and all the rest deserve all the credit in the world for their patience in this matter. Like or dislike the final treatment of the source material, it has granted the material itself immortality that it would have never found had Disney never seen potential (and yes, dollar signs too) in her work. It could have easily faded away, becoming a beloved "cult classic" family book at best. There's no guarantee you would have even read it if not for the adaptation.

My point is, this is a viewpoint I'd expect from some starry-eyed child, not an adult... (unless they lowered the registering age to fourteen when I wasn't looking?) Trying to be idealistic is all well and good, but this is one of those situations where the facts we know make that a pretty blatant impossibility.

reply

Well, I may be prejudiced, because I love the film (and the performances of Andrews and Van Dyke) but you said it beautifully. The film has brought 50 years of happiness to a cynical world, and had Travers ''vision'' (whatever that was) prevailed, nobody would be talking about the film today.

reply

I'd have to say it was definately TB. Coupled with the alcoholism, his immune system was probably compromised and the disease was able to take ahold of him more easily. This might help explain why no one else in the family contracted it.

reply

If a man made nearly impossible demands in making a movie, he'd be a visionary. A woman making nearly impossible demands is a bitch. Funny how that works out.

reply

You have a strange sense of humor.

reply

You have a strange sense of detecting humor on the Internet. Especially when there was none implied. At all.

reply

Follow the Money. Many of the reasons that the other Mary Poppins books were not Disneyfied are also prevalent in this picture. I read the Mary Poppins books to my daughters over the years and refuse to let them see the movie until after we finished. They appreciated them much more after seeing what Disney did to the one book.

reply