Saving Mr. Banks

In "Saving Mr. Banks," Walt Disney is pitted against the curmudgeonly writer of "Mary Poppins," P.L. Travers. In a key scene, they square off and give their respective opinions of the project. Travers views Mary Poppins as a more serious character imbued in her dark past. Ever the optimist, Disney pleads with her to let him reimagine the character as a happy one. He wants her to sing, dance with cartoon penguins, and ultimately rescue not only the children for which she nannies, but also Mr. Banks, a cold, characteristically British father to his family. Take a wild guess who gets their way?

This film is very entertaining and well-acted. Tom Hanks, in particular, is tailor made to play the iconically avuncular Walt Disney. He assumes the role with a twinkle in his eye and a song in his heart. Paul Giamatti, who has a second rate role as a limo driver, shines as an extension of the perpetually happy Disney company. For anyone who has seen "Mary Poppins," and we all have, there is an interesting story to be told, an unlikely and nearly impossible collaboration between two polar opposites, whose arguing creates one of Disney's enduring films.  

Yet, there lurks an annoying and morally repugnant Disneyesque device in "Saving Mr. Banks." For the love of god, must we sugarcoat EVERYTHING to make it palatable? Do we need our spoonful of Disney sugar for anything potentially disturbing? Will Disney allow us to feel a full range of emotions for a bloody change?

Disney argues to take a story rooted in Traver's good natured but desperately alcoholic father, who, despite the work of a helpful nanny/nurse, succumbed to consumption. "Mary Poppins" is an allegory for good intentions that fail, as they often do in life. Despite this deeply personal story, Disney wants to exorcise the film of any negativity, or at least any negativity that can't be overcome. In essence, he wants Mr. Banks to sing "Let's Go Fly a Kite," when, in reality, he would have been singing "Let's Go Throw a Clot." While watching, I began to sympathize with Travers and her obsession with the integrity of her story against corporate commercialization.

But the most interesting aspect of "Saving Mr. Banks" is the fact that it is guilty of the above sugarcoating itself. Walt Disney and friends certainly get the Disney treatment. Disney is presented as the greatest guy on earth, notwithstanding the reality that he was a rabid anti-semite and Nazi sympathizer who invested in German banks during World War II. There really should be a penetrating movie about Walt Disney because it would be fascinating. He was a man who accomplished so many great, imaginative things, but, like most human beings, had serious shortcomings. And that's the point. There are complexities to stories and to characters, particularly when they are based on a true story.

While I was entertained, I could not stomach the inescapable fact that Disney released what could be the most self-serving film of all time. This film was Walt Disney presented by Walt Disney. How could he be wrong?