Saving Mr Banks

I'd better start this by saying that I love 'Mary Poppins'. It's not a controversial opinion, by any means; the film seems to be carved into the consciousness of the entire nation, and with good reason. It's an absolutely magical 2 hours which ticks every box on a checklist of 'great family films'. The songs are brilliant, the dance set-pieces are wonderful, the mix of animation and live action is fantasy at its best, and every actor does their bit, headed up by the brilliant Dick Van Dyke, his accent notwithstanding, and the incomparably wonderful Julie Andrews, the worthy recipient of an Oscar for her portrayal of PL Travers' magical nanny. As a massive fan of the original film, when I saw the trailer for 'Saving Mr Banks', I couldn't wait. The scene in the trailer where the Sherman brothers nervously hide the sheet music to 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' was so beautifully timed, I dared to dream that the film would capture some of the magic of Poppins. The problem with putting that kind of expectation on something, though, is obviously that it really has no option but to let one down. Surely there was no earthly chance that 'Saving Mr Banks' could live up to expectations?

It didn't. It exceeded them.

Switching between the tale of PL Travers' childhood in Australia and 1960s Los Angeles, the film tells the story of where Mary Poppins came from, and the battle her creator fought to keep her. The cinematography is stunning, the different worlds of Australia and LA are beautifully rendered, creating atmospheres you can almost breathe in. The Australian chapter of the story is genuinely emotional, as a young Pamela Travers sees her family disintegrate before her eyes, and her imaginary worlds take on a critical importance. Crucially, though, the LA story is no less heartwrenching, as Travers plays David as she fights the only way she knows how against the Goliath of Disney, the world's biggest film studio. To make a story like this work, you have to have great performances, and there is no shortage of those here.

Just like 'Mary Poppins', the supporting cast is absolutely superb - Colin Farrell is at his best as Travers' father, the original model for George Banks, and Annie Rose Buckley is the perfect doe-eyed innocent child who has to grow up too quickly. In LA, the Sherman Brothers are brilliantly portrayed and Bradley Whitford is unsurprisingly excellent as Don DeGradi, the belittled co-writer of the film. Like the original 1965 classic though, the key to the film lies in the performances at its head. Just as Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke make Poppins what it is, so Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks hold the key to 'Saving Mr Banks' - and both are absolutely superb.

Disney is played as a charming, kind-hearted but shrewd and determined man, (not without his own demons) who believes in his vision almost as much as he believes in the magic he creates. Who could be better to play a character like that than Tom Hanks? Hanks is a remarkable actor, and while this role is nothing like as demanding or draining as his recent turn in 'Captain Phillips', it's no less assured or convincing, and carries with it the kind of effortless charm that made Disney such a canny operator. In preparing for the release of the film, the producers were keen to stress that the Disney corporation had made no effort to interfere with how its illustrious and sometimes controversial leader was portrayed, but then having seen the film, it's hardly surprising. Disney is warm, kind, charming and friendly, and even when his back is against the wall, he plays the cuddliest form of hardball I've ever seen. While there's plenty to suggest that the real Walt Disney was an extremely benevolent dictator, (so maybe Hanks' portrayal is not as inaccurate as some have suggested) it certainly feels like the film has taken the character and the story of which he is a part and sliced off every hint of a rough edge with a velvet chainsaw. As brilliant as Hanks is, his unstoppable force needs an immovable object - and it is here that the film truly finds its heart. Emma Thompson's portrayal of PL Travers is towering, imperious, and utterly mesmerising. 

I'm an unashamed adorer of Emma Thompson. In my eyes, she can do no wrong. She is brilliant both in, and seemingly at, everything. This film is no exception. Her interplay with Hanks is timed beautifully, and delivered expertly. This is not an easy thing to do, as Travers was, by all accounts, a hugely complex character. In Thompson's preparation for the role, she admitted to being overwhelmed by the intricacies of Travers' various personas - and the challenge of how best to convey that. Travers' part in the production of 'Mary Poppins' seemed to be picking fault in Don DeGradi's script and Walt Disney's vision. Pedantry has a pretty short shelf life in terms of charm or comedy, and the risk with a role like this is that it could easily fall into parody or pastiche of the uptight, strict, "English" stereotype who comes up against an American wall of whimsy and sentiment and makes everyone laugh at her ridiculous Britishness. In order to convince while still remaining sympathetic (critical for the success of the film) Thompson has to seamlessly convey several different layers in one glance. She does it to perfection - of course she does. Meryl Streep was apparently first choice for the role, but I can't imagine that even she could have done it better. The importance of Mary Poppins to her creator is revealed slowly, and as we realise that it's not just a picky and obstreperous nature, her struggle to reconcile the deep connection she feels to her story with the practicality and pragmatism that her situation demands pulls more steadily on the heart-strings and is shaped to perfection. It's a bit "emotional impact by numbers" but when it works, it works, and it is done superbly here. The scene where Travers first hears 'Let's go fly a kite' reduced me to tears of pure elation. By the final scenes of the film, as Travers sits through the premiere of Disney's masterpiece, the tears were back (both on screen and off) to the point where the little girl in front of me asked her Dad, "Daddy, is the man behind us ok? He's crying and laughing at the same time." It's just a shame that the film had to blur the lines of reality so much to make this happen.

In real life, as so often is the case, there was no Hollywood ending. Travers hated the film, and was eventually over-ruled in all sorts of ways by Disney, who eventually snubbed her at the premiere as she complained yet further about the vandalism of which she felt such a victim. As previously mentioned, this film has had its rough edges sanded down and as such, as a biopic or documentary about the making of 'Mary Poppins', the film would have too many flaws to mention. But, to its credit, the film never tries to sell itself as a hard-hitting, warts and all documentary. It stays true to itself as a beautifully user-friendly tale about how a beloved classic childhood memory was born. It captures and retains the same gorgeous, other-worldly charm and beauty that 'Mary Poppins' created for its audience. Cinema is a golden art, and this film is everything that's good about it. 

Now, if you don't love 'Mary Poppins', you might not feel about 'Saving Mr Banks' as I did, but as I'm pretty sure most people do, I can't recommend it highly enough. I've refrained from employing simple Poppins cliche as much as I can in this review, but if you'll allow me this one, it really was practically perfect in every way.

PS