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

Great Scott! Is Back to the Future the best film trilogy ever?

I was watching the Back to the Future films recently, and it dawned on me that I'd forgotten just how brilliantly enjoyable the trilogy is. In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I started to wonder if it just might be the best film trilogy ever made. I know it wouldn’t be first choice for a lot of people, but I thought that nevertheless, it might be worth comparing it to some of the other standard choices to see how it measures up. The major issue of course, is how you define “best”. I’m looking at the films as a collective whole, the overall story and effect of the films. I’m not judging it on solitary acting performances, or even the depth and development of the major characters, but rather how enjoyable and convincing the story is, and how easy the films make it for the viewer to enter and accept the premise of their world. For instance, the Back to the Future trilogy is about as unrealistic as any films could ever be. But so are Lord of the Rings, Terminator, Star Wars and The Matrix. The Bourne films and the Godfather films have a more realistic feel to them, although I’m not sure anyone would really defend them as being 100% true to life if placed under oath, so let’s remember that suspension of disbelief is an important part of any film experience. But what counts is that once you are inside that world, that the films stay true to it. This is a glaring error in the Matrix trilogy, which seems to make its own rules up as it goes along. The Indiana Jones trilogy seems to suffer the same problem, with Temple of Doom really never making up its mind as to what kind of film it wants to be, and consequently ending up as not much of a film at all.

I’m also judging the films as a trilogy, not as single films. Die Hard is an incredibly brilliant film, but the trilogy of which it is a part is not. Same goes for The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Matrix. I’m also not counting “unofficial trilogies”, like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet, Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge. Plenty to recommend in all those films, and they have been lumped together by Luhrmann, but as far as I’m concerned, it simply doesn’t count. Even Kevin Smith’s films in the View Askewniverse aren’t going to be counted in this, largely because there are more than 3 of them anyway, and second of all because the films are completely different stories linked tenuously together by supporting characters and locations, which doesn’t quite cut the mustard, and so they too, do not count.

The reason they don’t count is that unofficial trilogies aren’t telling the same story, and so you can’t have sly little references to the other movies therein. One of the many things that impress me about the BTTF trilogy is the self-referential nature of the films, which is common in a lot of sequels and trilogies, but rarely as subtle as it is here. Even the way Marty crosses the road when finding himself in a new time zone by the clock tower is consistent, not to mention the supporting characters such as the Statler family’s horse/car business, and the Texaco filling station, shown in the first two films and referenced in the third. This is one of the cleverest techniques in this trilogy and makes the films feel all the more familiar and makes repeat viewings all the more rewarding.

Now, obviously I realise that when it comes to epic genius in terms of acting and directing, the films may not be up there with The Godfather. That being said, Godfather III is notably poorer than the other two, and it could be argued that it's not thematically consistent, which I don't think you can say about BTTF. The first two films are undoubtedly cinematic masterpieces, but they certainly don’t have any of the feel-good factor of the Future films. You don’t just channel surf, spot Godfather II and decide to watch it for a laugh – like so many other classics, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, to name but a few, you have to make a decision to sit down and watch it. This is all well and good, but it’s a solitary journey. It’s a rewarding one too, but you could never sit down with friends at a party and play those films and expect the humour levels in the room not to nose-dive. Al Pacino is incredible, in all three films, and Brando still sends shivers down the spine in the original, not to mention the more-than-able supporting cast who ply their trade with such style alongside them. But the story and cast of Godfather III seems completely out of kilter with the tone of the original two, and this was commented on heavily by critics. I personally think the third film has much in its corner, another fine performance by Pacino, a fitting conclusion to the epic story of Michael Corleone and Andy Garcia’s impressive turn as the young hot-headed Vincent. But there’s no denying that it stumbles through some very tenuous plot lines and is over-populated with characters that completely fail to enhance the story. Finally, Sofia Coppola, although she is not as bad as everyone says, is still bad. The Godfather is so hugely different from Back to the Future that it’s almost pointless to even hold them up under the same light, but for a trilogy that I would pick to watch when I was at a loose end and wanted cheering up, there is no doubt that I would dive for the Delorean every time.

I also know that in terms of Sci-Fi influence and impact, the films are not up there with the original Star Wars films. And the Star Wars films hold the aces in some areas too. For instance, Biff and the other Tannens are effective villains for their genre of film, but they’re more pantomime than would be allowed in a film that took itself seriously. Darth Vader, on the other hand, is a truly great villain, especially when his story is further revealed and his tragedy brought to the fore. As heroes go, Luke Skywalker certainly undergoes a more immense journey of personal development than Marty McFly, but he doesn’t have Marty’s quick wit and he’s a whiny little so-and-so for sure, a trait that he obviously picked up from his father, if the prequels are anything to go by. As for things that are wrong with the films, there’s very little – especially with the first two films, but by the time of Return of the Jedi, the Ewok storyline grates on even the most sympathetic fan. Once you compare the original three to the prequels, the originals look like genuine masterpieces, but then once you compare just about any film to the Star Wars prequels, you get the same result. And once you start to bring in the storylines of the prequels, the rule about staying true to the world that you have asked the viewer to enter goes flying out of the window like a drop-kicked Ewok. The prequels are truly three of cinema’s great horrors in my opinion, and sadly because they are prequels, their very existence adversely affects the original films. Incidentally, and strangely, even though the insinuations of incest are much greater in BTTF, and in fact both sets of films contain exactly the same amount of screen-time for blood relatives kissing each other, it’s much more unsettling in Star Wars than it is in Back to the Future.

It seems likely that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan will join forces for a third Batman film before 2010 is out. Does this count as a trilogy? I’m not sure. Even if it does, is there any guarantee that it will outshine Back to the Future? Batman Begins is one of my favourite films of all time, with Christian Bale’s performance so impressive that I thought I’d never see a better turn in a Batman film, until Heath Ledger’s incredible Joker burned itself into all our minds. If the third Nolan/Bale film is even half as good as the two that precede it, I would find it almost impossible to pick holes in it – although Bat Bale’s growl whenever he speaks (which seemed like a good character move on Bale’s part in the first film) is irritating at best by the end of two hours plus of The Dark Knight. There are also plot holes so massive in TDK that you could quite easily drive a DeLorean through them. This is also true of the BTTF films, but since they never took themselves too seriously anyway, you could argue that the minutiae of time travel physics don’t matter as much as the overall effect of having a really good laugh.

The Back to the Future trilogy might not be considered as impressive, visually, as the Lord of the Rings films, but if you look at the standard of visual effects against the era in which the films were made, I think there’s a fine argument to be made that BTTF was hugely impressive. The LOTR films have been received incredibly well, and have plenty to recommend them, although they're all 16 hours long and if you don't like that particular genre, you'll be asleep before you see your first hobbit. And yes, I know they won a million Oscars, but that doesn’t always equal sheer enjoyment. Titanic won Best Picture because it looked nice, but was it really the best film of that year? Here are some films that didn’t win Best Picture at the Oscars, just for fun.

Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, Dr Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Cabaret, The Exorcist, Dog Day Afternoon, Jaws, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Raiders of the Lost Ark,
Goodfellas, Dangerous Liaisons, Born on the 4th of July, My Left Foot, JFK, A Few Good Men, The Fugitive, Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, LA Confidential, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
Hudson Hawk.

For action and adventure, it's possible that the Back To The Future films don't compare with the Indiana Jones films; although they have more than their fair share, they admittedly are not as action-oriented as the Indy films. Sadly, following the below-average-but-probably-still-better-than-Temple-of-Doom “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, that trilogy has also been unnecessarily tampered with. Even if it hadn’t been, (or if Crystal Skull had been really good), the fact remains that Temple of Doom is pretty naff compared to the other two original movies. I’m not sure any adventure film will ever rival The Last Crusade, because that film pretty much has everything you could ever want from an action movie. Nazis being crap? Check. Exotic Locations? Check. Sean Connery? Check. Harrison Ford? Check. Biblical epic-ness? Check. And finally, Alison Doody...check. So, on its own, yes I would concede that Last Crusade is a better film than any of the BTTF flicks – but only just. As a trilogy, our survey says....X!

For Biblical allegory, although not for mind bending “ooh, makes you think”-ness (which isn’t really a thing, I just made it up) – the films don’t compare with the Matrix trilogy, but then unlike the Matrix trilogy, the second two BTTF films aren’t utter tripe. The first Matrix film is a really good (not great) film, with a really good (not great) idea behind it. As a standalone piece of cinema, it must rank as an important contribution to the art. However, the sequels are so mind-bendingly awful and lost in tracts of their own self-righteousness that really the whole concept is ruined and the brilliance of the first film is lost.

Pirates of the Caribbean is probably the closest set of films in terms of the general style, some wacky characters, good old fashioned escapade fun and some funky special effects and pretty far-out plot lines. BUT, the films are long, especially the completely directionless third one. This is nothing compared to the fact that Orlando Bloom AND Keira Knightley “act” in all three films. Now, Keira Knightley is a strangely alluring actress, despite her 12-year old boy’s figure and funny mouth, but her acting chops are not to my tastes, and for the schoolboy crush factor, she’s certainly no Lea Thompson. As for Orlando Bloom, well, I’m really not a fan. Yes, you could argue that Jack Sparrow is a better single character than any in the BTTF films, and Johnny Depp a more accomplished actor than any of the “Future” cast, but that on its own isn’t enough to rescue it.

For hard hitting pace and action and gritty realism with intrigue and espionage, it definitely doesn't come close to the Bourne trilogy, and I can't really think of anything bad to say about that one. It’s different, for sure, but the Bourne trilogy actually reminds me of the BTTF films in more than one way. For instance, there’s no single performance in any of the three films that truly stands out. Brian Cox is excellent, as always, as are Joan Allen and Matt Damon, but none of them put in an Oscar-winning turn. This is a good thing, in my opinion, because the films don’t demand it. The story and action is enough. Like BTTF, the cast are brilliant in their roles, but none of them dominate the screen and take away from the rest of the film, like Heath Ledger does in The Dark Knight. When he’s not on screen, all you can think is that you wish he was. This is not the case in the Bourne films, where no single character is so crucial that you can’t live without them. The films are not made for fun, and have little humour in them, and so there is no comparison there, but they stay thematically consistent and tell a story that stays completely true to the world it inhabits. If I had to pick a fault, it would be that the non-linear style of the end of the second film and start of the third is hugely confusing, but then I could hardly deny that certain parts of the third BTTF film could have been trimmed, so let’s not get too close into criticising brilliant trilogies.

Other notable trilogies could include:

Die Hard (except there's 4 of them now, and the second one is rubbish)
Home Alone (only joking. The first two are good though.)
Jurassic Park (maybe if the third one had had some effort put into it by anyone associated with it, director, actors, etc)
Evil Dead (first one, brilliant – other two, I’m not sure)
Spiderman (Hmmm, the first two are superb. But any trilogy that includes that pointless “Emo Spidey” section of Spiderman 3 doesn’t deserve a place at this table. I mean, seriously, what the HELL were they thinking? It’s a bad film without that, but that absolutely nails its coffin permanently shut.)
Terminator (third one rubbish, and there’s a fourth one now anyway)

There are also other film trilogies of course, like High School Musical, Matrix, X-Men, Mission: Impossible, Ace Ventura (yes, they made a third), Austin Powers, Mighty Ducks, Beverly Hills Cop, Blade, The Ocean’s films, Robocop, Rush Hour, Scream, Spy Kids, Transporter, Ice Age, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc but all of these are discounted for either being a) completely terrible or b) let down by at least one entry in the set.

So, this is obviously a gigantically subjective theme, and a very subjective blog – and I’m fine with that, and I hope that everyone has different ideas about what constitutes the perfect film trilogy. After all, all of the above is only my opinion. But, fellow film lovers, let me ask you this - if someone sat you down and said "Right, you've got to watch an entire trilogy all the way through for pure enjoyment," is there a better choice than Back to the Future?