[Chuck Butler]

I recently caught up with the 2013 film Saving Mr. Banks. The film, which recounts the challenges encountered by Walt Disney and his staff when adapting author P. L. Travers’ Mary Poppins books for the cinema, was favorably reviewed by critics and nominated for several awards (including Best Original Score).

 

I don’t recall there being much (if any) discussion of this film on HBL, but I suspect that Objectivists will appreciate the clear contrast it presents between the sense of life of Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) and that of Ms. Travers (Emma Thompson). This is readily apparent in each characters’ outward behavior–Disney is easygoing and self-assured while Travers is formal and neurotic–and it is interesting to observe how this informs their respective attitudes toward the artwork they are collaborating to create. Travers insists that Mary Poppins be portrayed realistically as a no-nonsense disciplinarian, while Disney seeks to imbue the character with the warmth and joie de vivre that are consistent with his own fun-loving nature. Their efforts to compromise make for a fascinating depiction of how contrasting senses of life produce radically different views of the same work of art. Of course, other films have effectively depicted contrasting senses of life among principal characters (The Fountainhead being one obvious example); however, few films more clearly demonstrate how one’s sense of life informs one’s attitude about art (in this case, naturalism versus romanticism).

 

Of particular interest is a scene in which Disney expresses to Travers his recognition that certain difficulties she faced in her childhood stand at the root of her neurotic behavior. In a monologue that Objectivists will surely appreciate, he goes on to explain that he was able to overcome similar challenges and find the joy in living. There have been a number of discussions on HBL regarding the degree to which one’s sense of life may be shaped by environmental factors; it’s interesting (and refreshing) to see Disney articulate (and exemplify) his belief that individuals have the ability to choose how they view the world and approach life.

 

Some HBLers have recommended the 2013 film Philomena, which is also a good film featuring an interesting dynamic between two characters with opposing worldviews. But I would argue that Saving Mr. Banks provides the better sense-of-life contrast; while the character played by Steve Coogan in Philomena expresses negative views toward religion throughout the film, his demeanor is downtrodden, skeptical, and cynical whereas the religionist character played by Judi Dench is generally more upbeat and value-oriented.

 

I should mention that while the musical score to Saving Mr. Banks is quite good, it is rather the songs from the original Disney film that have the greatest resonance. It was a delight to see depicted the care and joyful spirit that the Sherman brothers put into each song they composed for the film.

[Harry Binswanger]

I also enjoyed Saving Mr. Banks. Not always 100% clear as to what is going on in the mind of P. L. Travers (what does Mary Poppins represent to her?), it definitely held my attention. And it was good to see Walt Disney, who I believe was at least a partial fan of AR’s novels, be treated in a positive fashion.

[RobertBarnes]

I would watch it for Emma Thompson alone.

[JulianHassan]

Delightful post. Thanks for reminding me about this film. I wanted to see it but my friends poo-pooed it, and I forgot about it. I sensed a value at stake.

[Author]

Posts