Saving Mr. Banks

Those of us attending the Friday Noon Movie Club last week were taken by surprise. We knew the basic idea of Saving Mr. Banks: P. L. Travers, curmudgeonly author of Mary Poppins, was reluctant to let her book become a Disney movie, and Mr. Walt Disney somehow convinces her to allow it. I even knew that it had something to do with her traumatic childhood experiences.

As it turns out, about half of the movie is dedicated to flashbacks to her childhood and the tragic nature of her father’s life. For at least one of us, the loss of a beloved, flawed father is fresh enough history that the movie prompted a new wave of grief. This movie is at least as much a father-daughter film as it is movie history.

Emma Thompson was, as expected, spectacularly crusty as Mrs. Travers, a woman aghast at the prospect of her characters joining the ranks of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Thompson also gave her Travers a few fleeting moments of vulnerability that made her sympathetic in spite of her unrelenting sharp edges.

Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney, and he does it capably. It seems like a sort of thankless role, really, because he has no choice but to be affable and smart, and fit the mold of someone who created the Happiest Place on Earth. Which can only feel like propaganda. And in this movie, Disney & co. is truly a Happy Place. Everyone is smiling, and the writers and the administrative assistants seem just this side of cartoon characters themselves. They are charming and entertaining, and it’s fun to see how they deal with this gruff woman.

But if Thompson weren’t so good at straddling the line between crustiness and humanity, the adult-Travers portion of the movie would be way too saccharine. And we can only wonder if Walt himself is the real reason that Mary Poppins became a movie. Was he really that good a student of human nature? I guess it’s fairly obvious he read human nature right on a couple of points, or he wouldn’t have been so successful.

The movie is also a bit long, possibly testing some viewers’ patience; the sad story of her family may also be a bit much for the young ones. Our viewing seemed to be populated by women in their 30s and 40s, which is not the usual crowd for Friday noon movies—often I’m surrounded by either retirees or younger men who may possibly be escaping their life in their parents’ basement for the afternoon.

I do think it’s a shame that Emma Thompson wasn’t nominated for this, though Cate Blanchett has the Oscar all but wrapped up. I don’t really think Amy Adams has anything on Emma for this one.

This was a fun and touching way to spend a couple of hours with friends, and I recommend it for anyone who likes Mary Poppins, Emma Thompson, or indulging in a bit of orneriness.

 

The Book Thief

If you’ve read the book, The Book Thief, as I have, you know that it is an unusual book with a very different storytelling style—it is narrated by Death, and it is filled with beautiful imagery and language. It remains one of my favorite books.

If you’ve forgotten much of what you read, as I have, that’s about all you can remember about it.

So when I found that reviewers didn’t love the movie, that they thought it too sentimental and sanitized, I didn’t rush right out to see it. But when it made it to our second-run theater, it seemed like it was time to give it a try. It might not be great, but for 4 bucks, who cares?

Well. I’m the first to admit that I can’t compare the two very closely, because I just don’t remember the book that well anymore. I think that it was a bit grittier, and that the girl Liesel and her friend Rudy were a little more rough-and-tumble than they appear in this movie.

However, the story remains the same—after talking to others who have read the book, they confirmed that the movie stuck very closely to the plot of the book. It’s the style that is different.

That said, the movie is lovely. Warm and beautiful images that are still somehow stark bring viewers back to the time and place of this German town during World War II. Liesel is taken into a foster home by a harsh woman named Rosa and her gentle, loving husband Hans. Geoffrey Rush plays Liesel’s foster father, and you can’t help but wish this man were your own grandfather or uncle or something. He is just wonderful in the role.

Liesel is played by Sophie Nélisse, a beautiful girl whose large, luminous eyes clearly captured the director and those operating the cameras. In fact, in the beginning, when Rosa complains that she has been sent a dirty child, I was left momentarily confused because I rarely see children who are that cleaned up! Apparently they couldn’t bear to make her less beautiful.

Rudy seems somehow younger and littler than I imagined him, but Max, the young Jewish man that Rosa and Hans hide in the basement, fits exactly. Aside from the fact that, again, he should have looked a little rougher. He did not look nearly sickly enough.

If you are a book lover, this is a movie you can hardly dislike—the importance of words, language and books is such a central part of the story. Keep the tissue handy if you are so inclined.

While there is something that is less hard-hitting about the movie than the book that it is based on, this is a lovely little film. I think they made the movie appropriate for a slightly younger audience than the book was aimed at, which I’m happy about because I fully intend to show this to all three of my children, 10 and up. Though I might leave them to watch it without me, because that 10-year-old really hates it when I cry.