Corrections to the blogosphere, the consensus, and the world
Thursday, January 23, 2014
What I would have said
if I'd seen the movie, from Adam Gopnik at the New Yorker :
 
 
* * *  
On another front, I have never enjoyed a film that I disapproved of 
so much as “Saving Mr. Banks.” It is, so to speak, the “Birth of a 
Nation” of family movies:  it presents so skewed and fundamentally vile a
 view of the essential matter at hand that you are all the more 
astounded by how well it’s done.     The story, if you have missed it, 
concerns the “Mary Poppins” author, Pamela Lyndon Travers, coming to 
Hollywood to resist allowing Walt Disney to adapt her books (though, at 
last, she is persuaded).  Emma Thompson is so good as the author, and 
Tom Hanks is so good as Disney, that it seems surly and ungrateful to 
point out that the tale the movie tells is a lie, and an ugly one.  
(Hanks, as Disney, gives the most subtle performance of his career, 
making the cartoon-meister one of those handsome, dark-souled, 
mid-century middle-Americans   who built amazing empires   but were 
never truly at ease, even in worlds they had wholly made for their own 
pleasure, while dominating their employees with coercive, first-name 
intimacy.)  
The moral of the movie’s story   is not that a poet’s art got 
betrayed by American schlock—as, actually, it did—but, instead, that a 
frigid Englishwoman got  “humanized” by American schmalz.    My sister 
Alison, who is not given to emotion or excess in her opinions, writes 
that “Travers realized that the movie was going to be, as it is, an 
utter and obscene travesty, turning all the points of the books 
upside-down, and the idea that she was a cranky woman made to realize 
the value of friendship etc. by Disney is a bit like saying that 
Bulgakov would have realized that all his problems were due to his 
father if only he’d talked to Stalin a little more.”  There are a couple
 of nice songs (minor-key waltzes, appropriately) in the movie—but the 
rest is schlock that betrays Travers’s intention with every frame. The 
movie is saying, basically, that Disney did P. L. Travers a favor by 
traducing her books.  They didn’t. He didn’t.
 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment