[Blzer]

Saving Mr. Banks

I saw this one with most of the family. I'll admit that I probably haven't actually seen Mary Poppins in almost twenty years, although many scenes are still engraved in my head and I learned how to spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious by memory when I was six years old. So to anybody who just might be in the boat of having not seen it before or in some time, it really wouldn't be a bad idea to pop it in, even if it's not a favorite of yours. After all, going into the film I actually didn't really know what this movie was about, because frankly I didn't know who Mr. Banks was.

The film begins rather delicately and unmemorable, jumping right into two parallel chronologies of a flashback and flashforward of the original Mary Poppins bookwriter's "past" as a child moving with her family to another part of Australia in 1906, and "present" before accepting an invitation to meet with Walt Disney in Los Angeles in 1961. This was more of a blessing than a nuisance for the film in that it helps make the overall pacing fluid and works as a character builder.

I do have kind of a problem with the flashbacks, though: every time the movie flashes back, it is struck to serve as a specific symbol for something that the writer (as portrayed by Emma Thompson) likes, dislikes, or was deeply affected by in a specific instance when she was six or seven years old. This makes these moments contrivances for easy storytelling, where motifs are black-and-white right on the screen. It does not save much for the imagination as a book would and becomes an exposition on the writer of old and young, as if every instance that happens in the "present" is perfectly recalled as a moment within just a few months of herself as a young child (as portrayed by Annie Rose Buckley). In that, I will say that if most things were mentioned of rather than simply cut to, although it wouldn't have made a more entertaining film, it would not have been too "in your face." I think there was only one really worthy flashback that defined everything about an hour into the film; the other flashbacks could have served their purpose as the first half hour of the film in general if they wanted to, then they could have flashed forward. But I am only ranting about that at this point, for better or worse.

Despite the PG-13 rating, we're definitely being left with a Disney imprint on this pretty lighthearted, uppity film. On the surface it might not appear that way because of the main character's detestable personality, but the jokes come and go in every scene at the right moments and everybody in the Los Angeles area tries going about all business with smiles on their faces. The cinematography aims toward non-aggressive colors, brightish midtones, and steady focuses on telling negative emotions more through words than facial expressions. John Lee Hancock and crew seemed to aim really hard at always hinting for light at the end of the tunnel, serving plenary optimism despite all that seems to "go wrong" during the film's run.

Although the acting was a very strong point of this number, I predict in fear everyone will only leave praising Tom Hanks for his portrayal as Walt Disney. Okay, I'll give it to him that he looked like the guy, but behind that I saw it as exactly what it was: Tom Hanks as Walt Disney. Every other actor or actress who showed up was somebody else entirely, although I haven't a clue who they portrayed in real life and most were probably carbon-cutouts of filmic stereotypes for the sake of telling the story properly. Okay, so they won't overlook Emma Thompson either (who will probably deservingly receive a Best Actress nod for this), but the supporting cast was just too hard to overlook. Farrell, Giamatti, Buckley, and Whitford sell their parts so convincingly as well, and really hit the bulk of the film when Hanks isn't on scene. In fact, Farrell and Buckley are super important because Hanks and Thompson obviously don't appear in the 1906 flashbacks. But I think there is a problem if Tom Hanks is nominated for Best Actor for two reasons: 1) I honestly think it's just ham-handed; 2) I wouldn't exactly say his part was a leading role. Best Supporting Actor? I'll have to look at the list of others. He really saves himself a possible position here in one of the last scenes, so I'll reserve judgment on that until next month.

Anyway, I was well-immersed from beginning to end despite the novelty wearing off early of the cutaways resembling exactly what they foretell or backtrack to involving certain physical on-screen symbols, and probably has one too many "Call me Mrs. Travers, not Pam / Call me Walt, not Mr. Disney" jokes. I'm not a true dedicated fan to Walt Disney's older works, either when he was alive or for twenty-five years after that, but I surely appreciate what his work has meant for everything else surrounding it plus how much it has affected our lives. I mean although I never watch the cartoon, what would this world be without Mickey Mouse? Hell, without Disneyland? And yes... without Mary Poppins? You throw so much buoyancy out the window without these things, so to make a film in today's time simply as a re-reminder of what some glory days were like at one time before is good enough reason for it to be made period. In all, it was a good ol' time to spend during the holidays with my family at the movies and watch this film, and without needing to be too critical, in a nutshell I really did enjoy it. I wouldn't see it by myself anywhere, but if you have somebody to tag along with, just sit back and enjoy it... all the way through the credits, might I add.