大梦想家

本只是一个电影的拍摄过程，却在两条故事的穿针引线下被赋予了一种传奇般的色彩。

两个故事在一种巧妙的节奏下完美的接洽在一起，加之艾玛汤普森无可挑剔的精彩表演，我们逐渐看到一个女人渐渐打开她封闭的内心，任往日情感释放与释怀。

与此同时，我们总能找到与自己生活的影子相似之处，继而感动。

今年的治愈系佳作。

艾玛姨饰演的这位浑身负能量、惹人厌憎的刻薄老太太，很好印证了心理学家卡伦.霍妮那句话：在表面非人性的行为背后，有一个受着痛苦的人。

也如女作家特拉弗斯的父亲所说：怎么才能治好它？

我们必须让巫婆重新学会什么是快乐。

《大梦想家》在之前的颁奖季默默无闻，除了女主角艾玛·汤普森收获一些提名之外，基本没有什么声音；该片的北美票房也只能算中规中矩（最终收获7000万美金左右）。

差点成为看片名单上的漏网之鱼，但好在没有错过。

为了配合迪士尼最经典的歌舞电影《欢乐满人间》上映50周年，迪士尼公司发行了影片的重制蓝光碟，并于2013年圣诞档期推出《大梦想家》这部纪念电影。

电影讲述的就是迪士尼公司的创始人华特迪士尼，如何说服原著小说的作者P.L.特拉弗斯女士，出售版权，并将《欢乐满人间》搬上银幕的故事。

影片由影帝影后担纲主演，汤姆汉克斯饰演华特·迪士尼先生，艾玛·汤普森饰演女作家P.L.特拉弗斯女士。

这是华特·迪士尼的形象第一次出现在大银幕。

艾玛·汤普森演活了一位刀子嘴豆腐心，表面尖酸刻薄吹毛求疵，内心渴望温情热爱生活的“英国”女作家。

她开口必是女皇腔的标准英语；喝水必喝英式红茶，要用精致茶具装，不能用纸杯；跟别人说话，称呼必须带“先生”“女士”，不能直呼其名；这样一位非常“英国”的女作家，一开始对美国迪士尼公司那种洋溢着铜臭味儿的热情百般排斥，在她眼里迪士尼就是商业化的典型，他们把一切艺术变成愚蠢的卡通，然后大把的赚钱；编剧说着文法错误的英语，为了押韵生编硬造一些英语单词，工作的时候吃零食，工作人员都处在一种莫名其妙的欢快中，还企图把她笔下的人物也变得欢快。

她为了生计，被迫考虑出售自己作品的版权给迪士尼公司，但是她坚持剧本的每一个字都要她最终确认。

于是她跟迪士尼团队合作的每一天都处于一种“大姨妈来了”的焦灼中，这位特拉弗斯女士毒舌的程度，绝不亚于春晚上的蔡明。

特拉弗斯对自己作品的过度保护，源于故事中融入了她很多的个人经历和情感，她用童话的方式修补自己的童年，温暖自己的心灵。

她编织的童话也感染了更多的儿童和成人，迪士尼一直把带给别人快乐和希望当作创作电影的理念，哪怕只是短短的两小时，暂时忘却生命中的艰辛和悲伤。

这一点，是特拉弗斯唯一能跟迪士尼达成共识的基础，也是华特迪士尼说服特拉弗斯的最后一根稻草。

尽管合作艰难，最终，特拉弗斯还是签署了版权协议。

她用她一贯的勉为其难，默许了迪士尼创作团队的改编，比如接受了错误的语法，跟着音乐打节拍，不请自来的杀到首映现场，看着银幕上的《欢乐满人间》默默流泪。

这部电影是迪士尼自己出品的，关于迪士尼的电影，难免有美化自己，为自己做广告之嫌。

如果这是一个两小时的广告，应该是最成功的品牌形象广告。

迪士尼自成立以来，不论是他的电影还是迪士尼乐园，或其他周边产品，都坚守统一的品牌理念——歌颂真善美、给人希望、点燃梦想，这部电影完美诠释了这一点。

女作家最终对改编的许可，是对自己悲伤经历的释然，更是对迪士尼理念的认可。

更难能可贵的是——这部广告片还让人在两个小时中有笑有泪，在温情治愈中，又被希望和梦想洗脑。

当然了，在现实中，迪士尼公司是不是真的只为了救赎心灵点燃希望才拍摄的《欢乐满人间》就另当别论了；而迪士尼先生本人和特拉弗斯女士的合作，是不是最终温情收场也只有他们两人知道了。

相信电影是做了适当的美化，因为据说，特拉弗斯女士的遗嘱中有一条是“如果有朝一日Mary Poppins（欢乐满人间的英文原名）被改编成舞台剧，不允许任何一个《欢乐满人间》电影的演职员参与。

”

听到那个名字，听到剧中的旋律，有种想要流泪的感觉。

隐隐约约记得自己在很小很小的时候就看过这本书（或是节选），译作《玛丽波平阿姨》。

但是那旋律又是怎么回事呢？

我确定在此之前没有看过剧中提到的那部《幸福满人间》。

回头想想，大概这部与绿野仙踪、音乐之声齐名的美国国民剧的主旋律经常会被各种节目撷取引用吧。

建议本片在观看《Mary Poppins》之后，食用效果更佳。

两部影片，很不巧我是因为汤影帝先看的本片，再看的《Mary Poppins》。

一开始播放的时候我就已经注意到了本片是迪士尼的出品，我没有任何“警惕”没有任何顾虑，因为我带着“这是一部花絮电影”这样的心态来观影，看着看着甚至都已经相信了这个故事，看完后甚至我觉得是部好电影，可以给五星呢。

我没有立刻写影评，直到看完了《Mary Poppins》。

像传记、写实类或是“基于真人真事改编” or whatever you name，这类片子，就算拍的再好，其真实与否会直接动摇我对片子的评价。

本片中我们可以得知，Mrs. Travers（以下简称T）对改编有诸多要求（so many "NO"s），但实际上映的 《Mary Poppins》，就我个人感觉的话，是大失T所望的：Mary Poppins does not sing.（Walt（简称W吧）取了折中方案：她唱，但不轻佻不蹦蹦跳跳（也算满足原作者的要求），音乐也确实不错）A live-action film. No animation.（真人插大量动画）No Dick Van Dyke.（没改）No grand house, but normal one.（大且富丽堂皇）No hint of romance between Poppins and Bert.（你会发现还是会有那么一点“暧昧的火花”）Mr. Bank is cuel.（他还是当面撕掉了孩子们的广告并丢进了壁炉，后面用happy ending作补偿，也可以说是妥协吧）......以上就省略那些挑字眼或是可能是因为赌气而提的要求吧："No red in the picture."光是这些就够她受的了，T试图证明没有人比她更懂自己的作品，事实证明她也是对的，因为这群试图将她的作品搬上银幕的人，直到真正和T合作之前都没有搞清楚原著的内涵：要拯救的不是两个孩子，而是孩子的父亲。

本片也因此得名。

少不了"The big shot's special requirement"：Mr.Bank's mustache.虽然片子没有直接说明W为什么这么要求，从片子观察看来，我的个人猜测是：得把他自己标志性的八字胡用上，把掌门人的标志放入片子算得上是一种宣传？

营销的手段？

T在本片中，一个尖酸刻薄、吹毛求疵、执着到近乎疯狂的老女人，最后在W和他的团队努力下被感化，准确来说W还是MVP，最后交出了“视为家人”的作品，接受“改造”，然而电影的首映式居然没被邀请？

只能说，我并不是当事人，这个故事的真实性无法考究，里面的情节有多少被改编了我不得而知。

但是包括我在内的观众应该能感受得到，有关于W和他的迪士尼帝国，都太过完美，而有关于T的一切，又是那么的不堪。

仿佛是天父在地狱门前向徘徊的灵魂伸出了手，这个灵魂最终得到升华位列天堂。

洗白片。

自说自话。

迪士尼的主旋律。

一瞬间，脑中浮现的都是这些词。

一瞬间，W那些举动回想起来，just make me feel sick。

T最反感的其中一个点：A spoonful of sugar"All they need is a spoon and some sugar and a brain full of fluff and they equipped with life's tools.""She(Marry Poppins) doesn't sugarcoat the darkness in th world that these children will eventually, inevitably come to know."All I see is :《Mary Poppins》is a spoonful of sugar for the children.《Saving Mr. Banks》and Walt's Disneyland is a spoonful of sugar for the adults.Maybe sometimes I need this spoonful of sugar, but not today.

谁背叛了Mrs. Travers？

迪士尼再次说起“那个女人”的故事的时候，无论试图将它改装得多么银光闪闪，感人肺腑，我们还是不得不怀疑，这究竟是不是那个真实的故事？

我们到底能不能听到另一个非迪士尼的关于“那个女人”的版本？

在这个版本里，Travers被无情地刻画成一个孤独、挑剔、封闭并且缺爱的老女人，面对的是一个开放、耐心、有爱并且欢乐的迪士尼，最后的成果则是那部欢乐满人间的电影。

可是，谁胜利了？

对于Travers我知之甚少，可是即使从电影里来看，她只是一个孤军奋战的弱者。

她没有钱，没有亲人，没有朋友，当她一个人飞到洛杉矶的时候，她面对的却是好莱坞最炙手可热的资本工厂。

这个女人被毫不留情地描绘成一副令人讨厌并且令人同情的样子，试图使我们相信正义是掌握在迪士尼的手中。

当我们看到迪士尼和他的小伙伴们使出浑身解数取悦Travers的时候，当我们看到电影在回顾Travers的往事的时候，我们难道真的不希望看到好莱坞最擅长的一幕：她终于打开心胸拥抱了这个世界？

可是问题在于，这个故事还有没有可能有另外一种结局？

完美的迪士尼早就将Travers钉在了柱子上遭受鞭打，早就用自己（假想的）的道德和权力绑架了Travers。

我们看到的结局，就是唯一的结局。

Travers败了，她对电影所提出的建议无一没有遭到拒绝。

Banks的房子仍然是太过于富丽堂皇，主演仍然是迪克范戴克，Mrs. Banks 仍然为妇女投票权奋斗，Bert和Mary Poppins仍然暧昧不清，整个故事仍然是试图欺骗孩子的“a spoonful sugar,” 他们对Mr. Banks仍然残酷，电影仍然是音乐剧，甚至还有大段大段的动画——如果这是一场交锋，我们不禁要问迪士尼作了什么妥协而Traverse得到了什么？

很遗憾，并没有。

如果有，只是她从被预先设定的”黑暗“中拥抱了光明，这个光明就来自于迪士尼。

迪士尼自然是光明。

他是一个热爱家庭，热爱子女，热爱平等，坚守诺言，并且相信爱和希望的人。

他是完美的父亲，完美的领导，完美的合作者——这种自卖自夸的伎俩简直就是一出完美但是拙劣的洗白计划：我们都几乎要相信这一切了，直到我们知道”那个女人“的故事。

就Travers来说，她并不是如电影所描述的那样。

我们听到小道消息，她生活丰富多彩，拥有很多的情人（包括男性和女性），还领养了孩子。

可是这些在电影里并没有出现，她变成了一个被“父亲”这个词困扰终身的老女人。

迪士尼忙着洗白自己的同时，也忙着将一个复杂多面的女性变成了可供改造的平面对象——只有这样我们才能欢快地接受：一切改造都是正当的。

可是是否一切改造都是正当的？

我们似乎无法回答这个问题，除非我们能听到另一个版本的故事，除非我们愿意了解“那个女人”的故事。

治愈系的心灵鸡汤绑架了Travers也绑架了观众，重新为《欢乐满人间》的正当性作了辩护。

可是这种辩护却是经不起推敲的。

毕竟那一年，Travers并没有被邀请参加电影的开幕式，而在余生她似乎对迪士尼并无多少好感。

时至今日，当我们说我喜欢《欢乐满人间》或者我喜欢Saving Mr. Banks的时候，我们说到底只不过将迪士尼说给我们的故事重述并且肯定了一遍。

而在这种重复和肯定之中，也许我们恰恰变成了迪士尼的同谋，一起背叛了“那个女人”。

可是只有她对整个故事有最单纯和最原初的想法。

2014年3月23日17:20:48

还记得一手举着雨伞一手拎着皮箱随风而来的Mary Poppins阿姨吗？

她并不像故事中那样轻轻松松就从窗口跃入我们的生活，事实上，Walt Disney花了整整二十年才说服原作者P.L. Travers小姐同意将其搬上银幕，条件是剧本里的每个字都要经过她的审查批准。

像2012年底的《希区柯克》一样，《大梦想家》也是一部关于电影的电影，讲述了电影《欢乐满人间》筹拍时的幕后故事。

《大梦想家》采取双线叙事，电影有规律的在1906年的澳大利亚马尔堡与60年代的伦敦和洛杉矶之间交替进行。

童年的回忆，现实的交锋，为了不让自己的书变成迪士尼王国的又一部“大傻冒卡通片”，女作家P.L Travers一个人从伦敦来到洛杉矶，在迪士尼办公室里和编剧作曲家团队，甚至同Walt Disney本人大作战。

每句台词每个细节的锱铢必较，他为了完成对女儿的承诺，而她为了保护自己笔下如同亲人般的人物和故事，进而保护仍然活在心底的爸爸。

终于，Walt Disney从原名与笔名的差异中窥出了端倪，他也只身飞往伦敦，在Travers的公寓里敞开心扉，用自己的童年交换了她的童年。

要多深爱一个人，才会以他的名字为自己的姓氏？

Travers女士终于用自己的创作救赎了最亲爱的爸爸。

我想，这就是写作的人唯一拥有的特权吧，只要你还在我笔端，你我就还未永别。

和当年的《欢乐满人间》一样，《大梦想家》也由迪士尼出品，自然不可避免的带有浓厚的迪斯尼风格的品牌宣传。

导演John Lee Hancock也延续了他在《盲点》中的手法，把真实故事打扫干净，扑上亮粉送上银幕，留下“明天会更好”的幸福结尾。

最光彩照人的当属Emma Thompson的表演，演活了一位傲娇又善良，聪慧又脆弱的英国独身女作家。

她的许多小动作都很妙，轻蔑的撇嘴，不置可否的抱臂，愉悦时暗自脚尖点地，气呼呼得拎起唐老鸭和高飞狗塞进壁橱，又在失眠时把脑袋埋进巨型米老鼠玩偶里。

我简直想不到还有谁能像她这样既让人无法忍受，同时又特别惹人怜爱？

Emma Thompson塑造的挑剔女王P.L. Travers，恰恰平衡了整部电影几乎漫溢的甜蜜欢乐，没有茶香的奶茶无非一杯奶油糖水，迪士尼电影中，往往正是那些不那么迪士尼的元素，最让人回味。

《大梦想家》在2013年底节日档上映，让我意外的是见到许多老年观众也蹒跚入场，这些老观众看上去不像是现在电影院里的常客，不过他们一定是当年《欢乐满人间》的影迷。

虽然现在的动画片都在讨论如何突破迪士尼的传统模式，但随着电影的进行，好听的插曲一再重现，侧目看到左右的老爷爷老奶奶跟着节奏轻轻打着拍子哼起来，让我不由得念起迪士尼的好来，它的确用真善美抚慰过少年心。

虽然当今电影技术已经是《环太平洋》和《地心引力》的级别，但半个世纪前的《欢乐满人间》用真人演出结合动画效果，加上来自Sherman兄弟的十多首脍炙人口的插曲，的确是开创性的大成功。

（《大梦想家》也献给2013年初去世的作曲家Robert Sherman。

他的弟弟Richard Sherman担任本片的顾问。

）更不用提60年代的好莱坞大片场的制片专业水准，对著作权的尊重简直让人感动。

电影的最后，没有收到邀请函的Travers女士决定只身前往好莱坞，挽着米老鼠走进中国大剧院观看《欢乐满人间》的首映。

观影中她频频拭泪，像是深受感动。

据记载当年首映礼上Travers女士的确哭了，评论家争论说那恰恰是因为对电影的愤怒（Travers女士的遗嘱上特别有一条，如果有朝一日Mary Poppins被改编成舞台剧，不允许任何一个《欢乐满人间》电影的演职员参与。

）感动或者失望，除了P.L. Travers本人，还有谁知道呢？

一转眼，《欢乐满人间》也要出上映五十周年纪念款蓝光碟了。

也许那时候，她只是想起了20世纪刚开始的头几年，澳洲马尔堡松松散散的午时风，院子里的母鸡扑扇着翅膀跳过一条小水沟，逆光中年轻的父亲策马而来。

（已刊《南都娱乐周刊》，平媒勿转）

大梦想家（Saving Mr. Banks）---看到这部电影完全是个意外，但是影片结束时我不得不说，我太tm喜欢这部电影了。

电影是以双时间线跨时空交错叙事，讲的是Walt Disney为了完成对自己女儿的承诺，花了整整二十年时间说服自己最喜欢的女作家Mrs. Travers将小说《欢乐满人间》搬上电影屏幕的故事。

影片的视觉效果特别出色，一直是高饱和的温暖色调，好几处画面美得叫人浮想联翩。

可是这样的镜头下描绘的却是一个无比悲伤动人的故事，我是从头到尾哭着看完，到后半段早已泣不成声。。

艾玛·汤普森的表演几近完美，在Mrs. Travers不断闪回出现的回忆里，我们渐渐读懂了她的固执，严苛，独断和难以相处，看到她后面一点点的放下、释然、与世界和解，更重要的是与自己和解，相信每一位观众内心都深深为她感到欣喜。

而好莱坞选择Tom Hanks来演迪士尼先生也是再合适不过，一位是深受全世界小朋友爱戴的，一位是全世界成年人都喜欢的。

影片中编剧三人组（有时是四人组，迪士尼先生也时不时会加入进来）和女作家合作的戏份是全片最有趣的部分，几人总是小心翼翼的编写剧本以尽量贴近原著，可无论怎样都无法让老太太满意，在几位编剧出场时，我惊呼这不是“Office”里的Ryan嘛，简直像是闲逛时突然撞到多年未见的老熟人一般亲切😂另外，片中女作家的司机拉尔夫无疑也是电影中一处非常暖心的人物设置，戏份不多，但足够出彩影片的英文名称是《Saving Mr. Banks》，中文译名却是《大梦想家》，可究竟谁才是大梦想家呢？

In a word，如果满分是五颗星的话，我给这部电影六颗星！

一间被精心装饰成迪士尼风格、公仔满屋的房子本该令人惊喜，却让Mrs.Tavers徒生厌恶，她把娃娃们塞进衣橱把床上的Mickey移到墙角面壁。

一个人童年究竟承受了多大的苦痛才对本属于孩子的童真乐趣如此抗拒。

问题的根源在她父亲，Banks的原型。

父亲给她的感受是复杂的，父亲和她玩游戏、带着她天马行空地想象，可是她又目睹父亲在银行抓狂、在众人面前出丑摔倒骨折、卧病在床奄奄一息，可是她爱她的父亲，很爱，所以对父亲的离去如此自责难以释怀，连父亲想吃的梨都恨。

我喜欢这个古怪挑剔老太太，其实她不过是个小女孩。

在排演最后放风筝的结局时，你看她一开始严肃、然后放松了些、嘴角有了微笑、一只脚轻轻点地打节拍、两只脚跃跃欲试、最后受邀随音乐尽情舞蹈歌唱，仿佛回到了父亲相陪的快乐日子；首映会上，mickey挽着她入场，你看她对故事结局感慨流泪，可还嘴硬说是因为受不了被改成动画片。

迪士尼的成功之处就在于让小孩快乐、给大人安慰 heal adults。

在迪斯尼的动画和快乐中学习到了，积极乐观的精神。

这位女作家的父亲曾经也是乐观充满想象力的人。

生活蹉跎不幸让他压抑快乐生活，注意到，她的母亲是一个很犹豫愁眉苦脸的人。

最后父亲被负面的情绪吞噬了。

家里到处回荡着负面情绪了。

曾经喜欢梦幻和想象力的女作家，在父亲无法救活之后再也不相信生活的美好和积极这点让人很悲伤很悲伤。

知道快乐是可以感染和培养的。

迪斯尼的伙伴们在和她交流中，培养了快乐和乐观。

会发现迪斯尼里充满了快乐的正能量。

她的性格的转变是电影看点。

所有人都有办法拯救，从此乐观积极的生活下去。

生活可以困苦，迪斯尼先生说了自己童年的生活，比我们过得都困苦艰难。

但是他的梦想和正能量非常非常的强大。

让他把快乐以至于变成了一个源源不断输送快乐和想象力的能源工厂。

也许就是大梦想家这个名字的来源吧。

向大梦想家致敬。

Is ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ too hard on ‘Mary Poppins’ creator?DEC. 28, 2013 12 AM PTBYREBECCA KEEGANhttps://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-xpm-2013-dec-28-la-et-mn-disney-mary-poppins-saving-mr-banks-travers-20131228-story.htmlIn the winter of 1933, in a thatched cottage in Sussex, England, a complicated woman named Pamela “P.L.” Travers began to write “Mary Poppins,” the first in a series of novels that would inspire the beloved 1964 Walt Disney movie and supply generations of children with a magical fantasy nanny.The reality of Travers’ own turbulent childhood — and her reluctance as an adult to relinquish control over her characters to Walt Disney — are the subject of the movie “Saving Mr. Banks,” which has just gone into wide release. Directed by John Lee Hancock, “Saving Mr. Banks” follows Travers (Emma Thompson) as she travels to the Disney lot in Burbank for two weeks in 1961, tangling with and tormenting the studio chief (Tom Hanks). The L.A. visit inspires Travers to recall her childhood in Australia, in particular her father, a charismatic drunk played by Colin Farrell.Some critics have complained that “Saving Mr. Banks,” which Disney itself produced and distributed, is too hard on Travers and too easy on the company’s founder. Travers is cold, critical and strange — arbitrarily objecting, for instance, to having the color red in the movie and dismissing Disney’s “silly cartoons.” “Uncle Walt,” by contrast, is jovial and encouraging, with few flaws to speak of save for a bad smoker’s cough.ADVERTISEMENTVIDEO: ‘Saving Mr. Banks’: Watch cast, crew discuss the filmAlmost all of what appears in “Saving Mr. Banks” is true. Travers really did hector and frustrate the people at Disney, a fact substantiated by 39 hours of audio recordings of the author’s sessions with “Mary Poppins” screenwriter Don DaGradi, who is played here by Bradley Whitford, and songwriter brothers Richard Sherman (Jason Schwartzman) and Robert Sherman (B.J. Novak).But the makers of “Saving Mr. Banks” admit they took some liberties with Travers’ often tragic life story — they say they actually added a spoonful of sugarYour gift makes a difference in the lives of working dogs, handlers and those affected by disasters here and around the world.“[Travers] was an incredibly difficult person and actually much more difficult than she’s portrayed in the film,” said Kelly Marcel, who shares screenplay credit on the movie with Sue Smith. “But the more I found out about her childhood, the more I felt for her. A lot of children’s authors create these characters from places of tragedy and darkness. I felt it was a beautiful story even though she was an absolute pain.”Australian producer Ian Collie, who made a documentary about Travers in 2002, hatched the idea for a biopic about her, eventually involving independent producers in Britain, a path to the screen that was initially free of Disney input.“This was a script completely developed outside of Disney,” Hancock said. “It would have been difficult for this script to happen inside the studio walls.”Smith, an Australian writer, penned the first draft of the screenplay, which focused on Travers’ strange single-motherhood tale; in real life, the creator of one of fiction’s most beloved caregivers had promised to adopt twin boys, and at the last minute decided to raise only one, never telling him about his brother. (Travers’ son, Camillus, died in 2011, having eventually met his twin brother as an adult in a bar.)When Marcel came onto the project, she decided to leave out Camillus and split the script instead into a dual narrative, with one thread focused on Travers’ childhood, the other on two weeks of her decades-long feud with Disney. She also introduced a fictional character, an optimistic driver played by Paul Giamatti, with whom Travers finally shares a human moment.“I felt we didn’t have a bridge to her feelings,” Marcel said. “We need someone to like her.”Marcel’s script earned a spot on the Black List, a list of hot, unproduced screenplays circulating in Hollywood, which attracted the attention of executives at Disney — in reality the only studio that could have made a movie so laden with Disney intellectual property.“Once Disney bought the script, my big fear was, they’re going to try and sanitize Walt,” Marcel said. “There are going to be so many rules and stipulations, they’re going to say he can’t smoke, he can’t drink. And then they didn’t.”Instead Marcel got access to Disney’s vast archive, including the 39 hours of tapes, which Travers had demanded be made, and to Richard Sherman, who consulted on the movie.Sherman recalls Travers as frustrating and unkind. “The first thing [Travers] said to us was, ‘This is not going to be a musical,’ ” Sherman said, remembering the weeks he spent with Travers in 1961. “[“Saving Mr. Banks”] feels so real to me, it knots my stomach.”Marcel said one change the studio asked her to make to the movie, which is rated PG-13, was to remove a swear word. Disney is also not shown smoking but does stub out a cigarette in one scene.Disney — the man and his creations — have been the subject of interest in multiple media lately, including a critical opera by Philip Glass called “The Perfect American” and a dark independent movie shot surreptitiously at Disney World, “Escape From Tomorrow.”According to Hanks, the fact that “Saving Mr. Banks” is really about Travers, and only spent a narrow time frame on Disney, absolved it of having to deal with some of the more unsavory parts of Disney’s history, such as his role in Hollywood labor issues in the 1940s and his relationships with some well-known anti-Semites.“It was very prescribed what the screenplay was going to be,” Hanks said. “Everybody asks about the strike and the anti-Semitism. But by 1961 it was far enough in the past. He was at the studio and he was — I don’t want to say that he was beloved, but Walt was beloved.”Reviews for the film have mainly been more positive than negative, and Thompson has earned Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild nominations for her performance. But some critics have objected to what they consider a pro-Walt slant in a movie coming from the man’s own studio. LA Weekly’s Amy Nicholson wrote, “There’s something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control.”Marcel said she’s surprised by the critique. “I think I’m incredibly sympathetic toward [Travers] in this film,” Marcel said. “I don’t understand those reviews, but she’s a tricky character.”Disney never invited Travers to the “Mary Poppins” premiere, but she came anyway, afterward telling Disney they had “lots of work to do” to ready the film for release (Disney dismissed her). Privately she told friends she found the film too saccharine.“Kelly Marcel’s script poses a great what if,” Hancock said. “We know Travers didn’t care for the [“Mary Poppins”] movie. We know she wasn’t invited to the premiere. We know she didn’t care for the animation. We do know she cried at the premiere and nobody knows why. Kelly took that as an opportunity for a what if: What if these two weeks were a cathartic experience?”Travers spent her later years writing other novels, poetry and nonfiction (none as commercially successful as “Mary Poppins”) and pursuing an interest in various spiritual ideas, including the teachings of the mystic George Gurdjieff and Zen mysticism, before dying in London in 1996.Valerie Lawson, author of the Travers biography “Mary Poppins, She Wrote,” who has seen “Saving Mr. Banks,” defends its portrait of a difficult woman.“Travers was prickly, but she had good reason to be unhappy as she went through many private struggles and, in many ways, was a woman who could rely only on herself,” Lawson said. “She tried to keep her private life very private so it would have been very confronting for her to see, or even think of herself as a film character. Then again, if she was alive, I can’t see how the film could have been made at all.”--I heard that P.L. Travers ruined the lives of two boys. Is that true?https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/saving-mr-banks.phpThough it was not shown in the film, author P.L. Travers did not weave similar magical tales when it came to her personal life. In 1940, she became aware of a destitute family that she knew in Ireland who were looking for someone to adopt their infant identical twins. The children had been born to an irresponsible father and an inept mother, and were in the care of their grandparents who were having trouble coping with the responsibility of raising four children. They arranged for a family friend from London, Pamela Lyndon Travers, to adopt both of the infant twins, at least that was their understanding. Travers was approaching her 40th birthday and had given up hope on finding a lasting relationship that might produce biological children. She was attracted to the literary lineage of the twins.

Trying to choose between two identical twins, P.L. Travers selected her adopted son Camillus based on advice from her astrologer. She refuseTrying to choose between two identical twins, P.L. Travers selected her adopted son Camillus based on advice from her astrologer. She refused to take them both.The twins were the grandchildren of Joseph Hone, an Irish writer and the biographer of poet W.B. Yeats, Travers's idol whom she knew personally. Upon her arrival in Ireland, Travers chose to adopt only Camillus Hone, but not his twin brother Anthony, subsequently splitting up the pair. She based which one to choose on the advice of her astrologer, who had advised her to select the first-born boy. While Camillus Hone (pictured at right with Travers in the 1940s) was whisk off to a life of wealth and privilege in London, his brother Anthony was left to be cared for by neglectful relatives. "Pamela Travers saw herself as Mary Poppins and thought she could play Poppins with poor little Camillus," says the boys' oldest brother, Joseph Hone. "I don't think Travers was fit to bring up children." Appalled by her new son crying at night, at one point Travers considered sending the infant to a babies home in Tunbridge Wells. She eventually got along better with the child, but still shipped him off to boarding school while she continued to focus on her career. -Telegraph.co.ukThe twins reunited at age seventeen when Tony showed up unannounced on P.L. Travers's doorstep to meet his brother Camillus. Travers had previously told Camillus that he was her own and that his father had died of an accident in the colonies where he was a wealthy sugar magnate. The two brothers had little in common other than a fondness for alcohol and would only see each other occasionally in the years that followed. Camillus eventually developed a drinking problem and spent six months in prison after being arrested for driving drunk without a license. His twin brother Anthony would also develop an alcohol problem, which would cost him his family and his career in public relations. Prior to Anthony's death, his ex-wife Frances would tend to his basic needs as she listened to him "moaning" about his brother's good fortune. -DailyMail.co.ukIronically, Camillus's widow, also named Frances, says that he had been left "disappointed and sad" after being made aware that he had been plucked from his natural family. "He would have liked to belong to them because they were artistic and interesting, and as he grew up he didn't have any brothers, sisters or aunts and uncles, or a Daddy — only her." -DailyMail.co.uk