MovieChat Forums > Mary Poppins (1965) Discussion > P.L. Travers

P.L. Travers

posted 9 years ago by Camelot_2000
21 replies | jump to latest

From what I read in the IMDb trivia and elsewhere on the net for this movie, she sounded like a cranky and chronically unsatisfied woman who can never be pleased. She hated the Walt Disney version of her book, hated the songs and always gave strict consultations on how her works should be adapted to the movie screen and musical theatre versions.

It also took Disney several years to get her agreement for the film. She sounded very stubborn and was obviously very difficult to deal with. She should've been proud and satisfied with the Disney adaptation considering it won 5 Oscars and was a major success, but no, it didn't meet up to her standards for some negative reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come to Middle-Earth, a world beyond the furthest reaches of your imagination

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago

I read part of an interview with her late in life, and while her opinion of the movie didn't change, her attitude was more like, "eh, I guess it wasn't...THAT bad." So it went from 'hated' to 'disliked'.
But yeah, she was a real sow all her life.

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

I am on her side all the way. She was totally right. Disney betrayed her, lied to her, tricked her. He Just wanted money. He promised her no animation and lied. And promised nothing happens without her say. He tricked her. So I'm with Travers entirely.

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

Yay for you, KSF! I completely agree!!

Well, one little difference: I don't think Disney only wanted money; I think he was genuine (to his own understanding of the word) in wanting to make a film of Mary Poppins. But he (and his team) were just as set in their own ways as Travers was, and Disney was not used to anyone saying no to him. I admire a lot of Traver's writing, particularly her academic work in mythopoeics, and what I can't forgive is how the Disney Coroporation assassinated her character and tried to turn her into a laughing-stock, for decades. And this latest film really doesn't redress the ba;ance at all.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] gcarras (2726) 2 years ago

Me thinks KSF hates Disney stuff, even though she/he does have a point (like another filmed by J.L.Hancock, Ray Kroc, as in The Founder, and I will agree with you both Kroc and Disney lied, but it couldn't be any other way. I will admit the next mentioned animation producer involved with Mickey's historical predecessor, who inspired his Julius the Cat, also sort of Lied to Pat Sullivan for the bottom revival for the earliest cartoon superstar).

Guess you must also hate Joe Oriolo for his baby boomer era take (popular at the same time) of Felix the Cat, with the magic bag, and Lee Mendelson and Bill Melendez's PEANUTS specials, and you do not consider them canon.BTW what about Disney's recent (2018-19) Mary Poppins Returns with Emilies Blunt & Mortimer, Ben Wishaw, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Colin Firth, and thre talented children as the Banks, whcih is more faithful to the Travers nanny, and Emily certainly gave it her all?

How about David L.Wolper regards Roald Dahl on 1971's WILLY WONKA, directed by Mel Stuart with Gene Wilder..Roald did write it, but it's said, let's just say, he would have likely preferred Tim Burton's WOnka take,with Johnny Depp (Dahl died in 1990, before Burton did his WOnka.)

[–] gcarras (2726) 2 years ago

PS In another post that I answered, of yours, as I recall already reading years ago, you DID start out saying that you loved the film (BUT..)

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

And she would have liked the musical more. Cameron Mackintosh followed her wishes. Didn't lie to her.

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

she sounded like a cranky and chronically unsatisfied woman who can never be pleased

No, she wasn't. That's the Disney version of the story, which for decades has painted Disney as benevolent and patient and Travers as difficult and obnoxious and foolish.

Disney promised her that he wanted her input in the film, and that he would be making a movie of *her* Mary Poppins. Neither one was true. So when Travers went to LA she had misgivings but was actually enthusiastic about the process. She was a very authoritarian woman by nature, and her mistake was in not understanding film culture and the process of making a movie and not understanding (at first, anyway) why her ideas didn't fit with the Disney way of working. But she certainly wasn't stupid or ill-willed. The Disney team didn't understand her either, and were in fact incredibly patronising of her. They behaved like she was supposed to just fall at their feet and agree with everything they suggested, which was pretty arrogant.

In the end, the film is wonderful in its own right, and it's one of my two favourite Disney films. But it's absolutely *not* the Mary Poppins that P.L. Travers wrote, and since that's what she was promised, it's fair enough that she fought for it.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

She may have been difficult, but her fears for what Disney might do to her books was justified. Whatever you think of the film, it bears very little resemblance to the books, and sweet, smiley Julie Andrews is nothing like mary Poppins as visualised by Travers.

[–] phillindholm 8 years ago

If you take the money, don't cry in your tea.

[–] sroy2001 8 years ago

At least Disney made an attempt to soften the character to make her a a little more palatable for the 1960's child demographic. Travers' Poppins was darker,sterner and had innuendos of black magic and wizardry. That kind of character would work today because kids are more desensitized to it.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

I stand behind P.L. Travers in every way. Travers was right. Disney was wrong. Just wanting money. He was a King wanting Mary Poppins as another golden brick in his wall. He didn't care she was honoring her father. He didn't care about anything, Just getting money. Even changing her sweet, loving, kind father into his stern, strict cruel mustached father. Which was not right. He even went against violation of the tape recording promises. And then he backstabbed her by not inviting her to the premiere. He was a bad man. A genius. But a man. I stand by Travers.

[–] marktayloruk (2374) 2 years ago

I would hardly describe the father in those terms - pompous at worst. If Mary of the film.had been like the original character would it have done as well?

[–] Picnic10 8 years ago

Presumably she didn't get an Oscar out of it though. Without her there was no inspiration for the character. She was a serious woman of integrity, not an actress who changes their outlook to suit the audience.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

It doesn't matter what suits the audience. What matters is what is close to an author's heart. And her father is what was close to her heart. He destroyed her father. Mr. Banks is HER father. Not his. He can't Just take a character and make him resemble his father because he wants it. Mr. Banks was Pamela's father. He gave her father a second death.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

i doubt that mary Poppins actually based mr. Banks on her father. in the books, he is a pleasant but quite ordinary sort of man, and he and Mrs banks are really background figures. mr banks is not central to the stories at all.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

Uh,yes, she did base Mr. Banks on her own father. I don't know where you read otherwise but he IS her father. They were both bankers and both kind loving men. No. Mr. Banks IS Travers Goff.

[–] gcarras (2726) 2 years ago

I love KS,too, but would she feel the same way as do you on MP?

[–] bond_98 8 years ago

Frankly i don't think Her version of Mary Poppin would have been all that successful. Her version seemed to be about a rude, mean spirited, strict and bitchy old lady. How many kids (or their parents) are going to flock to the theaters for that. She seems more like a villain in a kids movie. Not the main protagonist. If anything Disney made Mary Poppins tolerable for the general public. Hell i don't think anyone today would even be talking about Mary Poppins without this movie. I think there's no denying that her father's death screwed her up real good. So bad that her own Grandchildren didn't even show up for her funeral.

[–] phillindholm 8 years ago

Travers WAS a rude, mean spirited, strict and bitchy old lady. Coincidence?.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

She wrote how it was in real life. That's number one. #2: Her books were selling very well before Disney did the film. Disney destroyed her work. He pretty stole it too. I mean, yeah, she sold him the rights. But the title should've been:

P.L. Travers'
Mary Poppins

SCREENED BY: Walt Disney

But no. Hardly anybody knows who she is now. They think Disney wrote Mary Poppins. No. This innocent hurt lady wrote Mary Poppins and her work and her honor to her beloved father was destroyed by this Hollywood Movie Tyrant Just after money. A King Midas wanting her Mary Poppins as another brick in his wall. So no, her books were selling well. And even if it was about a bitchy old lady, that's how it was in real life. Travers experienced all of it. Mary Poppins was based on a person SHE KNEW. She was Just putting her experience to paper.

And now they're about to ruin her even more. She wrote in her will that neither Disney nor any other film studios were to ever ever bring her Mary Poppins books to screen ever. It's written specifically in her will. Yet, the estate has gone against that, given the rights to Disney again and they're gonna ruin it some more by making a sequel with Emily Blunt. It's Just evil how Disney and the film world wants to make poor P.L. Travers suffer. She can't even rest in peace because her work is out there being destroyed and her father will never be saved because Disney gave him a second death.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] liscarkat (16434) 5 years ago

Travers was an unpleasant woman who wrote unpleasant books (yes, I've read them). Disney improved on them. Like it or lump it.