Danielle's Corner: Literature vs. Film, England vs. America, Authenticity vs. Corporations, Travers vs. Disney

I grew up in a generation where literacy was declining at a rapid rate.  Not many children in the 1990s liked to read.  So literature was forced on us.  I can't say I minded it, being a book lover all of my life.  Our teachers would give us books at the end of the year and we had reading time and reading days and guest authors visiting twice a year and summer reading challenges...the list could go on and on.  All of this was done to encourage students to read and to teach them that reading is fun!  Kids still seemed to enjoy the television more though.  And who could blame them?  The 1990s is also known for the incredibly well thought out entertainment that was distributed.  Sure kids may not have liked books but they liked Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel and the Disney movies that were being released.  Why would kids need books when shows like Pokemon and The Wild Thornberry's were on TV?  Why would kids need books when Disney was at the peak of their best era yet?  This isn't to say that 90s kids were couch potatoes.  I mean, besides TV, movies and the awesome video game consoles and our brand new computer, my brother and I spent a great deal outside bike riding and trying to shoot our own movies with our father's video camera.  We went to the pool almost every day during the summer months and made obstacle courses in our driveway.  My friends and I choreographed our own dance moves to Backstreet Boys songs, played board games and did arts and crafts.  It wasn't until Harry Potter was published that kids got back into the spirit of reading.  The seven books series truly changed literature as we know it today.
I think it is safe to say that I grew up as a child from both sides of the spectrum.  Yes I grew up with all of this media which I loved and still do love but I also grew up loving books and reading.  As I grew older, I became aware of this war that goes on between the two mediums and even participated in it a time or two.  The war is between books and movies/TV.  Which of the two are better?  But the argument goes deeper than just that and it is Saving Mr. Banks that takes this argument from a true story and fashions it in a unique way to create a fantastic film that isn't afraid to talk about both sides of the argument rather than be biased toward one specific point. 
As a rule, a lover of books is taught to hate their film adaptations.  I can most definitely say that there are movies out there that do no justice to the books they share the same title with.  Hollywood always seems to disappoint me when it comes to adapting a book into a movie.  I'm not disappointed that every little detail is missing.  I'm disappointed because Hollywood often moves the stories they adapt into a certain direction to make money and for the sake of financial things like paying the actors and stuff.  The written word has a lot more freedom than the screen though and while I get upset a lot, I also understand why certain choices need to be made.  Clearly the actors need to get paid.  When it comes to Disney though, I leave my bookish self and enter a whole different spectrum of the argument.  I defend the movie adaptations!  Believe it or not, this is something I have wrestled with.  Art is important to me and I often ponder about why art is made and how it should be made and why it is important.  I feel hypocritical when bashing the Harry Potter films yet rejoicing over a Disney movie that was adapted from an incredible piece of literature that fans say is dehumanized and fluffy now that Disney came into the picture.

Saving Mr. Banks seems to be my own swan song in a way because this was a film that truly took a look at this argument. The main focus of the film was P.L. Travers vs. Walt Disney but the debate went so much deeper than that.  Underneath that layer is the authenticity vs. corporations argument - that P.L. Travers wants to keep her work honest and true instead of adding another brick into Walt Disney's money machine kingdom.  Then we stoop down another layer into the England vs. America debate.  P.L. Travers leaves her relaxed and slow moving jolly ole England for the fast paced and impersonal land of the free.  And then the final layer of the film and the film's heart seems to lie in the literature vs. film debate.  Which is better?
Three things I concluded from these three comparisons.  Walt Disney trumps two of these debates.  Toward the end of the film, when Walt comes to visit Pamela at her home, he brings himself to her level and shows that he too is trying to tell a good story in his movies.  Yes he makes money but he is doing so while he tries to make a genuinely good product.  Yes the film may be a bit too happy but for Disney, making people smile was all the joy he could ask for.  He wanted to bring out the child in everyone.  Secondly, Walt Disney breaks the impersonal land of the free stereotype by staying on a first name basis with his employees.  He knows every one of them by name...seemingly, who knows if that was true but I hope it was...and takes the time to get to know people.  He shows people respect and tries to make his company a relaxed and creative environment as it should be.
And my final conclusion, and the biggest conclusion I came to, is that in the end both film and literature are great mediums.  I love films.  I love books.  No, I will never love the Harry Potter movies but I will always love the Dark Knight trilogy and Mrs. Doubtfire and of course, Disney movies.  And I will always love my books.
This film gave me a sense of closure by the end and it is strange to say that I was indeed a different person when I left the theater.