Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saving Mr. Disney
The Weekly Standard ^ | 1-20-14 | John Podhoretz

Posted on 01/20/2014 4:31:38 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic

The year is 1961.

A wonderful and kind and nice and glorious man named Walt Disney must convince a mean and nasty and crazy woman named P.L. Travers to allow him and his movie studio to do something really nice for his children and your children and everyone’s children. Our hero—call him Walt, everybody does, except P.L. Travers, because she’s mean and nasty and insists on “Mr. Disney”—wants to make a movie out of Travers’s book Mary Poppins, because he promised his kids he would, and a man never backs out on his promise to his kids. P.L. Travers is crazy because she doesn’t want him to do it and tries to sabotage the project by insisting he shouldn’t do it the way he knows it should be done. Unfortunately for all that is wonderful and nice and good, the crazy mean woman owns the rights because she happens to be the creator of Mary Poppins.

This is the plot of Saving Mr. Banks, starring Tom Hanks as Walt Disney and Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers. It is a strange plot, because we know that Disney will prevail and the classic movie we’re seeing in chrysalis will, in three years’ time, become a beautiful butterfly starring Julie Andrews—the 25th-most-successful movie ever made. The sketches we see on the wall in the Disney studio office of the songwriting Sherman brothers look exactly like the Edwardian London that would soon appear in Mary Poppins (1964). We watch the Sherman brothers conceive “A Spoonful of Sugar.” We hear one of them play the melody to “Chim Chim Cher-ee.” We are meant to swoon when they and the screenwriter dance with Travers to “Let’s Go Fly a Kite.” Mary Poppins the movie is all there, including the notion of casting Dick Van Dyke as...

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Arts/Photography; Books/Literature; Music/Entertainment; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: hollywood; marypoppins; moviereview; pltravers; tomhanks; waltdisney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
John Podhoretz certainly must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed the day he wrote this. What a sour puss!

First of all, the movie is delightful. My husband and I loved it. My daughter and her husband loved it. My teen-aged grandchildren loved it. I'll never think of Walt Disney again without seeing Tom Hanks.

The movie also has a very serious theme about the deleterius and long-term effect alcoholism has on the alcoholic's family.

It also treats Ms. Travers very gently, considering her very strange life and persona. Look her up.

1 posted on 01/20/2014 4:31:38 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Holy moly, you are right! I usually like Podhoretz’s reviews, but this one’s like a screed. Who writes a screed against an innocuous movie like “Saving Mr. Banks”? Even if it’s all nonsense, who cares?

Evidently John Podhoretz does. This is probably the strangest movie review I’ve ever read.

I’d like to see that movie too, I love “Mary Poppins”, it’s the first movie I remember seeing and my whole family LOVED it.


2 posted on 01/20/2014 4:43:36 AM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Walt Disney was a GREAT man.....Tom Hanks is a Leftie Actor that is a HUGE Obama supporter. Why would you want to think of Tom Hanks....EVER?

The Left ALWAYS tries to bring down DECENT people......this is just another easy mark for them since he's dead.

3 posted on 01/20/2014 4:51:05 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

WIKI Although P.L Travers was an adviser to the Disney production, she disapproved of the dilution of the harsher aspects of Mary Poppins’ character, felt ambivalent about the music, and so hated the use of animation that she ruled out any further adaptations of the later Mary Poppins novels.[12]

At the film’s star-studded première (to which she was not invited, but had to ask Walt Disney for permission to attend), she reportedly approached Disney and told him that the animated sequence had to go.[13] Disney responded by walking away, saying as he did, “Pamela, the ship has sailed.”[13]

Enraged at what she considered shabby treatment at Disney’s hands, Travers would never again agree to another Poppins/Disney adaptation, though Disney made several attempts to persuade her to change her mind.

So fervent was Travers’ dislike of the Disney adaptation and of the way she felt she had been treated during the production, that when producer Cameron Mackintosh approached her about the stage musical when she was into her 90s, she acquiesced on the condition that only English-born writers and no one from the film production were to be directly involved with creating the stage musical.

This specifically excluded the Sherman Brothers from writing additional songs for the production, even though they were still very prolific. However, original songs and other aspects from the 1964 film were allowed to be incorporated into the production. These points were stipulated in her last will and testament.


4 posted on 01/20/2014 4:54:30 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

I am aware that Hanks is a lefty, and I have vowed to never see his films again several times. BUT, you have to admit that he is a terrific actor and able to portray a wide range of different characters believably, unlike many in Hollyweird who just play the same character over and over again. Hanks is outstanding in this particular film. You come away very sympathetic for the long-suffering Disney in his negotiations with Travers.

As a ‘lefty’, Hanks could have made Disney look like a right wing jerk, or worse, in subtle ways as the left loves to portray WD. Instead, you come away loving Disney and appreciating him as a hero.


5 posted on 01/20/2014 5:01:15 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Oh, do quote some of the other, more salacious, details of Travers’ life from Wiki. She was a very odd woman whose life was airbrushed in the film.


6 posted on 01/20/2014 5:05:13 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I thought the movie was excellent, and a wonderful recreation of 1961 LA, using the original locations (a triumph in ever-changing LA). Hate to disagree with him in this one review.


7 posted on 01/20/2014 5:08:32 AM PST by Moonmad27 ("I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." Jessica Rabbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
I was surprised to see that Podhoretz wrote this review. I generally enjoy, agree with or at least respect his political opinions, but haven't previously read a movie review that he'd written.

For what it's worth, I've not seen either movie. Mary Poppins may be a classic, beloved film, but it just doesn't appeal to me. Could be that I'd love it, but I have no desire to invest the time to find out. On the other hand, my wife and I have been planning to see Saving Mr. Banks, despite our disappointment with Mr HANKS' liberal delusions.

One thing that stood out in the review was Mr. Podhoretz's slam on Disney movies of that era. Was he judging them in the context of the times, or comparing them with more modern movies? I saw quite a few Disney movies as a kid, and usually found them entertaining and/or just as well-made as anything else of the era.

Knocking The Shaggy Dog or The Absent-Minded Professor? Heck, even Old Yeller and Bambi taught me that it was ok to cry

Lighten up, John Podhoretz!

8 posted on 01/20/2014 5:08:45 AM PST by DJ Frisat ((optional, printed after my name on post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
The studio’s forays into live-action filmmaking before Mary Poppins were mostly labored, obvious, and embarrassing: They included such cringe-inducing fare as Swiss Family Robinson (1960), The Shaggy Dog (1959), and The Absent-Minded Professor (1961).

I see John Podhoretz wasn't born until 1961, so he can't have seen those movies when they came out. I was a little kid, and remember going to all of those, and loved them. They were supposed to be silly, they were kids movies for God's sake, and they were commercially successful. To hear John tell it, Disney never did anything good before or after Mary Poppins. But Disney also dominated early television every Sunday night with The Wonderful World of Disney.

9 posted on 01/20/2014 5:09:19 AM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonmad27

I wish that the reviews would stop portraying this film as some light-hearted depiction of Disney films. It had a much more serious, poignent theme — the effect of alcoholism on innocent members of the family and others. And how it continues through the generations.

I read up on P.L. Travers who ended up having a very unhappy life. She basically disinherited her only child and left her money to to her daughter in law with a fixed allowance for her son.

It was only because of the grace, generosity, and perserverance of Mr. Disney that she had any money to leave at all.


10 posted on 01/20/2014 5:16:43 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Delightful is the word. Saw it yesterday afternoon and it was beautifully uncomfortable, resolving just as you would hope it would. Podhoretz is a curmudgeon.


11 posted on 01/20/2014 5:26:17 AM PST by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ Frisat

His review totally ignores the film’s powerful portrayal of her alcoholic father, It explain s much about her personality,


12 posted on 01/20/2014 5:36:19 AM PST by Dansong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I saw the movie a couple of weeks ago. It is an example of superb movie making.

An excellent movie in every respect.

I like Podhoretz, but he’s off the mark here.


13 posted on 01/20/2014 5:40:13 AM PST by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ Frisat
"could be that I'd love it"

I thought I might like it too when it appeared on tv a month or so ago. I hated it. And I used to like Disney flicks. Travers was right to protest the ruining of her book.

14 posted on 01/20/2014 5:42:04 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Is it ok to say that John Podhoretz is Jewish?

Without belaboring the obvious, this is the reason for this hit piece. Can’t blame him. But it is not an honest review, it is colored with Mr Podhoretz hatred for things antisemitic.


15 posted on 01/20/2014 5:46:28 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Podhoretz has never had any business being a film reviewer. He’s completely incompetent at this job. And it’s not just because I, too, enjoyed this movie. He’s a bum of a movie critic. He’s just lucky hat he rode into journalism on the tailcoats of his father, Norman.

Having been to the Disney Studios (a relative worked there), I can tell you that is WAS heaven on earth. Every corridor is lined with the original art work of Disney and his genius artists. The grounds are gorgeous - and the canteen!

The 60s were a wonderful time for Disney entertainment. How dare he make fun of the Flubber movies! It was those movies that made Paul Lynde’s career (before he went off the rails, he was an hilarious actor). Disney brought British actors like Patrick McGoohan, Peter McEnery, Hayley Mills and Susan Hampshire to the American public in the 1960s.

He made Julie Andrews a star when another studio passed her over in favor of the wonderful but miscast Audrey Hepburn.

Mary Poppins, Pollyanna, the Flubber movies, The Jungle Book, 100 and 1 Dalmations! All created in the 60s.

This guy should be fired.


16 posted on 01/20/2014 5:47:35 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

I know what you’re saying, Vaquero. I don’t know anything about Disney’s anti-Semitism (and how deep it was or how it affected anything in America) but he was an extraordinary artist and visionary who should be praised not destroyed.

I expect Meryl Streep will next step up to the plate. Gee, I guess we should be happy she wasn’t cast as PL Travers. Another opportunity for this actress to show her only real talent - mimicry.


17 posted on 01/20/2014 5:58:23 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Liz: did you know that Barnes & Noble stores will not sell PL Travers? This is because the returns of the books are enormous. Parents buy them thinking that they are just like the movie and then discover how unpleasant Ms. Poppins is! My parents bought me the books after I saw the movie - and I hated them, lol!


18 posted on 01/20/2014 6:01:50 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Walt Disney had more talent in his little finger than John Podhoretz will ever have. I have not seen the Saving Mr. Banks, but growing up almost every movie my parents took me to was a Disney movie. And I loved them.

I remember as a young boy seeing 101 Dalmatians, Swiss Family Robinson and The Absent Minded Professor at the movies and I loved them. I remember watching the Wonderful World of Disney on Sunday night and loving that too. Disney's animation set the standard. His movies such as Fantasia are truly masterpieces.

In fact, I even liked Mary Poppins which my mom took me to see in the movies one afternoon. My wife used to kid me and say I must have been a real nerd to have liked Mary Poppins.

Walt Disney made great movies for kids. That was his talent. Just before and after his death, the studio he founded almost went bankrupt without Walt's guidance. For someone like John Podhoretz to call Walt Disney mediocre is ridiculous.

19 posted on 01/20/2014 6:12:16 AM PST by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Like I said, I can’t blame the author. I am not in his position so I can only empathize from afar.
I use to shoot in matches with a friend who was a black conservative (he has since past). I emailed a ‘hit piece article’ to all my shooting club against the current _resident when he was running for office in ‘08. I got an EFFF YOU reply from him. He was not going to take anybody bad mouthing and preventing a black president from getting elected no mater if he was a MARXIST POS.

I understood from afar why he needed to vote for the guy. I still do. But it is no reason to vote for someone.


20 posted on 01/20/2014 6:15:31 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DJ Frisat

“One thing that stood out in the review was Mr. Podhoretz’s slam on Disney movies of that era.”

I know! I’ve never seen the shaggy dog, but I’m sure I’ve seen the absent-minded professor.

As I recall (and I was a little kid, so who knows) Disney was always successful and made movies the whole family could enjoy. I don’t think anybody (Disney included) saw them as works of art, they were just entertainment, which is a fine thing to be quite frankly. That’s the lesson of “Sullivan’s Travels” which, if you’ve never seen it, is a great movie.

Oy, and he seems to take it all soooooo seriously. Very strange.


21 posted on 01/20/2014 6:17:44 AM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

“A Spoonful of Sugar.” — The stirring ballad of soft Fascism.


22 posted on 01/20/2014 6:34:28 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Yeesh. The song has nothing to do with facism. It is about finding enjoyment in one’s own work, not about imposing social authority.


23 posted on 01/20/2014 6:44:03 AM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

And “Feed the Birds” has nothing to do with socialism?


24 posted on 01/20/2014 6:45:29 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

yes.


25 posted on 01/20/2014 7:02:59 AM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
Liz: did you know that Barnes & Noble stores will not sell PL Travers? This is because the returns of the books are enormous. Parents buy them thinking that they are just like the movie and then discover how unpleasant Ms. Poppins is! My parents bought me the books after I saw the movie - and I hated them, lol!

Sounds to me that perhaps Tim Burton may have been a better fit!

26 posted on 01/20/2014 7:03:14 AM PST by To Hell With Poverty (Ephesians 6:12 becomes more real to me with each news cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

Well, of course, my real point is that Podheretz shouldn’t even be in the business of reviewing movies. He was a NY Post political editorialist as I remember and then suddenly he was moved to movies. But then The Times takes food critics and makes them political pundits. Go figure.

In any case, he is one of Disney’s most famous characters: a maroon!


27 posted on 01/20/2014 7:08:03 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Feed the Birds - a most beautiful song - is about charity. Sheesh. Some freepers have socialism on the brain morning, noon and night.


28 posted on 01/20/2014 7:09:34 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

And “Chim-chim-cheree” isn’t the glorification of the working man?


29 posted on 01/20/2014 7:11:55 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I took my daughter to see it last night. It was a well designed and thoughtful movie. I’d recommend it. Easy.


30 posted on 01/20/2014 7:12:27 AM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

You are engaging in satire, right?


31 posted on 01/20/2014 7:12:40 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Wasn’t it terrible that the little boy invested his money in the bank (you remember Dick Van Dyke playing the wheezing old capitalist singing about railroads and industry)?

The old lady in the park died because he didn’t give her a tuppance to feed the birds.


32 posted on 01/20/2014 7:17:05 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

As a ‘lefty’, Hanks could have made Disney look like a right wing jerk, or worse, in subtle ways as the left loves to portray WD. Instead, you come away loving Disney and appreciating him as a hero.


I’m still shocked that he did “Return with Honor.”


33 posted on 01/20/2014 7:22:08 AM PST by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Why do you need a fire extinguisher when you can call the fire department?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Nothing, except in your mind.


34 posted on 01/20/2014 7:23:36 AM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Oh, why don’t you just go fly a kite!


35 posted on 01/20/2014 7:26:52 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

There is an anti-semetic meme being pushed against Disney in the hollyweird dung heap. I think it is because Diney’s power house status threatens somebody and this is the best they can do to torture the dead.

Frankly I think Marry Poppins the movie is a vast improvement over the dark and dreary books. I also think the meme makes no sense at all given his working collegues and friends.

I DO think it makes sense for them to attack Disney because he was very anti union after he was attacked in california.

Disney World exists because California is stuck on stupid.


36 posted on 01/20/2014 7:26:55 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
P.L. Travers needed to take Ernest Hemmingway's advice on turning your book into a Hollywood Movie.

"You throw them your book, they throw you the money, then you jump into your car and drive like hell back the way you came."
37 posted on 01/20/2014 7:27:27 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ Frisat
Heck, even Old Yeller and Bambi taught me that it was ok to cry

She never cried when old Yeller died

So do you think I'll cry when she's gone?

Confederate Railroad - She Never Cried

38 posted on 01/20/2014 7:29:54 AM PST by JoeFromSidney (itYe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
My parents bought me the books after I saw the movie - and I hated them, lol!

My experience was just the opposite. I had read and loved all of the Poppins books before the movie ever came out. I liked the movie but was very disappointed that it was not really Mary Poppins!

39 posted on 01/20/2014 7:31:39 AM PST by mollynme (cogito, ergo freepum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mollynme

Well, there’s that side of it, too. I’m sure English schoolchildren were disappointed in the Disney movie.


40 posted on 01/20/2014 7:34:37 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Would that the Disney studios of today, made children's "entertainment" for children, the way Walt Disney used to!

Gay, anti-parent, anti-American, perverts today have ruined not only the "entertainment" geared to children but even the name! IMHO

Loved Disney (spent much of his youth in Kansas City, including going to the same school my mother attended), loved and looked forward to Sunday nights and the Wonderful World of Disney.

Am I correct in thinking Johnny Tremaine was a Disney TV project?

41 posted on 01/20/2014 7:38:38 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

My favorite? Twenty thousand leagues under the Sea, then the Story of Davy Crockett.

Disney made some good ones! Then he died and the studio never, in my mind, ever made a good one since. Too many duds line Super Dad.


42 posted on 01/20/2014 8:00:19 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
It's good to see a movie once in a while that is not chock-full of gratuitous profanity, nudity, violence and the like.

As for Tom Hanks being left-wing and whatnot, I check my politics at the door when entering a movie-house. If I had to apply a litmus test to every film I saw, I'd be limited to a few documentaries, horrid adaptations of "Atlas Shrugged", and Hobbit type fare.

So the movie did not portray P L Travers accurately...so what? If you are going to have a successful movie based on a true story, artistic license must be taken. The movie would not be the same if it ended with Disney telling Travers "that ship has sailed" at the premiere and having her storm away - never speaking to Disney again.

So ironically, the character P L Travers had to be sugarcoated just like her Mary Poppins had to be sugarcoated - in order to appeal to a wide movie audience.

43 posted on 01/20/2014 8:03:31 AM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
BUT, you have to admit that he is a terrific actor

I have often wondered why it is that people are lionized for pretending to be something else (acting).

They are elevated as heroes, far above those who die in combat for the sake of this country.

I remember when Tom Hanks made "Philadelphia". I suppose he acted well; but it was one of the first movies to normalize homosexuality. So which is to be weighted more heavily...praise for the acting or criticism for the message?

44 posted on 01/20/2014 8:06:45 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Weighted most heavily...Criticism for participating in the film...(Philadelphia).... no matter how good the acting was.


45 posted on 01/20/2014 8:15:05 AM PST by kjam22 (my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

Agree.


46 posted on 01/20/2014 8:16:13 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

***Loved Disney (spent much of his youth in Kansas City, including going to the same school my mother attended), loved and looked forward to Sunday nights and the Wonderful World of Disney.***

You never hear about Disney’s work on the old OSWALD THE RABBIT cartoons.
In the days of Black and White, didn’t Disney’s show come on Wednesday night on ABC, then he moved to NBC so he could broadcast it in color.

Didn’t some TV show called THE YELLOW RED ROAD try to compete with Disney in the 1960s?

Old memories that linger in my heart....


47 posted on 01/20/2014 8:17:12 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

The Scarecrow starring Patrick McGoohan!


48 posted on 01/20/2014 8:50:27 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
I see John Podhoretz wasn't born until 1961, so he can't have seen those movies when they came out.

I wonder about his childhood, I'm not that much older but my parents introduced me to all sorts of fare, including the great comedians(when there actually quite a few vs,. the multitude of foul mouthed morons we have now)and not just popular entertainment. I have worked with many people not that much younger than me that have no appreciation for anything but the current THING.

49 posted on 01/20/2014 9:15:29 AM PST by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Acting is a job — not a character reference. Tom Hanks is an extremely skilled actor who is able to play widely varying characters and make them believable. There is nothing heroic about that.

There are other actors (John Hurt, Sylvester Stallone, and Bruce Willis come to mind) who play the same character over and over again, barely changing the expression on their faces. They are not heros either — just less competent.

The actor does not choose the message in his vehicle — movie or play. The message is chosen by the writers and the director.


50 posted on 01/20/2014 9:17:42 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson