Wednesday, September 16, 2015
I am shocked at the reluctance people have to believe Walt Disney himself, when he expressed how much he suffered for his father's abuse, yes, abuse, having nightmares throughout his life about forgetting newspapers and being punished. The fear of seeing the obvious, that is, seeing how much Walt Disney suffered, being the sensitive, hiper creative person that he was, going through sleep deprivation as a 9 year old, "passing out" during newspaper delivery in the cold winter of Kansas City, having even got Roy to intervene and tell him not to take another beating from his father, when he was already fourteen... Honestly, this fear is obviously due to the fact that, as a source of happiness and inspiration for the family institution, people think that the man himself could not suffer, or have family problems. Walt Disney, besides being a human being, was a genius; was oversensitive. Shall we, at least, believe his own words and reasons for repeated nightmares through life? Or shall we say he was a liar? Is it so difficult to understand that the fact that a creator of joy and fun suffers, or is able to suffer, does not put a stain in all the happiness he generated, but, very much the contrary, only make it more valuable, as well as its own creator? Haven't you read, in Thomas and Johnston animation bible, that when Walt acted out evil and aggression, one could see he'd experienced it first hand, from his own father???? And even if all the kids in the country were treated, by their fathers, the way Walt Disney was, by his, he, being Walt Disney, would still have suffered. He expressed it himself, loving Elias or not. Pain, or suffering, you all may be sure, is an integral part of such creative person's inspiration, and not something to be ashamed of, not a "stain" in his creativity. The French totally understand and understood it, in the beautiful exhibition at the Grand Palais, in Paris. One more thing, to illustrate my point: if one thinks that Walt did not suffer so much, because it was common in those days for fathers to beat their children, should one also think that at the time of slavery, no slave should suffer, since slavery was "common", as well as abuse of slaves???? What type of "logic" is that? Shall we read a little more Freud?...
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
I am thinking of the Celtic soul in "Saving Mr Banks". It is mentioned by Pamela's father, when he tells his little daughter that this world is an illusion, and as long as she didn't forget that, he guaranted her she will be able to bear anything. When I was a philosophy student, I learned something along these lines in Kant, who contended that what we take as reality is nothing more than an appearance. Travers, Pamela's father, was a poet, capable of "enchanting" everything with imagination. Imagination, as that which was somewhat opposed, above or beyond what was "illusionary" reality all around, the circumstances of which, in their particular case, was extremely tough. The point of view of separating reality from imagination (in the case of Travers Goff) or that of considering it just an appearance (Kant) echoes a an intellectual tradition that art is not entertainment: the first being "serious", and the second not. I guess that is why Pamela looks at Disney "whimsy" as silly, weightless, and without "gravitas". In her head, her "serious" work of literature and poetry, could not become "Disney fun". As a poet, she was not yet capable of seeing all the poetry in the Sherman Brother's words, because she wanted no musical to begin with. She wanted no FUN! The reason I mention this is to remark how well the movie dealt with this important aspect of the conflict between she and Walt Disney , who represented the opposite point of view. Walt believed in THIS world, and in the materialization of fantasy in it. He wanted the movie to be a musical, and musicals are poetry and beauty, before anything. In musicals, dialogues can express "real" life problems, but with beautiful sound and words, what makes it always good and also fun to hear (granting they are a good musical). So, the movie wasn't just a conflict of seriousness vs. whimsy and fantasy, or, like is usually said, of old England's habits vs free and new California's, but of the much more philosophical one regarding what is the real status of reality and, in the same token, that of fantasy. In spite all odds, Walt believed in the communion of the two. He despised nothing. That is why, as much as I am a Kantian, and may never stop being one, I love Walt Disney more than Kant.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Here goes a beautiful, poetic personal story a friend, David Foose wrote and allowed me to publish. It is this type of text that should be the honest and deep example for everyone to search Disney inside:
"When I was young, I remember telling my father that we should tear down the world and let Walt Disney rebuild it. For me Walt represented the force in the universe that has the best ideas and carries them out in the most interestingly creative ways. In my young mind, Walt couldn't be stopped. And his power came from his optimism, his imagination and his perseverance. His power was real because his creations were real. Walt was never about pie in the sky. Walt was about making the impossible possible, actually doing it. Could there be a better role model for a young mind? And as I grew, I saw that my impression of Walt was not childish but correct. Yes, the quality of Walt being an eternal source of inspiration, curiosity and interpretation is what has to be saved.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
After reading a view reviews of "Saving Mr Banks" I thought I might owe some explanation for considering Hank's performance the very expression of "innocence in action", like Walt Disney was called. In some reviews, people say things like Walt was canning, or that there were hints of his "dark side". I wondered whether I see things in a totally different way, and to what extent what I see has to do with reality. One should always question oneself, after all. I mentally reviewed the movie. Someone pointed that once Walt got what he wanted, he didn't invite Travers, he wasn't really caring, as he appeared to be until then. "That caring was all out of pragmatism" was the conclusion. The fascinating question, and the fascinating riddle about Walt Disney, is exactly the "confusion", or even identification, between pragmatism and passion, that is inspired by his behavior. Nobody could act the way he did at convincing people, if he were not passionate about his quest, and as singleminded as a child. Pragmatism, on the other hand, is coldness. It "uses" things and actions as means to distant results. Passion, in an even more avid way than love, is oneness with its object. Walt's innocence was his passion and the certainty it gave him that he wouldn't disappoint anyone who believed in him. Walt's innocence was his childlike enthusiasm, pleading, and even the immediate sadness he could not hide, when disappointed. He believed in himself and his product with the egotism of a child who can disregard everything else, and at the same time, with the objectivity of a leader who is responding to a cause. Once this cause was obliged he, with the immediacy of the child and yet the detachment of the leader, moved on to something else. The "something else" in the movie was the Premiere of Mary Poppins, when he felt he had to "protect the film", and Travers became second.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
"Saving Mr Banks", in the real, hope inspiring Disney tradition, expresses the redeeming as well as resurrecting dimension of rescuing. In Disney Mary Poppins, Mr Banks starts out as a harsh man well acquainted with reality's limitations and is eventually redeemed by letting out his need to dream, thereby equally redeeming all the other bankers. The original inspiration for Mr Banks, PL Travers' father, became her hero for sharing with her a world of imagination and dream, over and against the harshness of reality. He was therefore a hero-looser, becoming, in the Disney version, the self discovered, fulfilled Mr Banks: a mixture of Walt Disney himself and the original dreamer, PL Traver's father. Disney's Mr Banks expresses Walt's constant conflicts with the "money men" and his eventual overcoming of it, like he did in real life, by coming to convince them all, and, in the movie, by calling them to fly a kite. He is a reconciliation of reality and dream, like Walt Disney was. While the original inspiration for Mr Banks was a king in imagination and dream in spite of and against real life, Disney's Mr Banks, by taking the "leap of faith", that step beyond common sense and rationality, reconciles harsh reality and dream, infusing his bosses with the need to sing. "Saving Mr Banks" rescues not just the personal quest of Traver's father, but on a greater scale, that of all dreamers whose flight was interrupted. It shows, through the message of Walt Disney, that the eternity of imagination can indeed make peace with the exactness of figures and money men's world. Only Walt Disney (he did exist! that is what one marvels at, after watching the wonderful interpretation of Tom Hanks in "Saving Mr Banks") could- and, in the movie, it looks like he still can- pull that out…. That's it; if you watch this movie you realize it was perfectly possible that there once was someone who could be best described by the beautiful expression "Innocence in Action"...