"Innocence in Action"

   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.