大梦想家

听到那个名字，听到剧中的旋律，有种想要流泪的感觉。

隐隐约约记得自己在很小很小的时候就看过这本书（或是节选），译作《玛丽波平阿姨》。

但是那旋律又是怎么回事呢？

我确定在此之前没有看过剧中提到的那部《幸福满人间》。

回头想想，大概这部与绿野仙踪、音乐之声齐名的美国国民剧的主旋律经常会被各种节目撷取引用吧。

很喜欢《大梦想家》这部电影。

见识了早期文字作品搬上银幕的坎坷历程。

迪斯尼老板可以等待二十年，只为最终说服女作家同意改编她的童话故事。

这让我唏嘘不已，美国电影为何强大，看人家一个世纪前是如何做事的就明白了。

反观当今中国，于正们则要轻松许多，八仙过海各显神通……这同时又是一部讲亲情的故事，作家视笔下人物为家人，与她童年的经历已融为一体……【巧妙的软广】https://site.douban.com/215175/ （我的小站）

Mary Popinsit's not the children she came to saveit's their father.let go the memory dictated by the past,we install hope in again and againi give you my wordi shall stay until the wind changesi donnt want to see any animal caged in winds in the eastmist coming inlike something is brooingabout to begincant put my fingeron that what in storebut i feel what's to happen all happened before

我看完这部电影后觉得梦想其实是一个对未来的向往，无论现在是多么的悲观，但是梦这件事情是和现在没有关系的，梦或许发生在另外一个世界，但是在未来梦或许就会变成现实。

说到这里，我想到了圣经上的故事，就是耶和华神老托梦给别人，让别人做梦，然后做的梦要不然就是将来要发生的事情，要不然就是正在发生的事情。

或许梦想和做梦不是一件事，但是他们的性质是一样的，无论身处何方，你只要乐观，你在哪里都可以做好梦。

无论你身处何方，你如果自己很悲观，那么你做的很可能是噩梦。

或许吧，梦想就是自己的未来托给自己的一个永恒的梦。

《大梦想家》在之前的颁奖季默默无闻，除了女主角艾玛·汤普森收获一些提名之外，基本没有什么声音；该片的北美票房也只能算中规中矩（最终收获7000万美金左右）。

差点成为看片名单上的漏网之鱼，但好在没有错过。

为了配合迪士尼最经典的歌舞电影《欢乐满人间》上映50周年，迪士尼公司发行了影片的重制蓝光碟，并于2013年圣诞档期推出《大梦想家》这部纪念电影。

电影讲述的就是迪士尼公司的创始人华特迪士尼，如何说服原著小说的作者P.L.特拉弗斯女士，出售版权，并将《欢乐满人间》搬上银幕的故事。

影片由影帝影后担纲主演，汤姆汉克斯饰演华特·迪士尼先生，艾玛·汤普森饰演女作家P.L.特拉弗斯女士。

这是华特·迪士尼的形象第一次出现在大银幕。

艾玛·汤普森演活了一位刀子嘴豆腐心，表面尖酸刻薄吹毛求疵，内心渴望温情热爱生活的“英国”女作家。

她开口必是女皇腔的标准英语；喝水必喝英式红茶，要用精致茶具装，不能用纸杯；跟别人说话，称呼必须带“先生”“女士”，不能直呼其名；这样一位非常“英国”的女作家，一开始对美国迪士尼公司那种洋溢着铜臭味儿的热情百般排斥，在她眼里迪士尼就是商业化的典型，他们把一切艺术变成愚蠢的卡通，然后大把的赚钱；编剧说着文法错误的英语，为了押韵生编硬造一些英语单词，工作的时候吃零食，工作人员都处在一种莫名其妙的欢快中，还企图把她笔下的人物也变得欢快。

她为了生计，被迫考虑出售自己作品的版权给迪士尼公司，但是她坚持剧本的每一个字都要她最终确认。

于是她跟迪士尼团队合作的每一天都处于一种“大姨妈来了”的焦灼中，这位特拉弗斯女士毒舌的程度，绝不亚于春晚上的蔡明。

特拉弗斯对自己作品的过度保护，源于故事中融入了她很多的个人经历和情感，她用童话的方式修补自己的童年，温暖自己的心灵。

她编织的童话也感染了更多的儿童和成人，迪士尼一直把带给别人快乐和希望当作创作电影的理念，哪怕只是短短的两小时，暂时忘却生命中的艰辛和悲伤。

这一点，是特拉弗斯唯一能跟迪士尼达成共识的基础，也是华特迪士尼说服特拉弗斯的最后一根稻草。

尽管合作艰难，最终，特拉弗斯还是签署了版权协议。

她用她一贯的勉为其难，默许了迪士尼创作团队的改编，比如接受了错误的语法，跟着音乐打节拍，不请自来的杀到首映现场，看着银幕上的《欢乐满人间》默默流泪。

这部电影是迪士尼自己出品的，关于迪士尼的电影，难免有美化自己，为自己做广告之嫌。

如果这是一个两小时的广告，应该是最成功的品牌形象广告。

迪士尼自成立以来，不论是他的电影还是迪士尼乐园，或其他周边产品，都坚守统一的品牌理念——歌颂真善美、给人希望、点燃梦想，这部电影完美诠释了这一点。

女作家最终对改编的许可，是对自己悲伤经历的释然，更是对迪士尼理念的认可。

更难能可贵的是——这部广告片还让人在两个小时中有笑有泪，在温情治愈中，又被希望和梦想洗脑。

当然了，在现实中，迪士尼公司是不是真的只为了救赎心灵点燃希望才拍摄的《欢乐满人间》就另当别论了；而迪士尼先生本人和特拉弗斯女士的合作，是不是最终温情收场也只有他们两人知道了。

相信电影是做了适当的美化，因为据说，特拉弗斯女士的遗嘱中有一条是“如果有朝一日Mary Poppins（欢乐满人间的英文原名）被改编成舞台剧，不允许任何一个《欢乐满人间》电影的演职员参与。

”

建议本片在观看《Mary Poppins》之后，食用效果更佳。

两部影片，很不巧我是因为汤影帝先看的本片，再看的《Mary Poppins》。

一开始播放的时候我就已经注意到了本片是迪士尼的出品，我没有任何“警惕”没有任何顾虑，因为我带着“这是一部花絮电影”这样的心态来观影，看着看着甚至都已经相信了这个故事，看完后甚至我觉得是部好电影，可以给五星呢。

我没有立刻写影评，直到看完了《Mary Poppins》。

像传记、写实类或是“基于真人真事改编” or whatever you name，这类片子，就算拍的再好，其真实与否会直接动摇我对片子的评价。

本片中我们可以得知，Mrs. Travers（以下简称T）对改编有诸多要求（so many "NO"s），但实际上映的 《Mary Poppins》，就我个人感觉的话，是大失T所望的：Mary Poppins does not sing.（Walt（简称W吧）取了折中方案：她唱，但不轻佻不蹦蹦跳跳（也算满足原作者的要求），音乐也确实不错）A live-action film. No animation.（真人插大量动画）No Dick Van Dyke.（没改）No grand house, but normal one.（大且富丽堂皇）No hint of romance between Poppins and Bert.（你会发现还是会有那么一点“暧昧的火花”）Mr. Bank is cuel.（他还是当面撕掉了孩子们的广告并丢进了壁炉，后面用happy ending作补偿，也可以说是妥协吧）......以上就省略那些挑字眼或是可能是因为赌气而提的要求吧："No red in the picture."光是这些就够她受的了，T试图证明没有人比她更懂自己的作品，事实证明她也是对的，因为这群试图将她的作品搬上银幕的人，直到真正和T合作之前都没有搞清楚原著的内涵：要拯救的不是两个孩子，而是孩子的父亲。

本片也因此得名。

少不了"The big shot's special requirement"：Mr.Bank's mustache.虽然片子没有直接说明W为什么这么要求，从片子观察看来，我的个人猜测是：得把他自己标志性的八字胡用上，把掌门人的标志放入片子算得上是一种宣传？

营销的手段？

T在本片中，一个尖酸刻薄、吹毛求疵、执着到近乎疯狂的老女人，最后在W和他的团队努力下被感化，准确来说W还是MVP，最后交出了“视为家人”的作品，接受“改造”，然而电影的首映式居然没被邀请？

只能说，我并不是当事人，这个故事的真实性无法考究，里面的情节有多少被改编了我不得而知。

但是包括我在内的观众应该能感受得到，有关于W和他的迪士尼帝国，都太过完美，而有关于T的一切，又是那么的不堪。

仿佛是天父在地狱门前向徘徊的灵魂伸出了手，这个灵魂最终得到升华位列天堂。

洗白片。

自说自话。

迪士尼的主旋律。

一瞬间，脑中浮现的都是这些词。

一瞬间，W那些举动回想起来，just make me feel sick。

T最反感的其中一个点：A spoonful of sugar"All they need is a spoon and some sugar and a brain full of fluff and they equipped with life's tools.""She(Marry Poppins) doesn't sugarcoat the darkness in th world that these children will eventually, inevitably come to know."All I see is :《Mary Poppins》is a spoonful of sugar for the children.《Saving Mr. Banks》and Walt's Disneyland is a spoonful of sugar for the adults.Maybe sometimes I need this spoonful of sugar, but not today.

Is ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ too hard on ‘Mary Poppins’ creator?DEC. 28, 2013 12 AM PTBYREBECCA KEEGANhttps://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-xpm-2013-dec-28-la-et-mn-disney-mary-poppins-saving-mr-banks-travers-20131228-story.htmlIn the winter of 1933, in a thatched cottage in Sussex, England, a complicated woman named Pamela “P.L.” Travers began to write “Mary Poppins,” the first in a series of novels that would inspire the beloved 1964 Walt Disney movie and supply generations of children with a magical fantasy nanny.The reality of Travers’ own turbulent childhood — and her reluctance as an adult to relinquish control over her characters to Walt Disney — are the subject of the movie “Saving Mr. Banks,” which has just gone into wide release. Directed by John Lee Hancock, “Saving Mr. Banks” follows Travers (Emma Thompson) as she travels to the Disney lot in Burbank for two weeks in 1961, tangling with and tormenting the studio chief (Tom Hanks). The L.A. visit inspires Travers to recall her childhood in Australia, in particular her father, a charismatic drunk played by Colin Farrell.Some critics have complained that “Saving Mr. Banks,” which Disney itself produced and distributed, is too hard on Travers and too easy on the company’s founder. Travers is cold, critical and strange — arbitrarily objecting, for instance, to having the color red in the movie and dismissing Disney’s “silly cartoons.” “Uncle Walt,” by contrast, is jovial and encouraging, with few flaws to speak of save for a bad smoker’s cough.ADVERTISEMENTVIDEO: ‘Saving Mr. Banks’: Watch cast, crew discuss the filmAlmost all of what appears in “Saving Mr. Banks” is true. Travers really did hector and frustrate the people at Disney, a fact substantiated by 39 hours of audio recordings of the author’s sessions with “Mary Poppins” screenwriter Don DaGradi, who is played here by Bradley Whitford, and songwriter brothers Richard Sherman (Jason Schwartzman) and Robert Sherman (B.J. Novak).But the makers of “Saving Mr. Banks” admit they took some liberties with Travers’ often tragic life story — they say they actually added a spoonful of sugarYour gift makes a difference in the lives of working dogs, handlers and those affected by disasters here and around the world.“[Travers] was an incredibly difficult person and actually much more difficult than she’s portrayed in the film,” said Kelly Marcel, who shares screenplay credit on the movie with Sue Smith. “But the more I found out about her childhood, the more I felt for her. A lot of children’s authors create these characters from places of tragedy and darkness. I felt it was a beautiful story even though she was an absolute pain.”Australian producer Ian Collie, who made a documentary about Travers in 2002, hatched the idea for a biopic about her, eventually involving independent producers in Britain, a path to the screen that was initially free of Disney input.“This was a script completely developed outside of Disney,” Hancock said. “It would have been difficult for this script to happen inside the studio walls.”Smith, an Australian writer, penned the first draft of the screenplay, which focused on Travers’ strange single-motherhood tale; in real life, the creator of one of fiction’s most beloved caregivers had promised to adopt twin boys, and at the last minute decided to raise only one, never telling him about his brother. (Travers’ son, Camillus, died in 2011, having eventually met his twin brother as an adult in a bar.)When Marcel came onto the project, she decided to leave out Camillus and split the script instead into a dual narrative, with one thread focused on Travers’ childhood, the other on two weeks of her decades-long feud with Disney. She also introduced a fictional character, an optimistic driver played by Paul Giamatti, with whom Travers finally shares a human moment.“I felt we didn’t have a bridge to her feelings,” Marcel said. “We need someone to like her.”Marcel’s script earned a spot on the Black List, a list of hot, unproduced screenplays circulating in Hollywood, which attracted the attention of executives at Disney — in reality the only studio that could have made a movie so laden with Disney intellectual property.“Once Disney bought the script, my big fear was, they’re going to try and sanitize Walt,” Marcel said. “There are going to be so many rules and stipulations, they’re going to say he can’t smoke, he can’t drink. And then they didn’t.”Instead Marcel got access to Disney’s vast archive, including the 39 hours of tapes, which Travers had demanded be made, and to Richard Sherman, who consulted on the movie.Sherman recalls Travers as frustrating and unkind. “The first thing [Travers] said to us was, ‘This is not going to be a musical,’ ” Sherman said, remembering the weeks he spent with Travers in 1961. “[“Saving Mr. Banks”] feels so real to me, it knots my stomach.”Marcel said one change the studio asked her to make to the movie, which is rated PG-13, was to remove a swear word. Disney is also not shown smoking but does stub out a cigarette in one scene.Disney — the man and his creations — have been the subject of interest in multiple media lately, including a critical opera by Philip Glass called “The Perfect American” and a dark independent movie shot surreptitiously at Disney World, “Escape From Tomorrow.”According to Hanks, the fact that “Saving Mr. Banks” is really about Travers, and only spent a narrow time frame on Disney, absolved it of having to deal with some of the more unsavory parts of Disney’s history, such as his role in Hollywood labor issues in the 1940s and his relationships with some well-known anti-Semites.“It was very prescribed what the screenplay was going to be,” Hanks said. “Everybody asks about the strike and the anti-Semitism. But by 1961 it was far enough in the past. He was at the studio and he was — I don’t want to say that he was beloved, but Walt was beloved.”Reviews for the film have mainly been more positive than negative, and Thompson has earned Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild nominations for her performance. But some critics have objected to what they consider a pro-Walt slant in a movie coming from the man’s own studio. LA Weekly’s Amy Nicholson wrote, “There’s something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control.”Marcel said she’s surprised by the critique. “I think I’m incredibly sympathetic toward [Travers] in this film,” Marcel said. “I don’t understand those reviews, but she’s a tricky character.”Disney never invited Travers to the “Mary Poppins” premiere, but she came anyway, afterward telling Disney they had “lots of work to do” to ready the film for release (Disney dismissed her). Privately she told friends she found the film too saccharine.“Kelly Marcel’s script poses a great what if,” Hancock said. “We know Travers didn’t care for the [“Mary Poppins”] movie. We know she wasn’t invited to the premiere. We know she didn’t care for the animation. We do know she cried at the premiere and nobody knows why. Kelly took that as an opportunity for a what if: What if these two weeks were a cathartic experience?”Travers spent her later years writing other novels, poetry and nonfiction (none as commercially successful as “Mary Poppins”) and pursuing an interest in various spiritual ideas, including the teachings of the mystic George Gurdjieff and Zen mysticism, before dying in London in 1996.Valerie Lawson, author of the Travers biography “Mary Poppins, She Wrote,” who has seen “Saving Mr. Banks,” defends its portrait of a difficult woman.“Travers was prickly, but she had good reason to be unhappy as she went through many private struggles and, in many ways, was a woman who could rely only on herself,” Lawson said. “She tried to keep her private life very private so it would have been very confronting for her to see, or even think of herself as a film character. Then again, if she was alive, I can’t see how the film could have been made at all.”--I heard that P.L. Travers ruined the lives of two boys. Is that true?https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/saving-mr-banks.phpThough it was not shown in the film, author P.L. Travers did not weave similar magical tales when it came to her personal life. In 1940, she became aware of a destitute family that she knew in Ireland who were looking for someone to adopt their infant identical twins. The children had been born to an irresponsible father and an inept mother, and were in the care of their grandparents who were having trouble coping with the responsibility of raising four children. They arranged for a family friend from London, Pamela Lyndon Travers, to adopt both of the infant twins, at least that was their understanding. Travers was approaching her 40th birthday and had given up hope on finding a lasting relationship that might produce biological children. She was attracted to the literary lineage of the twins.

Trying to choose between two identical twins, P.L. Travers selected her adopted son Camillus based on advice from her astrologer. She refuseTrying to choose between two identical twins, P.L. Travers selected her adopted son Camillus based on advice from her astrologer. She refused to take them both.The twins were the grandchildren of Joseph Hone, an Irish writer and the biographer of poet W.B. Yeats, Travers's idol whom she knew personally. Upon her arrival in Ireland, Travers chose to adopt only Camillus Hone, but not his twin brother Anthony, subsequently splitting up the pair. She based which one to choose on the advice of her astrologer, who had advised her to select the first-born boy. While Camillus Hone (pictured at right with Travers in the 1940s) was whisk off to a life of wealth and privilege in London, his brother Anthony was left to be cared for by neglectful relatives. "Pamela Travers saw herself as Mary Poppins and thought she could play Poppins with poor little Camillus," says the boys' oldest brother, Joseph Hone. "I don't think Travers was fit to bring up children." Appalled by her new son crying at night, at one point Travers considered sending the infant to a babies home in Tunbridge Wells. She eventually got along better with the child, but still shipped him off to boarding school while she continued to focus on her career. -Telegraph.co.ukThe twins reunited at age seventeen when Tony showed up unannounced on P.L. Travers's doorstep to meet his brother Camillus. Travers had previously told Camillus that he was her own and that his father had died of an accident in the colonies where he was a wealthy sugar magnate. The two brothers had little in common other than a fondness for alcohol and would only see each other occasionally in the years that followed. Camillus eventually developed a drinking problem and spent six months in prison after being arrested for driving drunk without a license. His twin brother Anthony would also develop an alcohol problem, which would cost him his family and his career in public relations. Prior to Anthony's death, his ex-wife Frances would tend to his basic needs as she listened to him "moaning" about his brother's good fortune. -DailyMail.co.ukIronically, Camillus's widow, also named Frances, says that he had been left "disappointed and sad" after being made aware that he had been plucked from his natural family. "He would have liked to belong to them because they were artistic and interesting, and as he grew up he didn't have any brothers, sisters or aunts and uncles, or a Daddy — only her." -DailyMail.co.uk

1.实际上P.L. Travers对"Let's Go Fly a Kite"并没有向电影中描述的那样热衷，据Richard M. Sherman描述，她更喜欢"Feed the Birds"。

2.Tom Hanks与他扮演的Walt Disney，实际上有着远房表亲的关系。

3.真正的P.L. Travers与Walt Disney团队的工作会议录音长达39个小时。

编剧Kelly Marcel和主演Tom Hanks，Emma Thompson 都认真的听过了录音。

Emma Thompson形容听录音的经历就像，“用热叉子戳耳朵一样”。

4.编剧Kelly Marcel称，影片最大的一个虚构处就是Walt Disney去拜访P.L. Travers在伦敦家。

实际上他们只是通了电话而已。

但她也坚称，所有Disney 告诉 Travers 关于他父亲的事都是真实存在的。

5.Walt Disney一直以来在公众前都隐藏他吸烟的习惯，特别是在儿童面前。

因为他认为这会损害他和他的工作室居家友好的形象。

Tom Hanks为了准确演绎角色，曾要求真实展现Disney吸烟，然而仍然被迪士尼方面以合家欢电影里不应该出现吸烟镜头而拒绝。

因此我们在影片中只能看到Disney掐灭烟头的动作，而没有具体的吸烟动作。

Tom Hanks说 Robert B. Sherman告诉他，“Walt每天要抽两包烟，你总是知道他什么时候来了，因为总是会先听到他的咳嗽。

”Walt Disney在1966年因肺癌病逝。

5.影片在"Feed the Birds"这首歌上笔墨很多是基于事实的。

这是Walt Disney最喜欢的一首歌。

据Sherman兄弟透露，Walt Disney总是在他心情低落的时候让他们给他演唱这首歌。

而且他只是叫他们到办公室，然后说一句，"Play it"，Sherman兄弟就知道他要听这首歌了。

Richard M. Sherman说Walt Disney喜欢这首歌是因为这首歌的完美的总结了为什么他把创造迪士尼公司放在人生最重要位置的原因。

6.在1977年的一次访问中，P.L. Travers谈到这部电影，她说“我看过它一次或两次，我也在学着接受它。

对他们自己来说这是一部迷人的好电影，但我不认为和我的书很像。

”7.Robert M. Sherman的腿的确是曾经中过枪。

他是在二战期间在欧洲战场受的伤。

他所在的部队帮助解放了纳粹臭名昭著的达豪集中营。

8.P.L. Travers在《欢乐满人间》制作期间一直不希望由Dick Van Dyke出演Bert一角。

而Dick Van Dyke本人也表示过，尽管《欢乐满人间》是他出演过的最好的电影，但他也觉得自己并不适合Bert的角色，由 Jim Dale 或 Ron Moody 出演更合适。

Travers曾建议过出演该角的演员包括Richard Burton, Alec Guinness, Richard Harris, Rex Harrison, Ron Moody, Laurence Olivier, Peter O'Toole和 Peter Sellers，她认为他们能保持书中的英伦属性。

另外Travers 和 Walt Disney 都认可的出演Bert的演员Stanley Holloway，却拒绝了该角色，并出演了奥黛丽·赫本主演的《窈窕淑女》，而该片也成为《欢乐满人间》在1964年上映时候的主要竞争对手。

9.P.L. Travers认为Walt Disney对她"Mary Poppins"系列小说的改变粗俗且无礼，且终生也没有释怀。

在1994年，也就是《欢乐满人间》上映已经30年后。

舞台剧出品人Cameron Mackintosh，找到P.L. Travers想要将她的作品改编成音乐剧，她以之前这部电影让她极不愉快为由，拒绝一切作品改编。

经过几次会晤，终于松口，但当Mackintosh想要用之前电影中的插曲的时候，她又表现出了极度反感。

最后经过多次劝说，终于同意，但定下了个极其严格的规定。

即，不许有任何美国人参与该片的任何环节的制作，特别是歌曲的原作者 Robert B. Sherman 和 Richard M. Sherman 。

Mackintosh遵从着Travers的每一个规定，着手改编，几年里没有借助迪士尼的任何帮助。

直到Travers在1996年病逝，迪士尼公司才被允许介入该项目，和Mackintosh共同制作。

10.在Walt Disney的办公室可以看到一张被标记过的佛罗里达地图，所标记的地点就是当地的迪士尼乐园。

这个乐园在1971年开放，Walt Disney病逝的5年之后。

11.为了准备自己的角色，Tom Hanks几次造访位于旧金山Presidio的迪士尼博物馆，并接触了一些 Walt Disney的亲属，包括他的女儿Diane Disney Miller。

12.虽然P.L. Travers不怎么喜欢Sherman兄弟的作品，但当女主角Julie Andrews写信告诉她，制片人要删去歌曲"Stay Awake"的时候她依然很震惊和失望。

（"Stay Awake"是本片歌曲中是Julie Andrews很喜欢的一首，也是P.L. Travers极少数喜欢的歌曲之一。

)她马上出面要求制片人保留这首歌。

13,.根据2004年出品的《欢乐满人间40周年纪念DVD》中描述，迪士尼最早想要购买Mary Poppins的版权是在1938年，当时 P.L. Travers的态度极其冷淡，她厌恶好莱坞将书改编成电影的处理方式，并且不相信影像可以正确表达书中的意义。

另一个她抵触的原因是，当时迪士尼还没有出品过真人出演的电影。

自此而后的20年，迪士尼可以说是周期性的联络她，希望同意卖出版权。

最终在1961年她终于同意，但要求剧本必须经她认可。

筹备电影，编写剧本和歌曲，用了2年时间。

P.L. Travers否定了大量改编成电影所必须的必要元素。

甚至表示与其用Sherman兄弟的原创音乐，不如用爱德华七世时代的音乐更符合书中设定，并且拒绝用动画表现黑板中的世界。

迪士尼没有完全听从她的意见，利用合同条款压制了她。

因此之后Travers拒绝了迪士尼所有改编她其他作品的请求，不管Walt Disney多么努力的想要争取。

14.迪士尼CEO Robert A. Iger 亲自打电话请求Tom Hanks出演Walt Disney。

15.影片中，Disney告诉Sherman，他知道不想让别人控制自己创造的角色是什么感觉，并提到一个纽约制片想要买米老鼠。

事实上 Walt Disney 和他的创作伙伴 Ub Iwerks 起初创造了一个叫 "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit"的兔子角色，后来被环球买去，交给了别的作家再创作。

此后，Disney发誓不再失去自己创造角色的控制权，而后他和Iwerks又创造了一只老鼠角色，定名为Mortimer，但他的夫人Mrs. Lillian Disney说服了他，在最后发布的最后一刻，将名字改为了Mickey。

16.制作团队对于Tom Hanks扮演Walt Disney的形象设计非常投入心力，狠抓每一个细节，甚至精确到测量了他胡子的长度。

17.电影拍摄时Tom Hanks 55岁，比1961年的 Walt Disney 年轻5岁。

18.Meryl Streep 曾被考虑主演该片。

19.Emma Thompson曾经写过并主演了一系列类似Mary Poppins角色的电影，《魔法保姆麦克菲》系列。

在春色满人间这部由Disney投拍的经典歌舞电影上映50周年之际，Disney公司发行了影片的重制蓝光碟，以及一部纪念电影——大梦想家，讲述春色满人间从筹拍到上映历经坎坷20多年的花絮。

春色满人间的原小说作者P. L. Travers是个正宗的（伪）英国人，精致，严谨，一口英伦腔极尽刻薄之能事；而投拍电影的Disney老板Walt Disney是典型的美国人，热情，乐观，一脸笑容温暖人心。

起初P. L. Travers对Walt Disney及参与春色满人间电影项目的工作人员百般刁难，然而最终，做作英伦腔在与美式正能量的撕逼大战中败下阵来，影片得以投拍，并取得了巨大成功，和P. L. Travers本人的肯定。

-装正经废话完结线---好吧，其实这些都不是我的关注重心。

作为Colin Farrell的长期脑残粉，囧哥的出演才是我的点。

影片有两条故事线，1906年的澳大利亚和1961年的洛杉矶。

前者道出了P. L. Travers的童年经历，对于 解释她的性格成因，行为细节，以及Mary Poppins小说的创作初衷其关键作用。

小囧哥就存在于这条线，因为故事相对独立，没有Emma Thompson和Tom Hanks两位公认的严肃艺术家压制，我囧哥作为不严肃艺术家的才华得到充分释放。

其实以我对Colin Farrell的演技的认可程度，即使让他和二老对戏我应该也会觉得演得很好的。

只是肯定会有很多人做出如下反应，“好莱坞浪荡公子Colin Farrell的光芒完全被两大戏骨压制，演技还需磨练”，呵呵，呵呵呵呵……可是囧哥饰演的P. L. Travers的爹，Mr. Banks的原型，怎么那么像个林黛玉啊……他是真正的大梦想家，虽为生活颠沛流离，却有着赤子之心和孩童般的笑容；他性格乖僻，无法和世俗相容，却对家人有最深沉的爱。

他虽然没有两湾似颦非颦罥烟眉（他眉毛粗得像蜡笔小新还是囧字形的），但他有一双似喜非喜含情目，他哭时背对Ginty，看不到泪光点点，但能感受到娇喘微微……更关键的是，他吐血啊，他吐了一次血之后，从演讲台上摔下来，从此就躺在床上，直到戏份完结再也没起来过，就那么吐啊，吐啊，最后吐得一身血，死了。

这不是林黛玉是什么啊，摔！

谁背叛了Mrs. Travers？

迪士尼再次说起“那个女人”的故事的时候，无论试图将它改装得多么银光闪闪，感人肺腑，我们还是不得不怀疑，这究竟是不是那个真实的故事？

我们到底能不能听到另一个非迪士尼的关于“那个女人”的版本？

在这个版本里，Travers被无情地刻画成一个孤独、挑剔、封闭并且缺爱的老女人，面对的是一个开放、耐心、有爱并且欢乐的迪士尼，最后的成果则是那部欢乐满人间的电影。

可是，谁胜利了？

对于Travers我知之甚少，可是即使从电影里来看，她只是一个孤军奋战的弱者。

她没有钱，没有亲人，没有朋友，当她一个人飞到洛杉矶的时候，她面对的却是好莱坞最炙手可热的资本工厂。

这个女人被毫不留情地描绘成一副令人讨厌并且令人同情的样子，试图使我们相信正义是掌握在迪士尼的手中。

当我们看到迪士尼和他的小伙伴们使出浑身解数取悦Travers的时候，当我们看到电影在回顾Travers的往事的时候，我们难道真的不希望看到好莱坞最擅长的一幕：她终于打开心胸拥抱了这个世界？

可是问题在于，这个故事还有没有可能有另外一种结局？

完美的迪士尼早就将Travers钉在了柱子上遭受鞭打，早就用自己（假想的）的道德和权力绑架了Travers。

我们看到的结局，就是唯一的结局。

Travers败了，她对电影所提出的建议无一没有遭到拒绝。

Banks的房子仍然是太过于富丽堂皇，主演仍然是迪克范戴克，Mrs. Banks 仍然为妇女投票权奋斗，Bert和Mary Poppins仍然暧昧不清，整个故事仍然是试图欺骗孩子的“a spoonful sugar,” 他们对Mr. Banks仍然残酷，电影仍然是音乐剧，甚至还有大段大段的动画——如果这是一场交锋，我们不禁要问迪士尼作了什么妥协而Traverse得到了什么？

很遗憾，并没有。

如果有，只是她从被预先设定的”黑暗“中拥抱了光明，这个光明就来自于迪士尼。

迪士尼自然是光明。

他是一个热爱家庭，热爱子女，热爱平等，坚守诺言，并且相信爱和希望的人。

他是完美的父亲，完美的领导，完美的合作者——这种自卖自夸的伎俩简直就是一出完美但是拙劣的洗白计划：我们都几乎要相信这一切了，直到我们知道”那个女人“的故事。

就Travers来说，她并不是如电影所描述的那样。

我们听到小道消息，她生活丰富多彩，拥有很多的情人（包括男性和女性），还领养了孩子。

可是这些在电影里并没有出现，她变成了一个被“父亲”这个词困扰终身的老女人。

迪士尼忙着洗白自己的同时，也忙着将一个复杂多面的女性变成了可供改造的平面对象——只有这样我们才能欢快地接受：一切改造都是正当的。

可是是否一切改造都是正当的？

我们似乎无法回答这个问题，除非我们能听到另一个版本的故事，除非我们愿意了解“那个女人”的故事。

治愈系的心灵鸡汤绑架了Travers也绑架了观众，重新为《欢乐满人间》的正当性作了辩护。

可是这种辩护却是经不起推敲的。

毕竟那一年，Travers并没有被邀请参加电影的开幕式，而在余生她似乎对迪士尼并无多少好感。

时至今日，当我们说我喜欢《欢乐满人间》或者我喜欢Saving Mr. Banks的时候，我们说到底只不过将迪士尼说给我们的故事重述并且肯定了一遍。

而在这种重复和肯定之中，也许我们恰恰变成了迪士尼的同谋，一起背叛了“那个女人”。

可是只有她对整个故事有最单纯和最原初的想法。

2014年3月23日17:20:48