[Mary Poppins author P.L.] Travers was a feisty, stereotype-breaking bisexual — a single mom who adopted a baby in her 40s, studied Zen meditation in Kyoto, and was publishing erotica about her silky underwear 10 years before Walt had sketched his mouse. Now that’s a character worth slapping on-screen, instead of this stiff British stereotype determined to steal joy from future generations of children. With her longtime girlfriend and then-adult son erased, this frigid Travers seems like she may not even know how babies are made. Maybe Mary Poppins could sing her a song about it.
Why does it matter that Saving Mr. Banks sabotages its supposed heroine? Because in a Hollywood where men still pen 85 percent of all films, there’s something sour in a movie that roots against a woman who asserted her artistic control by asking to be a co-screenwriter. (Another battle she lost — Mary Poppins’ opening credits list Travers as merely a “consultant.”) Just as slimy is the sense that this film, made by a studio conglomerate in a Hollywood dominated by studio conglomerates, is tricking us into cheering for the corporation over the creator.
welp there goes my interest in the film
I was wondering, given the truth about Travers’ disgust with Disney, how Disney was even willing to make such a film.
Now I get it.
I didn’t even know what this film was supposed to be about til now.
The trailer also hinted that Travers wrote Mary Poppins bc she wanted the nanny to “save” the father, which is so far from the point of the Mary Poppins series as to be ridiculous. Disney has literally done everything they could with this movie to remove all the female character’s autonomy and actual personalities and turned them into emotional prompts for the male characters to be inspired by and change.
Okay Tumblr, I see that this gif has caused a little bit of commotion by pointing out that Elsa’s braid “phases” or “clips” through her arm. Some people say that this is lazy while other’s justify it. However technical people get they ignore, from the posts I have seen anyway, addressing the possible reasons why the animators at Disney let this to the final cut of the movie.
Okay, the “phasing” or “clipping” of the hair is intentional. It wasn’t a mistake. Nor was it a product of lazy animators and directors. When looking at things like this you need to think of animation as a magic trick. It’s not real.
The first clue is how they position her shoulders when it happened:
Right before the dirty deed is done, Elsa is turned so that we can’t see the her hair flow through her shoulder while shooting arrows into the sunset.
The exact frame that her hair is in view, it has already performed its trick.
See? That’s the first clue.
The second clue is a bit more in depth and requires to look at the flow of animation and color closely.
We start out with:
Her head is just off center of the screen and is really bright compared to everything else. Naturally drawing our eyes to that spot.
Her hair bounces up making sure that our eyes focus on Elsa face and in the next few frames, her hands.
The hair is intentionally dropped behind the arm so our eyes don’t follow it and we REALLY focus on her face. Because right now it is the most important thing on the screen.
I wish I could style my hair this easily.
Here we are again! Take note that we have been basically following her left hand in our even if we can’t see it. It derives most of the focused motion in the shot.
Elsa’s left hand moves behind her head leading our focus back to her face. Having her also open her eyes at the same time also makes us want to look at her face and away from the trick that is happening.
And the magic trick is over. It is also important to note how her head has slowed down significantly and Elsa’s eyes lead our focus to her hand which stretches out to transition us to the next shot.
All in all, this must have been a carefully laid out shot that to be able not only look excellent but draw our notice away from a little trick/shortcut, and in the end made it a more powerful lead into the next shot.
I took my time to break this down because knowing the reason why Elsa is animated this way will give us a greater appreciation of the work. Because it really is fantastic.
Animation is a magic trick. Being the person who points out the misdirection doesn’t make you superior or smart. You just ruin the magic for everyone. Teaching the person the illusion shows respect and could lead to greater magic in the future.EDIT: As some of you have fairly pointed out, the animators could have done it another way. ie: Have the hair come over her shoulder instead of through. That was most likely the first attempt, but something could have gone wrong with the rigging, or the rendering of the hair in that motion, or it could have simply looked ‘wrong.’ What we see here is their solution or ‘magic trick’ to make it look right to the VAST majority of viewers.
if you were invisible, would you still be able to see with your eyes closed??
THIS FUCKING TEXT POST JUST STARTED THE BIGGEST DEBATE IN MY MATHS CLASS BECAUSE I READ IT OUT LOUD AND WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A) YES YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IN THEORY BUT B) YOU WOULDN’T BE TO SEE BECAUSE THE LIGHT WOULD PASS THROUGH YOU AND THEREFORE PASS THROUGH YOUR RETINA.