PANcil Drawing

How did P.J. Hogan reveal to Jeremy Sumpter that he'd gotten the role of Peter Pan?
He showed him a drawing and asked him who it is.  Jeremy replied with the obvious.  Peter Pan.
But the sketch depicted him, said Hogan.

Pretty cool.  I like the drawing.  My only critique is that he looks rather tall.  Also note that Pan apparently had wraps on his feet as part of the design.  I can see the probable need, and the logic.  But I'm glad they chose to eliminate them.  Barefoot is just much more in tune with rough and tumble Peter.

Thanks for sharing this pic, Mark Robert.  He's Sumpter's manager and you can see this photo and much more at the official site.  I'd been curious what the drawing looked like ever since I'd heard about it.  I think it's on the extras in the DVD.  Or else it had been during a promotional interview.  I don't remember... it's been nearly a decade since the film came out!

At any rate, always a delight to see a nicely done drawing of the eternal boy.  And even better to see an historic one!  (That label too much for you?  Don't forget he's the first Pan on film that's not silent, filmed on a theatrical stage or animated.  Not to mention the first seen boy in the role on film.)

Talking Tink...

Assuming her alive at the time you found her, would you be able to carry on a conversation with Tinker Bell? I’m guessing you’re inclined to say “no” because she speaks in the sound of little tinkling bells. No doubt your rationale for this comes from the passage:

“You don’t hear her, do you?” and they both listened.

“The only sound I hear,” said Wendy, “is like a tinkle of bells.”

“Well, that’s Tink, that’s the fairy language. I think I hear her too.”

Some of you might be so inclined as to believe you cannot understand the fairy language. Hearing it the first time, really how could you? Would you be able to understand Swahili when it first entered your ear? (I’ll venture to guess no.) And there’s rationale for this from the book as well:

“Tink,” said Peter amiably, “this lady says she wishes you were her fairy.”

Tinker Bell answered insolently.

“What does she say, Peter?”

He had to translate.

And then: What she said in her lovely tinkle Wendy could not of course understand...

So there we have, right? Only Peter Pan can understand Tinker Bell...

Now hold on a moment! Don’t go zipping to conclusions. Here’s a bit of text regarding the Lost Boys:

“Hullo, Tink,” cried the wondering boys.
Tink’s reply rang out: “Peter wants you to shoot the Wendy.”
It was not in their nature to question when Peter ordered. “Let us do what Peter wishes!” cried the simple boys.

A-ha! So the boys make sense of her bell-voice, too. Before you go arguing that the boys are wont to say such a thing anyway as they are devoted to Peter’s wishes, surely you don’t forget they actually do shoot Wendy down, just as Tink says Peter commands. Obviously it’s not just a regurgitation of an ingrained desire (to obey Pan’s wishes.)

So why is it that the Boys can comprehend her as well as Pan?  Perhaps it’s because they’re in the Neverland and therefore just do?  No, that’s not it.  Good guess, though.  Perhaps they’re magical like Peter himself?   Oh no, that can’t be it.   They’re just not.  Well, then, why?

For the answer, we’ll have to (but of course) look to Barrie’s words again:

“You silly ass!” cried Tinker Bell in a passion.

She had said it so often that Wendy needed no translation.
“I almost agree with her,” Wendy snapped.

When does this occur in the story? Just about the time Wendy is trying to get Peter to declare his real feelings for her. When “playing house” needs to be much more real for her than it seems in the Home Under the Ground. Okay, but how about a more concrete image story-wise?  Surely.  It’s after Pan rescues Tiger Lily. Unlike a play or movie version of the story which must have a rapidity to the adventures the children have on the island, we know that a they’re there for a long time, so the saving of the Redskin princess wouldn’t have been toward the beginning of their trip.

And so we arrive at the simple answer. If you’ve been around Tink for quite some time, would you understand her then?  Yep.

It seems that the fairy language is something that humans can pick up on, if they have enough exposure to it. Which certainly explains why the Lost Boys have no trouble.  For who knows how long they’ve each been on the island?  But we can bet it’s been a while.

Knowing that I’d need the first girl to visit NeverWorld to be able understand Denny (Peter Pan’s ‘new’ fairy) right away in my book, I had to make sure I included a passage about how this could be so.

Of course, Amy could not be described as a normal child, for she understood the fairy language perfectly. She had heard it so many times while passing through Kensington Gardens and in the twilight of slumber that she knew it quite well. Thus, she did not need a translator to converse with the fairy who just spoke to her.

Another easy solution. You see, I happen to know (of course I would) a little about the backstory of Miss Amy Alexis Richards.  In the relevant nutshell, she’s been hunting for fairies and Peter Pan since age five, and does so with more conviction than most summon up [for anything] their whole lives.  It took her a while to finally track down the Darlings’ house, but that’s another story and I digress...

At any rate, talking to Tink is no great feat.  It’s just a matter of paying attention and prolonged exposure. Not unlike any other language, oui?

So why is it that there’s the misconception that only Pan can talk to Miss Bell? That when (erroneously) Captain Hook speaks with her in cahoots, she must pantomime to help get her point across? [Thank you, Disney. (Said with an eye roll.)] Why is it that she rarely talks in the few movies of the tale?  Do we really have an aversion to hearing her speak?  Possibly so, since many protested her being heard in the Disney films about her... and the script drafts of it bounced back and forth as to whether or not she had a “voice.” (Yes, certainly it also had to do with maintaining the Disney animated feature as well.)  And yes, I know a certain actress played Tink and spoke freely in a certain movie named for the priate captain, but I so very pretend that movie doesn't exist.

It baffles me, then, why P.J. Hogan preserved the “silent” pantomiming Tinker Bell as well. Although I do recall learning in the ‘extras’ on the DVD that Hogan (and all) had been entranced by Ludivine Sagnier's facial expressions and clowning as such without words.  But as cute as they may have been, I’d preferred they left the marvelous expressionism as such to Peter Pan, for as I’ve said before, no one makes faces like Jeremy Sumpter!

I’ll tell you... if I’m ever responsible for the mini-series version that rattles around in my head, the way I’d handle Tink’s speech is as follows:  She’s just heard as the jangling at first. But throughout the show, each time she speaks, a whisper of actual words will gradually become louder, almost imperceptible until it’s clear as a well, bell.  Naturally the tinkling sound will always accompany her, but it will be softened and weaker.

So there you have it.

Tinker Bell talks. Why else would she have lines with quotes around them in the book?

Pan Through a Spyglass...

More information has come out on one of the slew of Peter Pan films from Hollywood.

It's one of those that doesn't seem like a bad idea.  A re-imagining of the story, looking at it through a different lens.  I'm all for that.  I just gets my goat when it's supposed to be Barrie's tale and it becomes distorted in a "damaging" way or when it's supposed to be a contiguous part of the timeline when it's structurally unsound.

Well, this new info comes for the one where Hook is a modern day troubled former detective, pursuing a childlike kidnapper, yes, Peter Pan.  Here's what we now know in addition:  Wendy is the lone survivor, a victim of Pan, who leaves an asylum to help Hook in the hunt for him.  Smee is the only one Hook can trust on the force.

In terms of the cast and crew, we've got Aaron Eckhart as Hook, Sean Bean  is Smee and AnnaSophia Robb portrays the disturbed Wendy.  Rather interesting note:  She's now starring as the incredibly inspiring Bethany Hamilton in the biopic Soul Surfer, which Jeremy Sumpter, the silver screen's Peter Pan also has a role.  Director Ben Hibon will bring his vision to Ben Magid's script.  It's being brought to us by at New Line/Warner Bros.

I think it sounds like it could work out well.  What better way to bring out the darkest notions of Barrie than to push the envelope and name what Pan actually does:  Kidnap.  And given Hook's affiliation with good form and respectability in that weird sense of the dual nature of things - ruthless invader or righteous crusader (depends on how the actions are perceived.)  Maybe Hook is the hero?  There's certainly much trauma throughout the tale of Pan, it might be fun to see the depths of it emerge from another angle.

Here's hoping!

TREADing Lightly?

Perhaps you remember how excited I'd been to see the trailer for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the next installment of The Chronicles of Narnia on film.  I still am excited.  But there had been quite a few things shown that I did not remember.  Understandable on two accounts:  1) My memory can sometimes go the way of Peter Pan's.  2) The movies are beset with fascinating and welcome changes to the story (without sacrificing it.)

What stood out in my mind (besides their apparent obsession with plaguing poor Edmund with visions/visits from Jadis, the White Witch) are the snow falling for Lucy in the room with the book of magic and the man turning around suddnely coming into visibility.  Oh - one other: the faun leaping in a battle as well as other animal-based characters (besides Reepicheep the mouse.)

In my recollection, Lucy didn't stand amid snow.  I did recall that characters were invisible... I just didn't bring to mind a scene in which a man turns around as shown.  And as far as I knew, no fauns show up in this book. 

So, I just finished re-reading it.  The answers?  Well, I can certainly see why they would make Lucy enchant some snow into the room.  The spells that Lewis does have her perfoming would be fiendishly difficult to bring to the screen.  (They involve seeing visions of scenarios that are best explained via text.)  And since the scene in the The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe of Lucy beholding the snowy Narnia in absolute delight is so good, it makes perfect sense for her to try and recapture that moment. And yes, the magician had also been invisible.  However, it seems they're making it a little more interesting by having him come into reappearance while "we" ( and presumably Lucy & someone else!) are watching.  I didn't think there were any battles in this book.  But it turns out there are in fact two places that one could insert a bit of such action, given their penchant for adding it.  And who is to say fauns and such are not welcome on the deck of the Dawn Treader?  Certainly King Caspian would allow it!

There are a few parts of the book that I also wonder greatly how to accomplish on screen.  And there are some marvelous parts I'd forgotten that I can't wait to see realized, assuming they are.

But you know what?  I so loved the first two movies of Narnia (tweaks and additions) that I trust them.
The last two times I thought they actually improved the book(s).
I still wish they could have had Jeremy Sumpter as Eustace Scrubb... but it's just as well, since he shot up rather tall before it went into production and thus became too big for Eustace.  Of course, I'd wanted Sumpter as Caspian, too, but other than not having blonde hair, Ben Barnes is wonderful.

Bring on the voyage!

Leaf It Alone?

I've just been doing a little thinking about how to fix a particular event in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between. I had the suspicion that something had been wrong with the playing out of it. Anon flagged it as well, and also pin-pointed exactly why it didn't work. I gave a suggestion back, and Anon deemed the idea better. Well, I've expanded on it a little bit since then... and as I said, I'd moments ago been tinkering with it.

What is it? It's Peter Pan's outfit. He essentially comes to be naked in Kensington Gardens. Yet we know he wears leaves in the Neverland. I believed I'd bridged the gap. Then, I went poking around on Neverpedia and I came across this line: 'In the play, Peter's outfit is made of autumn leaves and cobwebs.' I must have caught Peter Pan's forgetfulness, as that detail seemed new to me. (I tend to concentrate on the novel since I am working in that medium and it's Barrie's 'fixed' form of the story.) Yes, I did then recall it as part of the play, but could not shake off the "hmm." So I hunted the novel. Nope. No mention of cobwebs. (And for the record, it's now "skeleton leaves.") No reference to cobwebs in Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens either. As in the word itself does not appear in both books.

Chalk it up to another of Barrie's own tinkerings. But it got me to thinking... could I, or even should I, use cobwebs as part of the story in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between? To be honest, cobwebs give me the creeps. And the thought of wearing them...eech. But then, Pan is not my second name, and he's the one who would be sporting the spider spun spats. (Okay, they wouldn't be used as spats but I love a good alliteration.) If I do use it, it will serve as an extra bridge, no? To the play in addition to the two books. When it makes sense to do so or can provide helpful information, I like to incorporate the play or screenplay.

And while I'm on the subject of his outfit... I find it a pity that most people equate Peter Pan with a tunic, tights and a hat with a feather. A suit of leaves with juices that ooze out of trees (and cobwebs?) is much more intriguing.

Anyway, I've give the scene a little more thought...

The photo is a close up shot of Jeremy Sumpter's costume in the P.J. Hogan movie.
The other is a Disney costume. [They have (or had) several versions of a 'Peter Pan' outfit, most of which don't look like their cartoon.] I do like the rather large leaf aspect of the costume shown, though.

On Board with Barrie

Last night, I got together with Bart, Banky, Clara and author Andrea Jones. We had one purpose in mind. We broke out a Ouija Board… …and contacted none other than J.M. Barrie!

He had a lot to say, it turns out. He’s been “spinning in his grave” ever since the Disney movie took hold of the world’s perception of Peter Pan. He also seemed quite perturbed about the many books that have come out.

To our relief, he seemed okay with mine and Andrea’s writings on Pan - but not until we clarified some points for him. Andrea needed to reassure him that the sexuality of her book did not undermine the essence of his story. I needed to explain to him why War had to factor into my book.

We asked, and he loved Jeremy Sumpter, Rachel Hurd-Wood and Jason Isaacs as their roles. He thought a television mini-series of the novel would be best, so that nothing had to be fall by the wayside.

Some points he wanted to emphasize:
Hook is not a comical villain. Peter Pan does not wear tights. And his shadow is not alive.

We tried to get him to give an answer as to whether or not the Jolly Roger flies at the end of the story, but alas, he refused.

Not a single one of us will ever forget the experience, though it did seem rather dreamlike, as if it never actually happened at all.

A Day for Pans (Again)

Not to be repetitive, but ditto on this post for today.

It's hard to believe he's 21, isn't it?

Now he's reached Michael Pan, too.

Information Is Spread a Little Thin!

It’s always just not sat right with me.
What on EARTH (or on the Neverland [or even on the NeverWorld]) does Peter Pan have to do with peanut butter? I mean besides the alliteration.

Sunshine assures me that no matter what it’s a good thing that such a “kid” treat is paired with Pan. In this way, it makes kids who don’t already know about him curious. Perhaps it’s led some youngsters to seek him out. Okay, I’ll agree. But It still doesn’t explain the wherefore.

“Peter Pan Peanut Butter” did not start out with that moniker. It came out originally under the name "E. K. Pond," produced by Swift & Company. The name change came in 1920.

Okay… here’s what really baffles me! Sir James Matthew Barrie left the shores of Earth in 1937. Therefore, he probably knew about it. Did he approve of it? I have not been able to gather any information regarding this query. Even Andrew Birkin, the Barrie guru, doesn’t seem to touch on this subject. (If the information is out or Birkin did explain it, I’ve been unable to retrieve the knowledge from anywhere I’ve looked.)

And it also “bothers” me that throughout the history of the packaging, they gravitate toward the Disney manifestation. And in the earlier days, it has been a grown woman dressed [allegedly] as Peter Pan. Okay, sure, there's the "tradition" of women playing the role. But all of their women are quite obviously supposed to be women. How about no? Although, Jeremy Sumpter as Pan did appear on the jars for a time when the movie hit the theaters.

If anyone can clear this up… please do!

Hey, Dionysus! Here's One for the PANtheon...

Well, I’ve been hailing it as
THE Peter Pan event of our lifetime.
Regardless of how it turned out, good or bad, that statement holds true. In historic terms, I’d rank it above the P.J. Hogan 2003 film. Since Peter Pan began as a play, this production took the origins to a new level while returning the story to his “birthplace.”

So, did I like it? If you read a few posts back, you’ll know that on the whole, yes I did. I had a few issues with it. But not enough to outweigh the truly magical experience they created.

Before I go on in detail about the “Good Form” and “Bad Form” of the show, I want to address the “style” of the production. I tried to avoid reviews of it prior to leaving for London. I caught snippets, though. (Couldn’t help it.) Just enough to see that many people found themselves enchanted. Some, however, not so much. Barrie’s words (for the revival scene of Tinker Bell in the novel Peter and Wendy) apply: Many clapped. Some didn’t. A few beasts hissed. And just what did they “hiss” about? Some claim it lacked strong acting, missing the depth of the work. I disagree, but that’s a matter of opinion. Complaints did come, however, about the “technological” aspect of the show. Some felt that the glamour and glitter and hi-tech spectacle of it sucked the life out of it, saying that the show is not about high tech, it’s about using one’s imagination. No argument on the imagination part. But then, let’s examine what Barrie himself tried to do with the play.

Consider that if Barrie had his way, Tinker Bell would have been achieved via a reverse telescope effect, so that a real living person could appear as a tiny fairy on stage. It turned out not to be feasible, of course. But seriously, how much more hi-tech can one get for 1904? Consider also that Peter Pan revolutionized the concept of “flying” on stage. A whole new “techno” brought to the stage for this play. Also factor in the number of locations required: a nursery, a forest, underground, the ocean with a big rock and a freaking pirate ship. That’s a lot of scenery and set building. Add in that Barrie wanted it as convincing as possible… NOW try and tell me that the show isn’t about state-of-the-art!

Therefore, bringing the new-fangled dimension of CGI 360° projection is not only a good idea for this show, I’d like to think Barrie would have jumped on the wind’s back with it. Plus, animation (the way we know it today) had been in its infancy at the time of putting up Peter Pan. The first feature animated film did not appear until 1906. Perhaps Barrie would have chosen to incorporate moving drawings, too.

Even if that does not convince you that the hi-tech gadgetry belongs in this show, Peter Pan: Kensington Gardens utilized plenty of traditional or “old school” methods. It did not rely on one kind of staging or the other. All in all, a great pairing of old and new to bring about the most magic.

Okay, with that out of the way, on to the show itself.
Let me warn you, however, I am going to talk about specific events and moments in the show. If you do not wish to read “spoilers” then read no further, content in knowing that I did find myself transported for the evening.

Still reading? Okay, then, on to the “Good Form,” a la what I enjoyed. Well, that would be some of the changes they made. “Whoa there, Von Brown! You liked changes?!” you might be asking. Changes to, yes, contradictions to, never. I’ve mentioned before how Barrie tweaked it over and over and from medium to medium. Peter Pan: Kensington Gardens promised to be a new adaptation, deriving elements of the play as well as the book. They accomplished their goal. One of my favorite moments happened from this line in the book: [Peter] breathed intentionally quick short breaths at the rate of about five to a second. He did this because there is a saying in the Neverland that, every time you breathe, a grown-up dies; and Peter was killing them off vindictively as fast as possible. He does exactly this in the show. Right at the same scene as the book. When the Darlings and Lost Boys announce they are going back to the mainland, Peter tromps arounds with his quick breaths and flaps crooked arms while doing it. [He is “part bird,” you know.] But the inclusion here is not where its use is most poignant. In this production, to my utter surprise and sheer delight, they do in fact have the “epilogue” bit, when Peter Pan returns for Wendy only to discover she has grown up and has a daughter of her own. They omit some lines, write in some others… but most shockingly, Peter begins his huffing rant, yelling “Ad-dult! Ad-dult!” as he does struts and puffs. He is trying to kill grown-up Wendy! What a fantastically unnerving addition. Two more unsettling moments are added to the epilogue. I just mentioned added dialogue. Most notably, Wendy tries to get Peter to understand that they’re all gone, John, Michael… and then she says “Nibs, Curly… they’ve all grown up and have boring jobs.” “No,” protests Pan, “they don’t. And who are they anyway?” This cut me to the quick. A true gasp. Okay, we knew that he’d forgotten the Lost Boys along with Captain Hook and Tinker Bell. But to actually point out, out loud, that he forgot them! So sad. But that’s not the only variation in this scene which stirred the soul. Wendy is supposed to leave for a bit, flustered with Peter’s inability to cope and come back only to find him talking with Jane. After some discussion, Jane is allowed to go with him. But the Kensington Gardens show, however, does it differently. In Wendy’s absence Peter’s crying wakes up Jane, as per the story. Boy, why are you crying? Peter Pan stands up, bows, and the lights go out. Oooo! Quite a chilling ending! Bravo.

Okay, there’s no masking the fact: the 360° CGI projection is just damn cool. From showing the lights going out in the Bloomsbury windows at the beginning to swirling both London and the Neverland by each other to show passage of time (just before the scene described above), it’s a masterpiece of imagination and engineering. And the piece d'resistance: Flying over London. The effect they wanted? It’s achieved. It’s absolutely stunning and enchanting. Yes, you really do feel as if you’re moving high above the city. When on board the Jolly Roger it actually rocks, its creaking is heard, the sea trickles, the flag waves and both fore and aft of the ship are shown, with the stage making up the middle. Another fabulous use of the techno-magic comes at the battle scene on the ship. At one point, as he should, Pan flies up to the rigging. As he rises, so moves the video of the ship along with him! Another wonderful motion effect. Hook mimes climbing up after him (see? “old school”) and a beam pops up from the stage and their swordplay resumes on the “mast.” I must say, I really did feel way high up with them. Bravo!


We liked all the actors’ performances. The children are all played by adults but one might never know. Abby Ford is a marvelous Wendy Darling, ever so convincing as a preteen girl. It didn’t feel like she pretended at all. So make-believe and true merged, just as for Peter Pan. And Peter? Ciaran Kellgren managed to capture a rambunctious boy beautifully. I will admit that it caused me to re-appreciate Jeremy Sumpter’s portrayal. But that is not a reflection of poor quality of any kind to Kellgren. After all, acting on stage is different in many ways than it is for the screen. And since here Peter Pan had to be conveyed “from a distance,” he could not have pulled it off better. Sweet and sour, as needs be. And what of the other main character - Hook? Jonathan Hyde, who can also be seen in Cameron’s Titanic, delivered a top notch, formidable Captain. And not a comedic one, thank heavens. Oh sure, he had his humorous moments…but then, Hook does. But Hyde gave us the true cut-throat pirate Hook is rather than a bumbling, sniveling fool so often seen. (And the hook on the correct hand!) As for the rest of the cast, they deserve praise, to be sure. Not a bad apple in the bunch. Bravi!

Another example of “old school” theatre might actually be a “newer” form. Here in Chicago we are blessed to have the Redmoon Theatre company. Their work with puppetry is astounding. No, not THAT kind of puppet. We’re talking complex, majorly articulated (and often massive) constructions that have a magical quality all their own. Peter Pan: Kensington Gardens took a page from Redmoon. Nana and the Crocodile and a few birds came to life via this form of make-believe. I’d been ever so curious how they would accomplish the animals at this staging. A triumph. (Although I cannot help but wonder if Barrie would have objected to seeing the man manipulating Nana and the people operating the enormous crocodile. He seemed to be a stickler for making it seem effortless and real.)



I rather enjoyed Peter’s costume, too. Very atypical, yet not out of place. A kind of tapestry draped over his shoulders, with a bit of feathers at the top. It hung down beyond his waist, bunched up, looking rather like a bird’s tail. If you’re not aware, Pan in the original stage production sported a little cape, too. (Which is partially why I included one in Peter Pan’s NeverWorld.) Bare chested. Brown pants, cut off at the knee.

The music, by Benjamin Wallfisch, proved sublime. Just as adventurous and whisking as a Peter Pan score should sound.

I’m sure I could tell you more about the glorious aspects of this production, but I’ll move on…

“Bad Form,” unfortunately, also crept in quite a bit. First and foremost, Tinker Bell. I knew going into this show that she would be played by a person. I’m sorry, I just don’t like this at all. For why, see this post. Again, that is not to say that Itxaso Moerno’s performance lacked. Far from it. Despite the “size” I enjoyed her Tink. (Which is quite an accomplishment, as I’m not altogether that fond of Miss Bell in general.) In this show she starts off as a light (and a rather cool one at that) but when she emerges from the drawer (although here it is a trunk) she’s magically bigger. (I say magically also in the sense of the “magic trick” of a person appearing in a box which had been empty.) From then on, she’s a feisty little lady in a tutu and something like combat boots. Really? Also, there seems to be no fairy dust in this version. Instead, Tink begrudgingly and exasperatedly stands in front of each Darling kid and hoists her right leg way up the air while thrusting a thumbs up sign above her head and yelling out “UP!” They can then fly. Admittedly it’s funny, but…um? Really? We couldn’t have a sprinkling of glitter here?

Speaking of flying, I found myself quite perturbed that Peter Pan does not actually fly through the window. The window’s there. It opens of its own accord. But…he does not come through it. Instead, he lowers from the ceiling. Okay, yes, this might be a limitation of being staged in a tent. But come on now, Peter Pan flies through the window…that’s the “whole thing,” you know? I felt cheated.

Remember me saying that Barrie did not so much want to the technicality to be seen? I kept thinking he would have hated this part. Which part? Very often in the show, it’s quite obvious that the characters are hooking themselves back up to the flying rigging. Nitpicking? Oh, sure, perhaps. But I’m “just saying” because Barrie specifically wrote in a whole scene so this very thing does not happen! He didn’t want the audience to be aware that the actress put the wiring back on…so we get Pan hiding behind the curtain to avoid being seen by Liza, responding to Nana’s warning barks. Here, however, it’s blatant. Every time. I don’t mean to suggest that they could have avoided it, especially as it’s theatre in the round… just mentioning that it made me think Barrie might wince.

This same scene is the subject of another curious alteration. We all know that Mr. & Mrs. Darling leave the house to go to a party, right? Well, not here. Instead, they are giving their own party downstairs. It adds a bit of drama, I suppose… that Pan is kidnapping their children right out from under (above?) them. But not so much that it warrants making the change. I believe they wanted to steer clear of the whole crazy business with Liza the maid and did not want to have to stage Nana running across town to fetch them. So, I understand it on one level and cock my head on another.

There are no Indians/Redskins/Native Americans, save Tiger Lily. They’re mentioned, they have (off stage) the battle over the Underground House with the pirates. But otherwise, they don’t exist. Just the Redskin Princess. This is probably due to production costs or some similar matter. It’s not egregious, but it did, again, make me cock my head and take me out of the action of the play for a spell.

They eliminated the Twins, as well. Maybe the smaller space of round stage would be too cluttered? And they are, in some ways, extraneous. But then, they replaced them with a strange bird character. (And someone to control it.)

The mermaids. Oh good grief. I do not wish to belittle in any way the marvelous and mesmerizing movements of the talented gymnast, Fiona Lait, who portrayed a mermaid. She’s to be commended on her gymnastics and feats of control alongside a rope high up in the air. Yes, you read that right. A rope to twist around, stretch out upon. etc. Honestly, the rope did not prove the real problem. The lack of a tail…or even fins of any kind seemed to be the issue. What could have been an otherwise spectacular scene turned lackluster in this instance. For the first time anywhere (that I know of) we are taken beneath the Mermaid Lagoon and Marooner’s Rock. Oh, how cool, right? Indeed so. A watery landscape, with schools of fish, sea turtles…fabulously fun. And then, a rope drops down from the tent and this “mermaid” emerges from the stage and does her (otherwise magnificent) bit. Really? I felt so bad for Bart, who is a huge fan of mermaids. Couldn’t they have at least given us a CGI mermaid along with the astonishing acrobatics? Or a tail? Fins? Oh well.

There might be other tidbits that rubbed me the wrong way, such as the Crocodile having one line (though I am fully aware it’s “for the kids”), but I can’t recall any glaring ones… and I suppose that’s a good sign.

So, there you have it. All in all, a most wonderful production.
Truly historic, in so many more ways than one.
Much to love, much to shake a head over. But over all, pure magic.
I like to believe that Barrie would have felt the same way.

Thank you, director Ben Harrison and designer William Dudley.
And to all the cast and crew, thank you.
Yours is a Peter Pan to remember!

Bloody Smashing Performance, eh what?

Quite a bit I’ve seen the fact that Jeremy Sumpter (Peter Pan in the 2003 film) is not British called into question. The objection being that Peter Pan is British, of course. Some are turned off that he therefore did not have an accent. Which is, really, the actual argument. Sumpter could have inflected as such in the movie. By the same token, I have seen just as many have nary a qualm with it. I thought I’d put in my two cents on this issue.

In my review of Hogan’s movie, I made it clear how much I enjoyed Sumpter’s performance. He’s Pan, no question. So… did the lack of British accent bother me?

Let’s consider Peter’s history. Yes, born in the United Kingdom. So it stands to reason that he would speak with an accent. However, he did not stay very long in his house. The actual duration depends on which version of Barrie’s works. (I’ll save the details for another post. Suffice to say that Peter stayed no more than a week in his house.) We know for a fact that he heard his parents talking. Their conversation launches Peter into the adventure of a lifetime. But would he adopt the accent in so short a time? Possibly, but not likely. For when next seen, Peter is speaking with birds (as he had not forgotten the bird language.) Soon after he speaks with fairies as well. Who are we to assume fairies have a British accent? (Surely, fairy accents [if these exist] could be indigenous around the world as they are with humans.) I cannot say for sure, of course. But I’m inclined to believe the fairies would not want to associate themselves with such human silliness and complication. Thus, I’d imagine if they have an accent at all, it would be their own.

Peter Pan had little interaction with other humans before arriving in the Neverland. One Maimie Mannering, namely. But he does not spend much time with her, either. So again, it’s doubtful he would pick up the inflections.

The Lost Boys, well, they might have British accents. But by the time Peter Pan had become captain of a band of boys, he would already have a manner of speaking. He might pick up some from them. However, it's just as likely that they would lose their accents. Either by forgetting or emulating Peter Pan, who would be their model.

Some of the pirates in the Neverland would have British accents, surely.
Yet the pirates had different accents as well.

So, the eternal boy would not have any real model for how to inflect his speech.

And there you have it. I don’t think Peter Pan would have a British accent.

And if anyone still has the idea that the actor picked for Pan should have been a native of the United Kingdom, I say this: I support the widespread search for an unknown. And given the unnecessary accent and the performance captured on film, it makes little difference. I mean after all, Peter started off being played by the opposite gender.

Bravo to P.J. Hogan on this issue.

A Comment that Glows Like Tinker Bell

I'm pleased to announce that Jeremy Sumpter, the young man who brought Peter Pan to life on the big screen, has read Peter Pan's NeverWorld!

I'm even more pleased that he liked it!

What better testimonial than Peter Pan himself?

Thank you, Jeremy Sumpter.

Looking forward to seeing more of your work. All the best.

P.J. Hogan's Boy Who Never Grew Up

When I discovered a live-action rendition of the classic story of Peter Pan would be hitting the silver screen, I’m sure some of my joy spilled a little everywhere I went. Why had I been so excited? Well, the answer should be obvious to you. But that’s not the reason. No. It sprung from the fact that this had never been done before. Yes. It had not. No live-action version of Peter Pan exists other than this 2003 movie and the silent version in 1924. [Barrie detested the silent one. He’s a bit too hard on it, if you ask me, but then he does have very valid points as well. I’ll address these when I post about it.*] But, again, Hogan made the only live-action Pan to date. People often challenge me with “What about Mary Martin?” No, Mary Martin’s version is a filming of the stage play. It is not a “movie” with theatrical release. And some would-be snarks suggest Spielberg’s Hook counts as the first live-action Pan. If you are one of them, I strongly urge you to rethink. Even if I could fathom it, it is not an adaption of the original story anyway, so it doesn’t count on that stipulation alone. How is it possible that no movie of Peter Pan had been made in 99 years? I mean, seriously, how?

Another part of my excitement came from the fact that everything I read in the years leading up to its release in terms of pre-production, production, interviews, press releases, etc., Hogan (and other actors) promised that it would remain faithful to the story. Hogan said himself, as I recall, that since it had never been brought to the silver screen, he would do it faithfully and do it justice.

And how do I feel about Hogan’s production? It’s 60% perfect, 40% atrocity.
Let me start with the good parts.

First of all, Jeremy Sumpter. He did an incredible job of being the eternal boy. I sincerely think Barrie would have been proud of his performance. He embodied everything about Pan - including the devil in him that Barrie so wanted him to have in the statue in Kensington Gardens. But it’s not just the script that provided the diabolical side of the boy, Sumpter brought it on with his wonderful expressions and acting. I can’t think of anyone who can make faces (in the good sense) better than Sumpter. He has said how much he enjoyed being Peter Pan and it shows. Adorable one minute, sorrowful the next and tricky in a flash. Bravo, Jeremy! Truth be told, there are two line readings that make me nuts. One of them I dislike because it is not at all how I always imagined Peter saying it. Not that I am solely correct, of course. But Sumpter’s interpretation is so different from mine that I had to put down my aversion and applaud it. Wendy asks Peter his name. In my mind, Peter would proudly and brightly respond, “Peter Pan!” with a “and YOU’RE NOT” subtext. (Chevy Chase similarity noted.) In the movie, he backs away from her, with a pause between “Peter……Pan” making Peter cautious at her approach. A cool way of reading it, I admit. The other line I just don’t understand. When Wendy withdraws under her covers, Peter must lure her back out. He’s trying to woo her, in a sense, so what he says should be enticing. Barrie says that Peter tells her “One girl is more use than twenty boys.” But the movie Pan says, “Onegirlisworthmorethantwentyboys.” No enticement, no sweetness. Just onebigword forced out his mouth. I’m not sure if Jeremy made these decisions or Hogan. But it matters little, for the rest of what he gave us IS Peter Pan. It should also be noted that Jeremy is the first boy to play Peter Pan on screen and be seen doing it (as opposed to Bobby Driscoll who voiced Disney’s).

The other actors all did a great job, too. Bravo to Jason Isaacs for making a refined but frightening Captain James Hook. No foppish, bumbling, comedic villain here. And the hook is on the correct hand. Honest, to all the actors a resounding BRAVO!

The set design, the mood, the tone, the colors, the lighting…beautiful. Perfectly matches the book in my mind. Bravo to the team. And James Newton Howard’s score - I can’t get enough of it.

Before I talk about what I deem horrendous, let me talk about the changes that I liked. Most especially the character of Aunt Millicent. Hogan’s invention actually fixes Barrie’s work. In the story the Darlings are concerned over how to meet expenses, yet they have a maid. A maid whose sole function is to almost catch the children with Peter Pan in the nursery. To add that bit of tension. Seriously, no other purpose. Hogan picked up on that, creating George Darling’s sister Millicent, played wonderfully and to the hilt by Lynn Redgrave. Not only is the scene more dramatic now that the dreaded Aunt Millicent will catch them, but she provides the nudge that perhaps Wendy should leave the nursery and grow up. She also nudges George, forcing confidence into him to be a smash hit at the party they attend with his co-workers so as to get a promotion. A brilliant tweak. I liked Aunt Millicent so much that if I ever made my own movie, I would ask Hogan for permission to use her.

The Black Castle. It’s not in the book…but I love it to pieces. One of the things Barrie envisioned for a movie of his work is expanding it in the visual sense. To be able to do and show material and places that could not be done on stage. So erecting a creepy castle around the kidnapping of Tiger Lily (which in this version included John and Michael as well) did wonders for the tale. Just the sort thing TO add. Bravo.

Though it veered, dare I say greatly, from Barrie I even liked making Wendy more strong-willed and disenchanted with her matronly duties. Craving adventure. I know a certain Miss Richards who would clap at this idea as well. I even could deal with the omission of the medicine scene for the clever race to retrieve the note from the teacher’s messenger. Again, it expanded the staging.

The saving of Tinker Bell is incredibly moving and powerful. I'd wondered how to do it for a movie without asking the audience to clap...and Hogan made it very special. Just as I would have imagined doing it, but he took it a step further by including Mr. and Mrs. Darling and Aunt Millicent in the mix. It's truly touching, uplifting and beautiful.

Hogan also makes a logical conclusion. If happy thoughts make one fly, then unhappy thoughts will make one drop. He establishes this idea early on in their arrival in the Neverland. He uses it at full power when Pan battles Hook in the final showdown. A shift is made in line delivery. Hook feeds Peter lines that really belong to Wendy. Hook presents the horror of the future, when Wendy will have forgotten all about him and is married to another man. Pan falls from the sky. It works effectively enough.

However, during that scene something is happening that made my skin crawl in the theater, and still does to this day. In Hogan’s version, Hook learns to fly. Why? It bears repeating. WHY? After all that talk about being accurate, finally realizing Barrie’s masterpiece in “reality” and then Hogan has Hook FLY? I can see if this had been the umpteenth movie made of Peter Pan. Wanting to change it up a bit so this version stands out among the others. But there ARE no others. WHY, Hogan? I don’t even think Hook would WANT to fly. And adults aren’t “supposed to,” am I right? If that didn’t ruin the movie (the one that had promised to be faithful) for me this next alteration did.

When Peter is defeated (for the time being) laying on the deck of the Jolly Roger, Wendy prevents Hook from plunging his claw into the boy, saying she wants to give him a thimble. Now, as we all should know, a thimble to Peter is a kiss and vice-versa. So…she gives him a kiss. Not a peck. Not a smack. A kiss. A full blown, face-sucking kiss. First of all, I do not need to see 13 year old kids sucking face. Second of all, it…are you ready…invigorates Peter Pan. He turns bright pink, his whole body, PINK. He lets out some sort of sonic boom cry and BOLTS into the sky, happy as hell and energized to whip the pants off Hook. No. No. NO. Sexuality would destroy Pan, not rejuvenate him. Why, Hogan?

I have a few minor bones to pick, such as the fact that Smee has a watch. I get it, the Captain smashing it with his hook is cute and it lends itself to his speech about the crocodile being after him. But that is the whole point…the only way to tell time in the Neverland is via the clock in the croc. I also abhor the notion of “Swiss Army Hook” by which I mean Hook having many hooks to choose from. I’m under the impression that this bloodthirsty pirate would relish a rusty, scratched, worn, severely evil looking hook. I didn’t like the parrot, either. I won’t go on with these, they’re minor. For each one of these, there are marvelous moments, such as Peter’s dejection at seeing Hook’s demise and the make-your-head-spin disorientation of rippling the stars on the way to the Neverland.

But the last bit that truly bothered me is that no last bit came. The scene when Wendy grew up and Peter Pan finally comes back for her again, only to take Jane, her daughter, instead. I read about the auditions for Jane, I knew the scene would be coming. Bart (who sweetly attended on Xmas Night much to his utter contempt for the idea), in fact, had been waiting for this scene. It’s his favorite of the whole book. It’s what he came to see, really, what he wanted to see most. But no. In the theatrical release, we hear a voice over from Wendy (which is when we learn that the female narrator is in fact her) saying, “But I was not to see Peter Pan again…” Excuse me? Wendy goes back to the Neverland many times! But alas, they even left out the scene with Jane. Argh! It does appear on the DVD as a deleted scene (among other scenes that should not have been deleted in my opinion because they are all beautifully done and retain some of Barrie’s best bits). It’s a gut wrenching scene. Truly. Even unfinished. There’s no music (which makes it more devastating) and the harnesses to make Peter and Jane fly are clearly visible. Still, it’s damn powerful and again Sumpter delivers. Too bad they cut it.

So there you have it. When it’s good, it’s perfect. When it’s bad, it’s unforgivable.
The 2003 Peter Pan is the best Peter Pan movie ever.
Because it is the only one. (Excluding the silent film, of course.)
One last thing. Why did they release it in 2003? It didn’t do as well as it might have up against the final part of Jackson’s Tolkien epic. Also, just one more year and a couple days and it could have been released 100 years to the day of the play's premiere. Hollywood inexplicably avoided making a Peter Pan movie for 99 years…what’s one more to celebrate the Centennial of Barrie’s masterpiece? I’m truly baffled.

But thank goodness that it DOES have much to love.
And thank goodness we have a Peter Pan, Wendy and Hook that do justice to these complex characters.

* The image I chose is my first exposure to the movie visually. I wondered greatly at what a dragon statue had to do with anything, but it only fueled my excitement at the time. The dragon is, of course, part of the Black Castle.

* As I state in "The Silent Boy Who Never Grew Up." I unintentionally over accentuated Barrie's feelings on the movie over the course of the years. Please see that post for more.

Bloody Smashing Performance, eh what?
A Million Thanks for Aunt Millicent
H-OO-k Tat-OO
Hogan's "Indians"

Japan's Boy Who Never Grew Up
Disney's Boy Who Never Grew Up
The Silent Boy Who Never Grew Up
Fox's Boy Who Never Grew Up

Comment Continues to Conclusion on Strange Book

I finished the strange book.
Generally it tumbled gracefully forward in the same manner which I had described last time. But it did so entertainingly. The weaving in and out of the fictional realities remained captivating…up until the end. I am sad to say that I did not so much care for the ending. Actually, the outcome I very much expected given the increasing hints throughout the piece. Yet it did have some other startling moments. The most salient of these, though, comes in the part that disappointed me. Kensington Gardens utilizes one of those hackneyed devices. The kind you can envision a literary professor professing to never use. You know, as in: And they awoke from the dream. (Not the one used in this book.) It just left me cold. Something so grandly knitted together deserves not to fray.

One of my favorite sections is a description of a grand party his parents, you remember, the rockstars, gave one wild evening. It goes on for 10 and half pages in an ‘endless’ list of celebrities who attended. Each celebrity received a comment in parenthesis. Glib comments about what they wore, what they drank, who they spoke to and why, what they did, etc. Each a little quip. Here’s an example: Truman Capote (that voice like fingernails on a blackboard singing some song from The Mikado over and over again all night…) I genuinely laughed out loud several times on the train. It has a build to it with recurring jokes (both commentary and people) and is worth picking up the book to read this part alone.

Overall I have mixed feelings about what I “got out of” the book. To me it seemed as if he suggested that children’s fantasy fiction is a kind of infection. The allure and “promise” of heroes with implausible but delicious powers…ones that in our present state of reality are not actually going to happen. The child soon learns the sad fact. And yet characters always outlive the author. Their “impossible” feats will always cause pain. It always ends in let down. He says authors write to take revenge against the world that would not realize the fantasy, spreading the infection. I’m not so sure I can agree but then it’s hard not to see a logic. As I said, mixed feelings. Still, I could be reading too much into it and making a fabrication of the real message of a fake author whose history is invented into our reality…

However, I did not have mixed feelings about two omissions. These occurred in yet another list of famous people. This one did not prove as long. Only about a page. It recounts all those who have played Peter Pan. It contains parenthetical comments again, but more so about trivia. Here is the first “omission” that bothered me. Jean Arthur (with Boris Karloff as Captain Hook); Mary Martin; Mia Farrow (who doesn’t need to cut her hair…) Back up. Where is Mary Martin’s parenthetical? How in the Neverland could he not comment on her? Here’s the other: and finally Peter Pan as a boy savage in the film directed by the Australian P.J. Hogan. And his name? I don’t get it. Why would he fail to mention Jeremy Sumpter? I have mixed feelings about Hogan’s movie itself. But I, for one, adore Jeremy’s portrayal of Peter. Perhaps Peter Hook/Fresán did not agree and disliked his performance. Could be - yet he obviously has no trouble slamming two other celebrities by name here: and Spielberg’s terrible Peter Pan, played by terrible Robin Williams (an adult, amnesiac Peter Pan) Perhaps the book published prior to its casting/release? No, the movie preceded publication by two years. Why, then, omit his name? It just irks me. Jeremy Sumpter (the fantastic first live-action boy Peter Pan) There.

Well, all in all, it’s a hell of a read. Despite the “oh please…” epilogue of sorts, I enjoyed having my brain jostled by this one.

One other thing…the author (Fresán) does address the notion of using real people fictionally in a footnote. Interesting that he put quotations around the word real.


And yes, that's John Lennon on the left there. The Beatles factor heavily into what's growing in the fertile mind of Fresán's Kensington Gardens.