Sound the Buzzer, Not a Bell

I captured this bit of reality a significant while ago now when I'd been out with Buttercup.  I think it's easy enough to figure out where, given what can be seen in the photo edges.

Note that Barrie's most famous fairy is listed among other great literary characters.

It's also spelled wrong.  It's two words.

Oops.

You think that's Tink?

Peter Pan is always with Tinker Bell, right?

Okay, he’s not in Peter Pan’s NeverWorld.  I didn’t see the need to ‘magically’ resurrect Tink when Barrie put in the extra sad touch of her ultimate demise.  After all, she’d already been saved from death once.   I gave Peter his own fairy, literally.

And thus, not counting my book or the final chapter (and whenever upon she ceased to be prior to his visit to grown-up Wendy), Peter Pan is never without Tink.  Right?

Perhaps not!  Two bits of Barrie leapt out at me when last going through the novel, which, in conjunction with each other, just might prove otherwise.

Among Peter’s visits to the Darling nursery (to hear the stories), we read:

He was accompanied by a strange light, no bigger than your fist, which darted about the room like a living thing and I think it must have been this light that wakened Mrs. Darling.

And later, having come back to fetch his shadow:

It was not really a light; it made this light by flashing about so quickly, but when it came to rest for a second you saw it was a fairy, no longer than your hand, but still growing.

We can say for certain that this second light/fairy is in fact Tink.  Why?  The next line, of course:

It was a girl called Tinker Bell...

All right, so Pan has a fairy with him both times.  Note, however, that Barrie doesn’t specify the first one as the popular Tink.  Granted, that doesn’t mean it isn’t her, and the natural assumption is to think it is.   But examination of what’s there yields the difference between a ‘fist’ and a ‘hand.’  Those are similar, yes, but not quite the same.  Try it.  Look at your fist rather than your hand - vastly dissimilar actually.  This alone might prove enough to question whether or not the fairy with him when Mrs. Darling encountered the boy is Tink.   But what really jarred me is the curious word ‘growing’ that Barrie wrote.   Why does it matter?  Well, only one week elapses between when Peter’s shadow had been torn off by the window and when he returns to fetch it. 

She decided to roll the shadow up and put it away carefully in a drawer, until a fitting opportunity came for telling her husband. Ah me!  The opportunity came a week later, on that never-to-be-forgotten Friday.

To think of Peter without his shadow for a whole week!   But in terms of the matter at wing, that’s not all that much time, really.  So are we to believe, then, that the first light had grown from a fist to hand size in just seven days?  And the fairy (Tink?) still growing?  If fairies kept getting bigger as such in as little time as a week, she’d be HUGE after the amount of time that the Darlings spent in the Neverland.  [Don’t believe me?  See this post.]  Unless, of course, she stopped growing after the week.  It’s entirely possible, given that a week seems to have some sort of magic property in the world of Pan. [i.e. Peter flew away from home in seven days (as per Narrator of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens) and the seven days of boys before they are ‘lost.’]  Possible, sure, but is it likely? 

You see, if it can be surmised that a fairy grows in a week, then isn’t also true that Tink is a new fairy?  Thus, she hadn’t been with Peter all that long [if any time at all!] before the Mrs. Darling encounter.

All right, then, if the fairy with Pan & Mrs. Darling is in fact not Tinker Bell, then it suggests that fairies are different sizes just as humans are!  And even if it is Tink then, she’s now another size it would seem.

A lot to think about, no? 

I’m not stating outright that the first fairy is not Tink.  Nor am I saying that it is.  I haven’t made a decision.  And right now I don’t have to do so, as I have no plans on writing stories with Tinker Bell in them.  So I don’t have to bang my head to figure it out just yet.

But it does raise an interesting notion - not only on fairy sizing, but as to whether or not Tinker Bell “always” accompanies Pan.

You Mean TINK?

I'd been out with Buttercup who decided to check out one of those Halloween superstores that appear during this season (well, by the end of August, sadly.)

I came across this costume and had to share.

NEVERLAND FAIRY, eh?  ;)

It's just one of many "renamed" items there... such as "Rogue Pirate" for Jack Sparrow.

In other news, yes, it's true.

Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between is just about on its way to availability.  The project is done (outside of any tweaks that come with/on/from the "proof.")  However, I beg your forgiveness once more.  As I mentioned before, I'm moving.  That is happening in the VERY near future...as soon as possible.  I've an apartment and such... just need to obtain it and move in... SO... once I have that all settled and a new address, I'll set the novel in motion.

Keep your window open!  Pan's flying back to you very soon!

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?

What is "You Better BELIEVE It!," Alex?

Go figure.

So soon after the last one, a character from Barrie is mentioned on the best trivia show ever once again!
My my MY my MY!

Granted, it's referring to the Disney incarnation this time, but for certain the "question" to the $200 "answer" on Jeopardy! is "Who is Tinker Bell?"  I mean, what ELSE would be first in a categoty of 'TINKER,' right?

Also interesting to note, right next to it there'd been a category "EVER"s and one might think a mention of the N'ever'LAND might be inculded.  No, though.  But this entire category had been played before they ever touched on 'TINKER.'

Seriously, folks, WHO *IS* the Barrie & Pan fan on the Jeopardy! team?  My friend Buttercup who'd been watching and playing along with me agrees that there's got to be someone!

Tinker Bell & Hook: 'Frenemies'?

Remember when Tinker Bell is captured by Captain Hook and they strike up a sort of kinship against Peter Pan (because Peter had banished her)? I don’t.

This, folks, is another of the misconceptions about the story of Peter Pan. I’d been almost exactly positive that it doesn’t happen in any versions of the story by Barrie.  But just to be sure I just had a gander and, no, sorry, Barrie never has Tink and Hook together in any capacity (play, novel or screenplay.)

It’s another invention of Disney. It’s a fine one, to be sure. For it’s not like it doesn’t make sense, given how moody and flighty the fairies, especially Tinker Bell, can be. But it’s technically not correct, nevertheless.

It’s also another of the ingrained-in-pop-culture bits that P.J. Hogan used in his movie. I rather like his image of Tink sitting on Hook’s iron claw... and I love the fact that Hogan had it so that Hook understood the fairy directly whereas Disney had her ‘speak’ to him most of the time in pantomime [although at one point it does seem he hears words yet if so, they're still accompanied by a shaking finger.] Hogan has it precisely right.  Having been in the Neverland so long, Hook must have developed the knack for translation of the fairy language.  But again - Tink siding with Hook just does not actually happen in Barrie.

There’s also a short story called Never Never by Bruce Glassco in The Faery Reel: Tales from the Twilight Realm in which Hook and Tink are seen together as well.

And the last place the two of them are seen together in cahoots that I can think of off the top of my head is in Hook & Jill. And this, folks, is probably the best use of this idea. No, not because author Andrea Jones and I are friends. Because in her Pan tale, the scene happens after the point in which the storyline has been skewed. Therefore, Andrea uses the popular (and appealing) idea to great advantage. She includes it but in a way entirely separate from anyone else. I won’t spoil it for you. You’ll just have to read Hook & Jill to see how it plays out. Incidentally, it’s precisely this scene that Andrea read aloud at the bookstore when I first met her (at a book signing/reading.)

In Disney’s showing of this otherwise non-existent scene, Hook tricks Tink into revealing the location of Peter Pan’s hideout.  She walks along a map and locations are seen (not found in Barrie) such as Cannibal Cove. (Cannibal Cove? Really, Disney? I mean hey, I’ll be the first to point out that the island can be a horrifying place... but cannibals?? Egad!) In doing so, it winds up sacrificing a rather fun part of Barrie’s tale and at the same time denying Hook some of his thunder – that he finds the hideout himself. Granted, he does so by accident when he’s rambling on about his woe of his infamous encounter with Pan that cost him a hand and how the crocodile lurks around for him, but still...

In Hogan’s version, it’s not an asking of Tink as to Pan’s whereabouts. Rather Tink tells him the name of the girl/mother now on the island (Wendy.) Interesting that they changed this around.  [Also interesting is that the film, too, omits Hook finding the hideout as Barrie has it in favor of that damned parrot (an addition) following Tink.]

Naturally, this cancels out another fun image - a fairy (namely Tink) trapped in a lantern.  It appears in both Disney and Hogan.

Oh well. It’s a shame that this lantern concept has become so over-used. (I’ve seen it a bunch outside of stories or movies, too.) I’d like to do it myself in a tale though I have nothing particular in mind... and since it’s now sort of hackneyed it’s more than likely that I won’t.

So as much fun as it might be - there's no "frenemy" of Tink & Hook in Barrie.

Ides of...Fairies?

Snippet of F.D. Bedford's "Peter Flew In"

Once again we have come to the Ides of March.

Shakespeare has a soothsayer tell Caesar to beware this date.

Well, it always makes me think of (Kel surpsise!) a line in Barrie as well:

‘Ware Tinker Bell.

Yes, folks, be afraid of her. She’s a nasty, conniving, jealous silly ass. Not always, naturally. But nevertheless, I do make sure to point out to people who love her because she is a “sweet & cute little fairy” that this is a bit of a misconception. I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m not very fond of Tink. I’m sorry, I just don’t like her. Barrie’s or otherwise. Unlike Pan, who can be thought of as having been deeply wounded by the world, she has no excuses for her behavior other than her own petty desires. (Not that I’m really defending Peter Pan’s conduct!)

And to be fair, I suppose I shouldn’t just pick on Tinker Bell. One could just as easily say:

‘Ware fairies.
"If the fairies see you," they warned her, "they will mischief you, stab you to death or compel you to nurse their children or turn you into something tedious, like an evergreen oak."

Well, at least beware Barrie fairies!

Birds and the Bees of Fairies

The other day I noticed the latest Disney Tinker Bell movie running on TV. Unable to squelch my curiosity, I had a gander. Cute. Pretty animation. But I’m not here to discuss the movie per se. Truth is I stopped watching after a quarter of an hour or so. It did pose, though, a question I couldn’t ignore. In the movie, Tink winds up in the room of a little girl. Tink wants to leave, but it’s raining very hard outside and thus, she cannot fly home. So, she spends some time with the little girl and I must say that I’m very glad Tink needs to ‘sign’ and gesture with nods or shakes to communicate with the girl. The girl heard her as jingling noises. Quite right upon first meeting a fairy. But let’s back up a minute. She couldn’t fly in the rain?

Naturally my interest in the matter piqued. Can fairies fly in the rain? Had I really even thought about it before? Before I continue, let me specify that I am speaking of fairies within the world of Sir J.M. Barrie only. It didn’t take long for me to recall the storm in Peter Pan’s NeverWorld. Denny (the fairy) didn’t want to go out in the storm. However, his fear stems from that particular tempest. In other words, reading it through again, Denny doesn’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea to fly in a regular storm. And knowing Denny, he’d accompany Peter Pan. So, I suppose it’s safe to say I seemed at the time of writing it to believe fairies could fly in the rain.

There’s no mention of rain in Barrie in relation to the fairies. But there is no evidence that they cannot fly in it. At best there’s some iffy information from Peter Pan in regards to their limitations.

This post is in no way meant to shake a finger at Disney. Quite the contrary… I enjoyed the dilemma. And obviously there’s no definitive answer to be gleaned from the texts.

But I did look up the birds and the bees. To sum up, birds can fly in the rain on account of their hollow bone lightness and the oily feathers slicking off rain. Bees, contrary to popular belief and common sense, can fly in the rain. They just don’t like to! Yes, really, as per bee-keepers. Since we have the common sense of thinking a bee in the rain might not work well, so have the bees.

So perhaps we can leave it at that, then, as it will also suffice in Disney’s movie… since the fairies might not want to be like the birds (fairies have their tiffs with the birds says Barrie), they might then be like the bees. Fairies can fly in the rain, but don’t like to…

Fly By Right

It could just be me...

(and in fact I asked Bart, but it doesn't really bother him...)

But it just doesn't seem right that anyone flies before the eternal boy himself.

What am I talking about?

In the latest Disney video featuring their version of Peter Pan's companion fairy a la Barrie, Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue, the little girl in the story is given the power to fly by the fairies.  No, I haven't seen the movie, but I know this as anyone else would by watching the advertisements.  (I've seen the first of their Tink video ventures and I actually didn't hate it.  However, I didn't see any reason to continue with the series since I'm not really a Tink fan and it's within the Disney scope of Barrie's world, whereas I am rooted in Barrie's actual [as well as wading in the alluring alternate Barrie reality of Andrea Jones.])

ANYWAY, I just don't cotton to the idea that someone is given the power of flight without, or especially before, Peter Pan.   For one thing, Peter didn't originally obtain it from the fairies (but yes, he did fly again later via them.)  For another, it just seems wrong to steal his thunder, doesn't it?

Of course, it is possible that Peter Pan's flight from his nursery window, life in Kensington Gardens and arrival at the Neverland has already happened within the arc of the storyline of films up through Great Fairy Rescue.  As I haven't seen them, I don't know for sure.  (And if it's mentioned in the first one, like Pan, I don't recall.)  But even so, it just doesn't seem like something the fairies would want humans doing without the insistence of the eternal boy.  Granted in this case it is to save a fairy and probably prevent the exposure of their existence...and desperate times call for desperate measures.  But still, it just doesn't seem "fair" to Barrie's boy, nor fit within the general sense of the phenomenon.  Plus, I'm not optimistic about the correct placement and time-frame of the film given Barrie's ambiguous history of Pan.*

Perhaps Tink has now HEARD of Peter Pan in the films and allows it to happen given her knowledge of Pan having done it?

Either way, I just don't agree with a kid flying without Peter Pan present.

What about you? Are you somewhat perturbed by a little girl flying (seemingly) before Peter Pan [and friends]?

* Naturally since I am obsessed with Pan and would also have to do so by necessity in order to write about and within Barrie's world, I've worked out a timeline and dates for the events of the Peter Pan stories using the evidence, allusions and facts presented within Peter and Wendy, the play and Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens.

DISappointedNEY Again...

Apparently Disney is concocting a live-action movie called Tink.

It will be a romantic comedy and reportedly strays from the traditional story/setting of Peter Pan.

I've not much to say about it. I'm not much of a Tinker Bell fan, but then I am not really a fan of the Disney version of Pan either.

Elizabeth Banks will play the infamous fairy.

Either way, there is lot riding on this, since many people are Tink fans who could conceivably be disappointed. I pretty much already am...

This is an update from Hollywood, it seems... other post.

Should We PANic?

Time to report on more Pan-derings.

Andrea Jones, author of the marvelous Hook & Jill, informed me of a book that is meant to be Tinker Bell centered. However, for all of you who just went “awwww” be aware that the Tink in this book is reportedly a brazen drunk. (Barrie’s Tink may be bitchy, for lack of better word, but I don’t think she deserves to be a full-on drunken tart.) There’s no word on when and if this story will ever be released. I’ll keep you posted. The author is Martha O’Connor and the book is Tink. Please note that I am not slamming her with my comments. Just my knee-jerk reaction. It could very well be that she justifies her spins on Barrie. But I’m also a harsh critic as you’ve probably figured out by now if you’ve been following along with me. (The picture is not associated with the book!)


There’s also one that's been out for some time now, but I have not yet made mention of here until now. But since I’m on the subject… It's a re-telling, of sorts, of the Peter Pan story, Tigerheart, by Peter David. I’ve not read it myself, to be honest. Since it is a completely new re-working of the story and not meant to be an adventure in the direct timeline of Barrie’s world, I didn’t pay much attention to it. I’ve read mixed reviews, however. This also harkens back to this post of mine. But by that I don’t mean this is doing that exact idea of a “Novel Remake.” For in order to be what I describe, the character names and situations would not be changed, just the way in which it’s told.


Never After is another “re-telling” of the story is by Dan Elconin. From the description, this one deviates greatly from the original tale with zombies and penis jokes. Yes, you read that correctly. I do like that “The Island” isn’t quite what it’s touted as… that’s true of Barrie’s island, too, and a fact that I like to emphasize myself. You can read more about it here. Call me a purist even when it's a re-envisioning, but zombies and penis jokes? No thanks.

PAN-dering to the New Stuff

Some Pan news, briefly.

Peter and the Sword of Mercy, the latest installment of the “Peter” series by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson is out. I do not condone it, for the entire series has numerous mistakes compared to Sir J.M. Barrie. How they can be so disrespectful of another author (especially one so revered by many) is beyond me. And before you tell me it’s only supposed to be prequels to the Disney version (as the publisher Hyperion is a subsidiary of Disney) they even manage to contradict that, too. I’ve posted this link before, but here’s a list of what’s wrong with the first three in the series as shown on Wikipedia: Differences from the Works of Barrie

Disney’s second movie starring Tinker Bell, Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure, will be flying into stores soon. No, I’m not going to watch this one. For you see, I’m not a fan of Tink. Not even Barrie’s. However, I did watch the first Disney venture into Tink’s past. And you know what? I liked it, surprisingly. No, it’s not phenomenal. It’s your standard fare, but it did have a great charm to it. Plus it did not have any inconsistencies with Disney’s own Pan or even Barrie. But it’s not like I enjoyed it so much that I need to continue watching this series. Especially when this is just another adventure, not something as important as Tink’s origins. (And if this one winds up with a contradiction, it's just the general par for the course. I'm not all that interested in Disney's Pan anyway.) It is already "famous," however, for giving Tinker Bell a new outfit (for Disney.) I neither like it nor dislike it.



I’ve also heard that a movie adaptation of Régis Loisel’s graphic novel(s) version of Peter Pan is in fact in production. It’s not necessarily a reliable source, so don’t quote me on it. If you don’t know what I’m talking about at all, see here. (In that post I already had thought it to have been done as a movie. But an Anonymous (not the now "famous" Anonymous, however!) commenter informed me that what I have posted seems to be just a promotional short. [Which is SO worth watching!])

I, of course, am most looking forward to Other Oceans, the next book from Andrea Jones.

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!

*Sigh* - Just...*sigh*

Apparently Disney has set sights on making a live-action version of Barrie’s famed characters. Many internet articles exist about it. But so far something remains unclear. Whether it will be a live action version of Peter and Wendy (aka Peter Pan) or a live action version of their movie Tinker Bell. (Articles have conflicting reports.)

Either way, I have to say I really wish they wouldn’t. Besides my general bitterness (which I am able to lay aside) it just does not seem right that they would re-do one of their more beloved creations. There are many who adore the Disneyified Pan… so why would they want to risk tainting their piece for them? It just doesn’t seem necessary.

And to make it “worse,” Paris Hilton is allegedly in the running and the top choice by Disney executives to play Tinker Bell.

If they are in fact re-doing the Barrie story, I must ask: WHY? Maybe Disney just couldn’t abide that a version which utilizes modern special effects exists that is not their own? Isn’t it bad enough that they used James Newton Howard’s score ‘Flying’ from the P.J. Hogan movie to promote their own theme park in television ads?

The House of Mouse proves once again that for every amazing piece of work (such as the Blu-Ray restoration of Sleeping Beauty) there must be at least one atrocity. Granted, none of us have yet seen the result of this Paris Bell version, so perhaps it’s unfair to proclaim it an atrocity already. But I just can’t see this working out entirely well for Pan fans (Disney or otherwise).

If only we could bring back Sir J.M. Barrie and get all of this sorted out, eh?

And I’m sorry there’s no picture, I just couldn’t bring myself to dignify this post with one.

Update: I found this line - "a Disney project about what would happen if the Peter Pan fairy's life got flipped turned upside down and she ended up a real girl." at this site.
If that's the case, then it's even more ridiculous, for Tinker Bell is not a cartoon. She's a real fairy in the real world. No, I don't mean in our sense of reality, but within the world of Barrie/the story which is also supposed to be "the real world." Perhaps they mean to make it so that the Disney cartoon comes to life? Now that's worse yet, am I right?

Does this Wax Work?

The obsession with the fairy who plots the murder of an innocent young girl continues... in wax this time.

The latest and smallest addition at Madame Tussauds London can be read about here.








Here are the dimensions:

Height : 5.5 inches
Width of eyes : 2mm
Length of eyelashes : 1mm
Length of fingers : 4mm
Size of fingernails : 1/2mm
Waist size : 1.5cm

At least the height is correct, as per Barrie. However, the same cannot be said of her waist.
Barrie says that Tinker Bell is embonpoint. Take THAT, Hollywood and media! (As in the current damaging portrayal of beauty!)

Though I understand why, it's a bit of a shame that Disney's depiction is used for this dubious honor. Especially since it's in London.

Take Your PIX?

So here’s what I’m wondering.
The House of Mouse’s latest “line” is Disney’s Fairies. The Tinker Bell movie is the newest addition to books and toys and such that have already been unleashed. The movie would have been out sooner, but production issues abounded. What makes me scratch my head is that according to Disney, Tink is a pixie. I’ve already expressed my displeasure at this change. There’s no need for it, really. But you would think they could stay consistent, wouldn’t you? Why, then, is it not Disney’s Pixies? Someone needs to be slapped. (Said in jest.)

What’s the difference?
You’ll of course find a great deal of mixed beliefs and characteristics, due to folkloric storytelling over the years. But there are some common, notable distinctions. Pixies are considered much more mischievous than fairies. (And Disney’s newest batch are anything but mischievous…not counting the “mean” character.) Pixies are often much bigger than fairies. They have pointed ears and wear green outfits with red caps. (Sure, Disney gave Tink a green outfit…but then, Barrie does have her dressed in a skeleton leaf.) With Disney’s drawing, it’s difficult to tell if Tink has pointed ears or if it’s just the way her hair lays. (Peter Pan does though, which bothers me. He’s not elvin.) Generally pixies do not have wings. One could argue that fairies did not always have them in stories, either. But now it’s more than a bit iconic for them to have them.

Which…would make Tinker Bell a fairy. Which she is.

So, Disney, make up your mind.

Don't Tinker with It...

There appears to be a new tradition in productions of the play Peter Pan.
A trend not to my liking. Casting a person as Tinker Bell. Sure, I see that it provides another role when you have a lot of kids/actors who want to participate. But I also think a line must be drawn somewhere. There are a great many roles as it is in Barrie’s production. Asking us to pretend someone is a small, incandescent ball of light is stretching the tensile strength of the suspension of disbelief. Or at least I think so. Consider what Barrie said in his screenplay:
There should never be any close-up pictures of Tink or other fairies; we should always just see them as not more than five inches high.
Granted, this is a stage show and his cinematic command does not apply. However, I think it does have bearing. It seems as if Barrie wanted to maintain a mystery about fairies. By allowing someone to play Tink, is the character not being robbed of her magical quality? The very fact that Tinker Bell is achieved as a special effect gives more power and credence to her magical nature. In this day and age, any number of methods can be employed to bring a fairy to life on stage. But casting a human to be an overgrown fairy? More or less the same size as Peter and Wendy? It just doesn’t seem right at all. Apologies to anyone who has played Tinker Bell. I just don’t see the advantage of making it an actor role.
But no matter what, applaud for her anyway.

* The picture is a portrait of Tink by acclaimed artist Brian Froud.

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