InterPANtations

Sometimes it’s fun to look at other interpretations of a story.
And there are at least three fascinating views of Peter Pan.
I’m not suggesting that these are intended. Nor implied.
I don’t believe any of these notions are actually correct.
Just that a different lens can be used to look at it, which produces some freaky results.
(One of these I mentioned a long while back.)

In no actual ranked order of importance:

“Drug” Pan

This one is almost too easy. And hackneyed. But not to mention it wouldn’t seem right. Fly high with fairy dust. Go to a magical land of adventure but don’t get Hook-ed. See? Too easy.

Nosferatu Pan

He flies. He doesn’t age. He lives forever. He comes to your window at night. Sound familiar? It should. Peter’s got many of the makings of a vampire. (See the next category down, as well.) The story doesn’t follow all vampyric mythos, though. Such as having to be invited to come inside - Peter comes in anyway. And he also crosses running water of rivers and streams. As far as I know, he shows up in the mirror. But in general, he sounds quite like one of Dracula’s minions, no?

Dead Pan

In the play, Peter says that no one must ever touch him. No actual answer as to why is given except that he doesn’t know, but no one can do it.* (This aspect dropped out of the novel and he is in fact touched.) What can be made of the idea? Well, we can link it to the fact that when living in Kensington Gardens one of Peter’s jobs had been to take children who have died partway to heaven so they would not be frightened. (This bit of the story, mind you, remains in the novel and is attributed to the memory of Mrs. Mary Darling.) Could it be because he has already gone all the way and back again? Is the Neverland a purgatory? We all know Peter Pan doesn’t age. Could it be because he is dead? Thus, he can fly as a ghost. And ghosts cannot be touched. Hmmm.

How about you?
Can you think of another wild analysis?

Space Pan

*Side note: In the Peter Pan: Kensington Gardens production, they bring in this line . And yet… he is touched afterward. Sort of...! They add some lines. Wendy calls him on it and he replies, “Oh, I never said I couldn’t touch you. But you can’t touch me.” (Probably paraphrased.) I rather enjoyed this tweak.

Line Up, Children...

Know what I’ve been wondering all day?
(I mean besides when I’m going to be able to stop hearing “Sham-wow” over and over in my head.)

Who has more lines in the play (and/or novel) of Peter Pan (Peter and Wendy)?
Peter or Wendy?
Since Wendy’s around in the story before Peter, one might guess her.
Then again, Peter has more lines than her while fighting Hook.
And yet, Wendy does an awful lot of talking in the Underground House.
But Peter does his share of explaining about the Neverland and his adventures.
I’m just not sure. And I really don’t think I want to sit and count.
I looked it up on the world wide web… but nothing close to the answer came up due to how many things are out there stuck to the web.
Not that it matters, but who do you reckon is more of a chatterbox?
Pan or Darling?

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!

The London WE Saw...

Bart and are not exactly typical tourists. (Really?) Oh sure, we wound up looking for the Clock Tower (which harbors the bell Big Ben) at Parliament and gaped at the sheer magnificence of Westminster Abby and had a drink or two in Soho… but then again, we didn’t fall just for the tourist “traps,” either. Such as the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace. Nope. Didn’t see those.

We each had our own agenda driving our needs and wants during the visit. Bart, you see, relished in seeing the various locales of Edina Monsoon and Patsy Stone from the TV series Absolutely Fabulous. And me? Some of my fascination spots arose from songs of the Pet Shop Boys. Hey, it made us happy, all right? :)

However, we both shared a desire to visit “Literary London.” Besides being amazed by “Poet’s Corner” in Westminster Abby (where many of the greats are either buried or honored) we also sought out such places as Baker Street, an actual street that is the fictional home of Sherlock Holmes. In fact, it’s no longer fiction, sort of… For anyone going to London, I cannot recommend The Sherlock Holmes Museum highly enough. It’s delightful. It’s literally like walking into Holmes’s residence. You’ll find items from his various cases, his equipment and desk, portraits… all manner of decoration to pass as a believable and entertaining home and display. Dr. Watson even greets you and will chat with you, in character.


Like many who travel to London, I'm sure, we wound up at Paddington Station from Heathrow Airport. I bet you know who had been (and can be) found there!



I delighted in haunting Pan’s favorite places… Kensington Gardens, of course. Seeing the many places from the book. I’m quite happy I found the “gravestones.” But we also walked around Bloomsbury, where the Darlings lived. (And Barrie's house, as I described last post.)

We tromped up and down stairs in Charles Dickens’s boyhood home with many vintage genuine articles (quite actually, in fact, such as his papers, the periodicals [that became the novels]) and furniture, portraits and the like. A tremendous thrill.

We stared out at the Thames, thinking of Lewis Carroll entertaining Alice and her sisters in a boat. (Even though this would have happened outside of London proper.)

And what's England without the Bard? We attended As You Like It at Shakespeare's Globe.

We marveled at how easily Jack the Ripper (not fictional, mind you, but certainly legendary in many stories) could have stalked the streets. Such angles and small streets and corners… no one would know him coming.

We even found a Barber Shop on Fleet Street, where Sweeney Todd could have been. But we dared not hunt for Mrs. Lovett’s shop, lest we be tempted if we felt hungry. (Yes, I know it’s not really anywhere.)

So… there you have it. A good mix of places to see… at least for crazies like us.

What Happened in London...

Besides all the glory that is London on its own, I shall tell you of our
“awfully big adventure.”

No, I do not mean the Peter Pan - Kensington Gardens production.
I’ll talk about that in another post. (If you’re chomping at the bit to know what I thought: For the most part it delighted me.)

I suppose I should have been aware of the location of Sir James Matthew Barrie’s home in London, but the truth is it’s not highly publicized on the internet and guide books. And my memory, I’m afraid, is akin to Pan’s sometimes, especially since it has been at least fifteen years since I held the facts of the place in my head. I did, of course, know that he lived near Kensington Gardens. Naturally, I chose a hotel with but a few minutes’ walk to the famous grounds.

Imagine my surprise to learn that Bart and I stayed at a hotel just down the road from the house where Barrie lived! Quite a thrill just on that notion alone. I would touch the doorknob each time we left for another day in London and again when returning to the hotel at the end of the day’s excursion. The very idea of placing my hand on something which Barrie had as well!

On the final full day of our trip, I decided to be a little bold. (Pan would have!)
It took all week to summon the courage. After all, someone quite obviously lived there. I’d be bothering them just to satisfy my own curiosity. But the desire to see his home on the inside proved too great so… I rang the doorbell!

Bart and I waited: nervously, anticipatorily, excitedly, wonderingly. When it seemed like no one would respond, we gave each other a glance, wordlessly deciding we should move on with that day’s plan… off to the Victoria and Albert Museum.
Then, the door moved.
A woman with disheveled hair, in a bathrobe. “May I help you?”
“Sorry to bother you, ma’am. My name is Peter Von Brown. I’m a scholar of Sir JM Barrie and I wanted to know if I could…”
She stopped me. She explained that she did not live at the residence. Instead, she had been visiting. In fact, she had just been packing to leave. She asked if we had any idea who lived in the building. No, we explained, just curious admirers of Barrie. The reply came: Lord and Lady ____. (I am omitting the surname so as to allow privacy.) Imagine that! A real Lord and Lady!

I had supposed the visit to be over. But she then said she would see if her Ladyship would receive us. She returned quite promptly with the amazing response that we may step into the garden (a lovely area just in front of the house, obscured by a tall wall.) The Lady would meet with us!

Very shortly afterward, as Bart and I stood (once again) nervously, anticipatorily, excitedly, wonderingly, the Lady arrived at the door. A senior woman, though quite spry with her cane and looking as elegant as can be despite her informal wear. (For it could not have yet been ten in the morning.) “Yes?”

I thanked her for taking the time to receive us and proceeded to (briefly) explain who I am, my college Honors Project Peter Pan’s NeverWorld and my desire to behold the home of Barrie. She said she had heard something about the sequel. I quickly explained that mine is completely separate from that one, which upsets me greatly as it contradicts Barrie’s original stories. “My work is not only faithful to Barrie, but it’s based on his idea for more adventure.” I like to think she looked impressed. “I would like to present you with a copy of my novel,” I said, and I signed it then and there. She took it and had a gander. I then fumbled a bit for words (though not at all tripping) to humbly request just to be able to walk inside. “I certainly understand it would not be as Barrie kept it, but just to be able…”

“Come inside,” said her Ladyship.

I swelled with joy, reverently (both for Barrie and her Ladyship) walking up the steps and into the historical home.

Her Ladyship not only graciously allowed us into her home (a true honour, let me tell you) but took the time to point out what differences have been made to the house since Barrie’s occupation. “A wall would have been here… that area is an extension…” and such. She answered our questions as they arose, all with a pleasant and serene flair. And not just about Barrie. About her own home and possessions. What a splendid home! In-wall bookshelves filled with tomes of all sorts, marvelous paintings, vases, a vintage piano… all absolutely grand! She spent a good twenty minutes to a half hour with us.

We are still reeling over having met her (My word! A real Lady! [One of import, too!]), her immense kindness and, of course, of having trod in the same place as one of the men I most admire. To be in the very residence where he wrote the stories of Peter Pan!

Thank you, your Ladyship, we are most grateful.

As we left, she said (without provocation) that she would indeed read my novel. (Believe me, it’s a thrill when anyone says they’d like to read your book… but a true Lady of England? Wow.) Bart had asked if many fans of Barrie (or even just Peter Pan) come to her door. She replied that a few do, but she does not encourage it. What had hitherto seemed an insurmountable honour doubled at that moment. As did my gratitude and appreciation of her allowing us to visit.

Bart asked if he may take pictures of her garden. She said the garden, yes, the home, no. Perfectly understandable, and again, we were most grateful. We each gave her a gentle bow and she returned inside. Bart snapped his photos and we exited, still basking in the experience of lifetime.

----------------------
A word to the wise: Should you have your own holiday in London and wish to see Barrie’s home, please do so as I did for the rest of my visit. By which I mean, admire it from the outside. I sincerely doubt that if I had not been the Barrie scholar that I am and had written and presented her with my book, I would not have been allowed the generous offer. I don’t mean that in the conceited way of Peter Pan but as a statement of fact, as well as a desire to leave a kindly, elderly member of the aristocracy in peace. As she stated herself, it is not encouraged.

And your Ladyship, should you be reading this entry, again, my most sincere thank you and appreciation of your magnanimous gesture. And please note that the picture of the blue plaque denoting Barrie’s residence had been taken prior to our meeting. We can both honestly say it had been the highlight of our first trip to London.

Returned to Chicago!

I'm back.
Had a grand time!
Quite an exciting adventure took place...
and I'm not talking about
Peter Pan at Kensington Gardens.
Although...
It is Pan related.

Give me some time to recuperate,
collect my thoughts
and I'll tell you all about it.
(Okay, not ALL... just the important bits! :] )

Into the Land of Pan...

As a kid, when the phone rang and my mother didn't particularly wish to speak with anyone, she'd tell me: Tell them I went to Europe.

Well, Mom, and everyone else, I, um, went to Europe.

Bart and I will be in London to experience Kensington Gardens first hand and to see the historical Peter Pan event of our lifetime. Oh, and all the rest of London, too. :)

I'll return in a week or so!