Pan (2015): A Review

PAN

You can't force whimsy. 

You just can't force people to find things magical no matter how much money or effects you throw at them.  You can't force whimsy, but Pan did its absolute best to try and convince everyone how wonderful, how magical, how fantastical it all is.  Billed as a family film about the origins of The Boy Who Never Grew Up, Pan ends up being almost a horror film about the shameless overproduction of visuals at the expense of just about everything and a cautionary tale of what happens when you craft a film to try and force-feed audiences instead of giving them something worth their time.

London: The Blitz.  12-year-old orphan Peter (Levi Miller) is in a place that makes the orphanage from Oliver! look like Willy Wonka's factory.  The nuns are cruel beyond measure, down to hoarding food for themselves.  Peter is also troubled by the disappearances of other orphans, but he can't make sense out of it.  That is, until we learn that the nuns are in cahoots with pirates with flying ships that kidnap the children.  In their latest raid, among those taken is Peter.

Once in Neverland (where for reasons the script never makes clear, the ship and new arrivals are greeted to Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit), they find that they are all at the mercy of Captain Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman).  He uses the children as miners to locate pixium, the rare material that usually comes from pixies but which Blackbeard hunted to near or total extinction.  Pixium keeps him looking young, so obviously the idea of an old Wolverine is unspeakable.

One day on the job and Peter manages to find some...and promptly accused of trying to steal it.  Blackbeard has only one punishment for this: he has to walk the plank and fall to his death to The Ramone's Blitzkrieg Bop (again, for reasons no one knows).  Surprising all, Peter manages to fly!  This alarms Blackbeard, as he knows of a prophesy involving a flying boy. 

At this point, it's a bit muddled exactly what the prophesy says, since I understood to mean that the flying boy was the product of a fairy prince and a mortal woman, but for most of Pan his mother is a fairy and his father I think was also fairy...I think.

Well, Peter makes his escape, with a little help from another miner, an adventurous fellow named James Hook (Garrett Hedlund).  They make their daring escape and as much as Hook wants out of all this, Peter is adamant about finding the truth of his mother.  This means searching for the Fairy Kingdom, which I think is protected by the Indians, among them the Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara, about as Native American as Elizabeth Warren, but that's neither here nor there).  Blackbeard goes after them because he wants to kill the boy who is prophesied to kill him, and it helps that Blackbeard already killed Pan's mother. 

They do find the Fairy Kingdom, James Hook and Tiger Lily join Peter in doing battle with Blackbeard, and Peter at last has full confidence in his ability to fly by leading the fairies to do battle.  We end with now-Captain Hook going back to get the other orphans to join Peter as the Lost Boys.

Pan just is a disaster, though through no fault of its lead.  Levi Miller, who is making his film debut with this production, and it is such a shame that he landed in this turkey.  He does a remarkable job as the wide-eyed Peter who rises to become the hero he is 'destined' to be.  He has the hallmarks of a good young actor, conveying rage, hurt, sadness, fear, and wonder with total conviction.

Everyone else though is off on another world, with each other lead apparently in another movie of their own imagination.  Hedlund, I figure, might be having fun with Pan serving as a nearly two-hour audition tape for the Han Solo prequel.   He was off doing a Harrison Ford impersonation, switching from Han Solo to Indiana Jones and either wildly overacting or deciding it wasn't worth the time even trying to make anything regarding Pan rational. 

The fact that we got 'children forced to work in mines' and a ship's captain who comes in to help the hero at the last moment as parts of Jason Fuch's jumbled and chaotic script does not help in the Indiana Jones/Han Solo comparisons.               

Nothing, however, can prepare you for the clearly insane...thing that Jackman was doing.  Was it some avant-garde theatrical style?  Was it him thinking, "oh, it's for children, so I can go so over-the-top they can see my performance all the way to the second star on the right"?  Was it a cash-grab?

If HE or ANYONE can explain why Smells Like Teen Spirit or Blitzkrieg Bop had to be sung in Neverland (or how they came to be known at least thirty years before they debuted) or why Blackbeard was even here to provide a rather dull antagonist, please feel free to drop a note.

Mara was, well, I'm not sure what she was...apart from not being Native American.

There were more problems than just the performances save Miller (and that's saying an awful lot).  As I stated, there was no story, origin or otherwise.  Sometimes, at least at the parts I was conscious in (since I did nod off...it's almost impossible not to at Pan), one wasn't sure what was not so much going on but why anyone would care.  So, Blackbeard killed Peter's mother, so he knew who Peter was...yet he didn't bother to, like, kill him when he arrived (too busy doing a drag queen impersonation and singing along to Nirvana I guess). 

Everything was so frenetic, so rushed, so convoluted, so chaotic, so tossed wither-and-yon that it soon overwhelms you in a bad way.  You don't care what is going on because you don't care what happens to those people, that is, if you can actually follow what is going on if you're still awake.  Pan drowns in its visuals, which sometimes are pretty (the Mermaid Lagoon sequence being nice), but when it actually has nods to the future (Hook quickly pulls his hands out of the water when told they are infected with alligators), it won't take advantage of what could be a good set-up.

Would it have killed Pan to come up with the story of how Hook got his hook? 

Pan could have been something good.  Pan, with a little more thought and a lot less special effects (and another director, for Joe Wright's forte seems to be more elegant, Merchant Ivory-style productions than fantasy...and I was not a fan of his action film Hanna) could have created something wonderful.  As it is, what we end up with is just a horror: in equal measures boring and rushed, confused and idiotic, dull and overblown.  

There is nothing in Pan to recommend except for Levi Miller.  I hope no one holds this against him.  Hugh Jackman on the other hook...

   
PETER PAN RETROSPECTIVE

Peter Pan Retrospective: An Introduction
Peter Pan (1924)
Peter Pan (1953)
Hook
Peter Pan (2003)
Finding Neverland
Pan (2015)

DECISION: F

Finding Neverland: A Review (Review #377)

FINDING NEVERLAND

After all the joy that the Peter Pan story has brought to the world, it seemed appropriate to bring the life story of his creator, Sir James M. Barrie, to life.  Finding Neverland is not strictly speaking either a biopic on the life of the author nor about the creation of his most famous character.  Instead, it is a mixture, well-done, well-acted, but highly fanciful in more ways than one.

James Barrie (Johnny Depp) is a playwright whose latest work has flopped.  His wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell) doesn't understand him.  She would rather try to climb society than deal with his artistic frustrations.  One day whilst walking and writing in the park, he comes upon a group of boys.  It is the Llewelyn Davies children, who are in the park with their widowed mother, Sylvia (Kate Winslet).  James soon enchants them: George (Nick Raud), Michael (Luke Spill), and Jack (George Prospero).  However, one of them he cannot win over: young Peter Llewelyn Davies (Freddie Highmore), who sees things as they are, not as he would like them to be.  In short, he has no imagination, much to Barrie's sadness.

In any case, there are many who disapprove of Barrie lavishing so much attention on the Widow Davies.  There's Mrs. Barrie (who due to a mixture of this and her own evil starts an affair).  There's the Widow Davies' mother, Madame DuMarier (Julie Christie), who thinks it's idiotic that a grown man should be at play.  However, Barrie appears more interested in the Davies boys than in anything close to romance with the Widow Davies.  The boys, having endured the trauma of having lost their father, become worried when their mother begins coughing incessantly. 

However, thanks to the Davies boys, Barrie is now inspired to write the story of a boy who wouldn't grow up, much to the puzzlement of his producer Charles Frohman (Dustin Hoffman) and the cast of his new play (who don't understand the idea of dogs as nannies and being who can fly and all this about Indians and pirates).  Despite his misgivings, Frohman produces this Peter Pan, and with a little help from children in an orphanage whom Barrie has brought in, the play is a hit.

Unfortunately, the Widow Davies could not attend.  She is deathly ill and on the night of the premiere has to be confined to bed (although she insists the boys go).  Madame DuMarier, having been put in her place by George (who insists "Uncle Jim" be allowed to visit), is not moved, but when Barrie brings Peter Pan to her, she does appear to melt...ever so slightly.  That is, until her daughter finally dies.  In her will, Sylvia has made James co-guardian of her boys, and while Madame DuMarier isn't happy about it, she decides to respect her daughter's wish.  Finding Neverland ends with James comforting Peter, who now knows he can believe...

Finding Neverland as I've stated, is not about J.M. Barrie.  It also isn't about the creation of Peter Pan per se.  Rather, Finding Neverland tells both stories, a mixture of both a point in Sir James' life and how his most famous work came to be--two stories running parallel but rarely if ever intersecting.  Director Marc Foster has moments where the rehearsing for Peter Pan is connected to what's going on the Davies boys' lives, and gives hints about the confusion the actors have over the material.  He also has bits of when his involvement with the Davies family is far more important than his career.  However, I never got the sense that both stories connected.

We get little hints of how his interactions would bear fruit.  A little light glowing at the tail end of a kite looked awfully like a fairy, and how Grandmama DuMarier menaces the children with a coat hanger (which looked suspiciously like a hook) would signal where Barrie's imagination was spinning.  This wasn't a bad idea, but it didn't make one think, "Oh, so THAT'S where Tinker Bell came from", more like, "Oh, we're getting hints about Peter Pan".   For a film about the magic of imagination, these little bits were a little too forced.

I also had issues with the deliberate whimsy in Finding Neverland.  In one scene, as Barrie entertains the children by dancing with his dog while pretending it is a bear, we see the world transformed into a circus where he is, indeed, dancing with a bear (or rather an obvious man in bear costume).  Near the end, when Sylvia is introduced to Neverland, we do literally walk into that fantasy world. 

I don't object to this (after all, film is allowed some creative licence), but somehow these flights of fancy do take away from the serious issues the Davies family is facing.  The fact that we don't really know what is killing Sylvia almost makes the thing come close to melodrama (I thought she had good old consumption, but since I saw she coughed no blood it might not have been).

I finally question the intelligence of Barrie and Sylvia.  How in Edwardian times both Barrie and Sylvia wouldn't think the idea that a widow going around with a married man might raise eyebrows makes them either totally innocent or totally dim.  I vote for innocent.  As portrayed by Depp and Winslet, they did not have a passionate yearning for each other.  In fact, it appeared that the Widow Davies was more a chum to Barrie than a potential lover.  He appeared to appreciate that he had new playmates more than anything else.

This isn't to say that David Magee's adaptation of Allan Knee's The Man Who Was Peter Pan didn't have some good things going for it.  Chief were the performances.  I am not a fan of accents on film, but Depp made his Scottish brogue into something so natural one would almost think Ewan McGregor had done dubbing work.  His accent was flawless, never intrusive or exaggerated, but one that sounded authentic.  He also made Barrie into a gentle soul, and it is nice to see a writer who doesn't appear to be insane. 

Winslet is someone whom at times I am not fond of as an actress.  I think she is a better actress whenever she is asked to keep her clothes on, and here she doesn't make her dying heroine into a figure of pathos and grand drama, but simply a mother who misguidedly thinks she is protecting her sons.  It's unfortunate that Christie is reduced to the role of the heavy, and this is a flaw in the script: it never makes the case as to how SHE was the one leading the applause to save Tinker Bell. 

One also congratulates the young cast for making the Davies boys come alive.  Freddie Highmore, with the plum role of Peter, conveys excessive maturity with vulnerability as the boy who grew up too fast.  He holds an audiences' attention in his stubborn refusal to be a child until he finds that despite his best efforts, he still feels pain. 

A side issue: somehow, I didn't fully take the idea that Mrs. Barrie had to be such a cold, unfeeling bitch.  I find that this convention of film usually happens to justify a spouse leaving someone for someone else (someone better, nicer, kinder).  The real Mary Barrie may have been a terrible person, but somehow Mitchell's one-note performance makes her a caricature and less a person.

On the technical matters, Finding Neverland does a fine job recreating the Edwardian theater world in the costumes and sets (all which appear real and authentic rather than excessive).  Jan A.P. Kaczmarek's score is gentle and magical, a credit to the film. 

Finding Neverland is a good film, with good performances, especially from Depp and Highmore.  However, it is fantasy in so many ways.  We can leave aside certain liberties the film takes with historical accuracy (such as the fact that Mr. Llewelyn Davies was still alive in 1903 when the film begins).  The real story of the Davies boys post-Peter Pan is far darker and depressing. 

George was killed in World War I, Michael drowned at age 20 with his best friend (and possible lover), and Peter committed suicide at age 63 in 1960, plagued by alcoholism and the notoriety/burden of being the inspiration for Peter Pan. 

Perhaps, given the sorry situation the boys had afterwards, the fantasy/fiction of Finding Neverland might be better.  It is better to see the boys sad but comforted rather than truly lost...

1860-1937

DECISION: B-

Hook: A Review (Review #363)

HOOK

In between the animated and live-action version of Peter Pan, we got Hook, which can be called a semblance of a sequel to the J.M. Barrie story.  It was fully authorized by the Great Ormond Street Hospital, which owns the rights to the characters bequeathed by Sir James on his death.  One would think that Peter Pan would be right up Steven Spielberg's street, given that no man has captured the wonder and confusion of childhood better.  Well, you'd be wrong...by a long light-year mile.

We begin with a children's production of Peter Pan, and get the characters: there's sweet little Maggie (Amber Scott), on stage playing Wendy, there's Jack (Charlie Korsmo), the baseball-loving older brother, mother Moira (Caroline Goodall), and then there's Peter (think on that for a moment).  Peter Banning (Robin Williams) (emphasis mine), the father and husband, is all business (even taking a phone call during precious little Maggie's show.  Of course, as a powerful corporate lawyer, he will be apt to do things like miss little Jack's baseball game, going so far as to send someone from the office to videotape the game so he can go over it with Jack later.

That's innovative.

In any case, it's off to London to visit Grammy Wendy (Dame Maggie Smith).  It's here we learn that the Peter Pan stories are true--up to a point.  Grammy Wendy is the same Wendy Darling who was the inspiration for Wendy Darling in Peter Pan.  As Grammy explains, her neighbor Mr. Barrie took the stories she would tell her brothers and put them down on paper.  Now, Grammy Wendy is going to be honored for all her work for children, in particular her aid in finding homes for orphans, such as one Peter Banning...

Peter is all business, no time for his children, his wife, or even Grammy Wendy, until both Jack and Maggie disappear.  It's then that Grammy Wendy tells Peter something he's completely forgotten: he is really Peter Pan.  Peter has grown up, fallen in love with Wendy's granddaughter Moira, and become a father.  We quickly see that none other than Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) has taken the children to enact revenge on Peter and have their final duel.  Tinker Bell (Julia Roberts) flies in from Never Land and takes a horrified and confused Peter back.

Quickly Peter comes across Hook aboard his ship, but because he's forgotten how to fly (and because Peter stubbornly refuses to believe any of what he sees or is told), Hook is almost displeased by this worthless adversary (not to mention Peter's inability to rescue his children).  Tink gets the bad Captain to give her three days to get Peter up to speed and thus give Hook his long-desired war.  It's off to the camp of the Lost Boys, where again Peter will not admit to himself he's in Never Land, that there are fairies, and that he is indeed Peter Pan.  The Lost Boys, now all punk and street urchin (and apparently American) are led by Rufio (Dante Basco), with punk hair and a bad attitude against this "adult". 

Eventually, Peter Banning learns to use his imagination, understand how absent he's been from his children's lives, and most importantly, learns to fly again (even if Tinker Bell unrequited love for Petey will never be reciprocated).  Peter also remembers how he ended up fleeing from his mother in his pram (or baby carriage), found himself in Kensington Gardens and became the boy he once was.

However, Hook has decided to use the Charm Offensive on Jack, attempting to seduce him to think of him as a real father, even organizing a literal Pirates baseball game (Maggie, after singing a cute little song, isn't heard from until the end).  Peter organizes the Lost Boys, with Rufio ceding power to the real Peter Pan, and has one last battle with his nemesis.  In this epic battle, Rufio is killed, turning Jack against Hook and returning to his father.  Peter leaves, leaving Lost Boy Thud Butt (Raushand Hammond) as the new Leader of the Lost Boys.

Somewhere in Jim V. Hart and Malia Scotch Marmo's screenplay (with story by Hart and Nick Castle) there's a good idea battering around.  Unfortunately, they couldn't get it out because so much of Hook is remarkably cliched and predictable.   There's the father who cares more about business than family.  There's the baseball-loving son whose games are constantly missed by said father.  There's the cute little girl who soon falls by the wayside when there's nothing for her to do or add to the plot.  There's the stubborn refusal to believe what is right in front of you.

That last one is the one plot device I simply don't understand.  It's one thing to be surprised, amazed, shocked at what you are seeing: if I were taken to Never Land I certainly would be amazed and would not believe it...at first.  However, once I'd been there for a few hours, having seen fairies, the Lost Boys, and Captain Hook, I think I'd pretty much accept the premise rather than continue fighting it with fury as Peter Banning does.

Yet I digress. 

Hook desperately wants us to think of it as whimsical but it never inspires us to think of it as whimsical or magical.  The primary reason is because everything about it looks fake.  Despite the Oscar nominations for Norman Garwood and Garrett Lewis for Art Direction, the sets looks exactly like what they were: sets, built and constructed to look amazingly unrealistic.  In particular, the Never Land scenes were so obviously film on massive sound stages that I never accepted this was a real place.  Even when Peter is rescued by mermaids, I thought they were in a large water tank in some studio. 

There was no real sense of magic because everything in Hook was drowned by its own excess and naked calls for us to be caught up in a fantasy world that simply didn't look fantastical in the first place.

Even worse in the aspect of the story, I am shocked that Spielberg thought it was a good idea for Tinker Bell to speak!  A blasphemy, I say, and a big break from tradition.  Barring the silent version (where no one speaks), Tink has always maintained a strict silence, and so hearing Tinker Bell speak (and worse, speak with a distinctly American voice) only made matters worse.

Before anyone gets after me for commenting on how odd hearing Tinker Bell speak as if she were from Tacoma, Washington, pointing out that fairies don't have nationalities, I should point out that as such, their voices shouldn't sound so particularly American, or British.  If hearing a fairy speak like an American doesn't give you that much consternation, then why not hire Dame Edna to voice Tinker Bell in another production?  If Roberts can do it, why can't Australian Dame Edna?

The technicality of Tink's nationality could (with some difficulty) be overlooked.  What I can't get my head around is that the Lost Boys are both American and in some cases, teenagers.  It's clear that in Hook, Spielberg went for a large Yankee cast to portray the kids, which makes no sense if the Lost Boys do come from boys having fallen out of their prams while their nannies weren't looking.  How did these California boys end up in Kensington Gardens, I wonder.

Even if we suspended disbelief to make the Lost Boys clearly American, how do you explain that these boys are almost men when we see them?  In particular, Basco's Rufio (which kept bringing to mind Martin Landau in Cleopatra) appeared far too old to believable play a 'boy' no matter how generous the term.  On top of all that, you had this late-80s early-90s vibe of making Rufio in particular but the Lost Boys in general almost punk rockers-like.  One imagines that if Hook had been made in the mid-to-late 90s, the Lost Boys would have been emo kids.  This sadly has the effect of dating the film, rather than give it that timeless quality other Peter Pan adaptations have. 

The performances have a lot to answer for.  Williams in particular appears unbalanced, for when he finally discovers he IS Peter Pan (and acquires a new outfit from apparently the clouds he was flying over), he appears to have turned idiot, reverting to an almost child-like delivery of his lines and totally forgetting he has any children to speak of.  Most of the movie he refuses to even believe he is in Never Land, let alone that he is Peter Pan, but almost just as quickly, he knows he is.  It's extraordinary that despite the nearly two-and-a-half hour running time, Hook is so rushed to get from Point A to Point B that we don't ever take the time to do any real training or to show how Hook is seducing Jack to the dark side.  ma

The other actors don't do any better.  Well, in fairness Hoffman appears to be delighting in making Captain Hook a more comic creation, closer to the animated version than to something like Jason Isaacs' turn in the future live-action Peter Pan.  Roberts was amazingly blank and uninspiring as Tinker Bell.  As one looks at the performances: from Korsmo's Jack to Goddall's Moira to all the Lost Boys (virtually indistinguishable from each other), it boggles the mind that Steven Spielberg, one of the great directors, simply could not get good performances out of a range of good actors. 

In fact, it appeared that nothing in Hook was going well.  It is amazing just how often things in Hook misfired; the sets looked fake, the acting was weak, even more horrifying, somehow John Williams' score was hit-and-miss.  The music pre-London sounded like something from a 1970s B-Picture (if forced to compare, the music from Theater of Blood comes to mind, sir), and I wouldn't say that perhaps that was the intention.  However, nothing in Hook was magical, or exciting, or even logical.  I wondered why, if Grammy Wendy was THE Wendy Darling, she never married (given she kept the Darling last name) or how her younger brothers John and Michael had not lived.  When your mind starts wandering to imagine the lives of characters not in the film, said film has problems. 

I will throw in that the various cameos (of which there were many but I only found two: Phil Collins as a detective and David Crosby as a pirate...and the second one I was never sure of until reading the credits) were a bit of a distraction.  Add to that, in the climatic sword-fight between Hook and Pan, it's obvious Hoffman was not doing the fighting (although I was impressed at how whoever his double was cleverly hiding that by putting the hook across his face so as to hide it). 

So many things wrong with Hook.  The story failed Spielberg.  Spielberg failed the story.  Perhaps this is a case where the director most like Peter Pan was simply too close to the subject to tell a Peter Pan story. 

Glad I'm not the only one who saw the similarity...

DECISION: D-

Peter Pan (2003): A Review

PETER PAN (2003)

The Boy Flies at Last...

Now, it has taken a half-century to get a new version of Peter Pan, and this one is historic if only for one thing: it is the first time that a boy has played the part of Peter Pan in a live-action adaptation.  This shouldn't be a shock given that viewers today are probably not as familiar with the tradition of having women play Peter and thus, would reject a film version that had a girl playing a boy as ridiculous.  The film itself is a much darker version of the Peter Pan myth, not just visually but story-wise.  However, there is enough charm and sweetness within Peter Pan that it soars high, enchanting the viewer while adding curiously adult elements in the story.

Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood) regales her brothers John (Harry Newell) and Michael (Freddie Popplewell) with stories of pirates, and of how Cinderella fights them.  They especially love the tale of Captain Hook and his war against Peter Pan.  Unbeknown to the Darling children, there's been an eavesdropper to these stories: one Peter Pan himself (Jeremy Sumpter).  Mr. and Mrs. Darling (Jason Isaacs and Olivia Williams) have no problem with the tales or with having a dog as a nanny.  In fact, they appear to be a happy family.  However, Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave) thinks this is all wrong for them: Wendy should be training to be a woman, and Mr. Darling has to get out of his shell to rise socially.

After Wendy (and Nana) inadvertently humiliate Mr. Darling at the bank he works at as a clerk, he banishes Nana to the garden and decides to hand Wendy over to Aunt Millicent.  Peter is horrified by the idea that Wendy would be made to grow up (and he would lose stories to tell the Lost Boys).  After revealing himself to Wendy (who helps sew his shadow back), he invites her to go with him to Neverland.  His fairy Tinker Bell (Ludivine Sagnier) does not like this idea at all, but Wendy is thrilled to follow Peter.  Wendy gives Peter a kiss (actually, a thimble given she turns shy), but is about to give Peter a thimble (just reverse the previous parenthesis), Tink forces her way in.

Wendy, John, and Michael fly off to Never Land, their parents missing their departure but Mrs. Darling keeping vigil at the open door.  While there, we meet the villainous Captain Hook (Isaacs again), and his first mate, Smee (Richard Briers).  Hook still yearns for revenge against Pan for cutting off his hand and feeding it to the crocodiles.  After Tink attempts to have the Lost Boys shoot Wendy down, Peter dismisses her.  There is a rescue of John and Michael who've been taken by Hook, as has Native American Princess Tiger Lily (Carsen Gray), who has taken a shine to John. 

Both Peter and Wendy have unspoken feelings for each other, the first stirrings of love, but Peter will have nothing to do with them.  Wendy, realizing she is forgetting her mother, convinces her brothers and the Lost Boys to return.  However, a deceived Tinker Bell reveals Peter's hideout to Hook, who puts poison in his "medicine".  Tink escapes to stop him drinking it, but at a high cost.

The Darling children and the Lost Boys are threatened with death by Hook, and Peter comes to the rescue with a revived Tink.  They battle, Peter is triumphant, and he leads the ship back to London, and the Darling home.  Mr. and Mrs. Darling adopt the Lost Boys, and Aunt Millicent also takes one of the Lost Boys who had gotten lost.   Wendy, now accepting that she MUST grow up, bids a farewell to Peter, who WOULD NOT grow up, but with a hint that he will return...to hear more stories.

Given the source material, it really is difficult to screw up Peter Pan (both the silent and the animated versions of the story are well done).  Director P. J. Hogan (who wrote the screenplay with Michael Goldenberg), likewise stayed close to the J. M. Barrie story, and the few big alterations (such as the addition of Aunt Millicent) didn't detract from the story.  Instead, having Lynn Redgrave in the film adds a delightful comedic touch to where we don't mind the inclusion. 

Peter Pan is curious in that it is both a fantasy film where children can get lost in the marvel of Never Land (the journey from London to Never Land in particular is beautifully rendered), but which also touches on the burgeoning of romantic, even sexual stirrings among the leads.  It isn't overt, but given that both Peter and Wendy look like they are about to enter their teenage years (Sumpter was fourteen, Hurd-Wood thirteen when Peter Pan was made), it isn't beyond the imagination that Peter Pan, in a restrained and non-sensational manner, touches on something that has either been oblique or not addressed: the idea of a romance between Peter and Wendy.

We can see this when Wendy offers a confused, almost frightened Peter a "thimble" (the fact that we see Peter puckering up before Tink literally drags Wendy away suggests Peter had some idea of where the thimble was going).  We also see it in the dialogue.  When Peter sees that Wendy is alive, just stunned, from being shot down, we see that the acorn he had given her in exchange for her "kiss" (thimble), he says, "My kiss saved her", and one of the Lost Boys comments that a kiss is a powerful thing.  The scene where Peter and Wendy are literally dancing on air is shot very romantically, with the music being quite lush as well.  We even see it in how the Lost Boys address them: as Father and Mother. 

The most direct reflection of the the joys and pains of love come at the final battle between Peter and Hook.  Peter can fly by thinking happy thoughts, but we see how Hook can, again, literally, bring him down by pointing to a world where Wendy has forgotten Peter, replaced by something called "husband".  As he is about to be killed, Wendy stops Hook, asking as a last request to give Peter her "thimble".  Obviously, he thinks it's a literal thimble, but WE know better. 

We even get the addressing the theme of how love, even desire (unexplained and confusing as it may be to children) can be a powerful force when Princess Tiger Lily gives John a long kiss full on the lips.  John begins to blush (exaggeratedly, granted), and gets the physical strength to raise the gate and make their escape. 

Again, I'm at pains to explain that there is nothing salacious in how these themes are introduced in Peter Pan, and it may all pass over children's heads.  However, the suggestion that Peter and Wendy are falling in love, or at least understanding that their connection is more than mere friendship, is observable.

"It's only make-believe that you and I are..." Peter tells her in the middle of their dance.  At first, this unfinished statement is open to all sorts of interpretation, but it slowly becomes clear he means that they are father and mother to the Lost Boys, which in itself is loaded with subtle undertones of marriage and all the things that can come with it. 

In Peter Pan, everything works and comes together beautifully.  Sumpter gives a tender performance, one that shifts from the cockiness one expects from Peter Pan to being a fearful boy, fearful of growing up, of what that entails, and of losing Wendy.  From the innocence he expresses when he puts out his hand when Wendy tells him she wants to 'give' Peter a kiss to the sadness he has at the thought of losing her to adulthood shows an extraordinary range.  When he says he DOES believe in fairies, we believe he believes, and even we get caught up in seeing Tinker Bell come back. 

Likewise, the wide-eyed innocence of Hurd-Wood to her fear of being made a woman and her desire to be an action heroine are so well performed.  Seeing her reaction change from sneering at the idea that her father is brave to understanding that in his way, he is brave, is a heartfelt and beautiful performance.

The best performance in Peter Pan, however, is clearly Isaacs'.  People should see this film before they see him as Lucius Malfoy in any of the Harry Potter films.  He has to play two roles: Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.  This sticks close to the theatrical tradition of Pan, but the transformation is so remarkable that the failure to have given Isaacs a Best Supporting Actor nomination surprises me (I think a case of a children's film, moderately successful, played against him).   As Mr. Darling, he is all delightfully bumbling and insecure, terrified of trying to make "small talk".  Once he switches to Captain Hook, we see a frightful, menacing, dangerous arch-enemy.  This Captain Hook is no one's fool or buffoon.  Instead, he is a dangerous person, one who does not shrink from killing anyone who gets in his way.  The film stays mostly in one place (London or Never Land) but on one occasion we jump from Point A to Point B.  Here, we see the full range of Isaacs, and cannot believe that it is the same person.

Even the smaller parts, from Williams' loving portrayal of the wise, gentle, caring mother, to Redgrave's comic moments as the fussy Aunt Millicent, down to Briers' light Mr. Smee, and all the Lost Boys, are a sheer delight, each performance pitch-perfect.  I would be remiss to leave out Sagnier's Tinker Bell: in her expressive face we see the jealousy, the hurt, the anger, the joy, and the regrets the fairy has.  It is pantomime, and may come off as slightly exaggerated, but Tink is suppose to be a highly emotional creature. 

It's as if everyone brought their A-Game to Peter Pan.  The sword fights between Sumpter and Isaacs are so well done we fully accept that Peter can fly (credit not only goes to the actors and the fencing trainers but to the special effects that were never showy but still filled with wonderment).  The art direction, from the Darling home to the various parts of Never Land (ranging from Peter's tree hideout to Captain Hook's ship) are both beautiful to look at and appear so real and naturalistic.  Donald McAlpine's cinematography is also filled with gentle beauty.  The moonlight bathes everything in gentle blue, the final fight scene with a menacing red sunset, and the rescue at the Black Castle appropriately dark. 

The biggest surprise in the music.  Peter Pan has a beautiful score, romantic, comedic, and menacing.  What's so astounding about it is that the composer is James Newton Howard (someone who by and large makes some of the most hideous music around: cases in point--The Green Hornet, Green Lantern, Water for Elephants, Defiance, The Village, and the simply horrid The Last Airbender).  I am someone who gives credit where credit is due, and the score to Peter Pan is a beautifully rendered one.  I still think Howard is a lousy composer, but I figure the law of averages dictated that he had to get at least ONE right.

Peter Pan is a delightful film on so many levels.  It can be seen as a simple children's adventure story.  It can be seen as an allegory about the promise and perils of growing up.  It is a film for children, and one for adults; there are enchanting and tender moments in it, moments of comedy, danger, and even romance.  In short, Peter Pan is both whimsical and melancholy, a celebration of the spirit of adventure and a lament for the loss of childhood we all must partake in. 

It is true: both Peter Pan and Peter Pan will never grow up or grow old. 

Oh the cleverness of him.

DECISION: A-

Bobby Driscoll: A Brief Remembrance

Bobby Driscoll
1937-1968

Peter Pan Is A True Lost Boy...

As I worked on my brief Peter Pan retrospective, I found out that in a technical sense, Bobby Driscoll was the first male to play the boy who never grew up when he was the voice in the Disney animated feature of Peter Pan.  He was also the model for the animators, so if one wants to look at it in a certain way, Driscoll was doing an early version of motion-capture.

Today, Bobby Driscoll would have been 75.  Instead, he's been buried and forgotten for 44 years, still in a potter's field, having lived for an all-too brief 31 years. 

I can't help think that he's not like Peter Pan; in a way, yes, he will never grow up.  However, I think he's more like Peter's shadow, which got away and wanders, lost and detached from reality.

It's unfortunate that Hollywood is filled with tales of young stars who are beloved as children only to end in sad and sorry situations: Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer to Sal Mineo right on down to River Phoenix and Brad Renfro. 

Somehow, Driscoll's story appears to be sadder than the rest.  He wasn't the first child star to be consumed by the drugs he himself consumed.  However, the end result for him is unique in its tawdriness and sheer sorry circumstances of it all.

It all started out so well. A personal protogé of Walt Disney, he started out as the ideal boy on film.  After he appeared in Song of the South, his youthful work in So Dear to My Heart and the drama The Window led to this:

An honorary Juvenile Oscar in 1950. 

It would appear that Driscoll had a good thing going, and seeing how Disney became expert in creating films and later, television shows for the young market, he might have gone on to other things.

However, unlike Peter Pan, Driscoll did grow up, and when he did Disney did not appear to think he would grow up into a leading man or even a sympathetic character.  Once the resources of the studio, along with his contract, were pulled, Driscoll began a slow march to the grave.

Drugs were the outlet for his frustrations, his fears, and his escape from the taunts of people who had decided he was never going to be accepted as an adult.  It isn't as if he didn't try to get an acting career going again, but he was hampered by two things.  One, he was still seen as a 'child', so the transition did not go over well.  Two, his own vices got the better of him.

For some, the real world is not a good place, and Never Land appears so inviting.  However, if J.M. Barrie's work tells us anything, it's that if we choose the real world, we will have to grow up.  Driscoll made the effort, found it wanting, and turned to other things.

As it stands, while he started to enter another world with promise: that of creating artwork, whatever demons he had within him would not let go, or perhaps he would not let go of said demons.  On March 30, 1967, a few weeks after his 31st birthday, two boys found his body.  He died, alone and forgotten, due to years of abusing his body with drugs. 

In that time frame between his birthday and the day he was found, one wonders if anyone was looking for him.  It's highly unlikely anyone watching Peter Pan was thinking about the voice of Peter--as far as they were concerned, the voice belonged to Peter, not Bobby. 

Again, the sorry circumstances surrounding the life and death of Bobby Driscoll continue to haunt us.  The dichotomy of being the eternal youth and being buried in an unmarked grave in potter's field on Hart Island, New York: no visitors, no one to remember the joy he brought and the acclaim he earned is a sad one. 

Sad to say stories like Driscoll still continue and perhaps will continue to happen.  I can only hope we in the end remember the joy of his work and not focus too much on the end of his life.  We should remember how things turned out for Bobby Driscoll if only to serve as a warning to us that in the end, we all have to grow up.  It is how we do it that makes all the difference.

IN MEMORIAM

Peter Pan (1953): A Review

PETER PAN (1953)

Nearly thirty years after the first film version of Peter Pan, we get the animated version of the story of 'the boy who never grew up'. One would think it would be the perfect marriage: the childhood fantasy created by Sir James M. Barrie with the wonderment that Walt Disney and his namesake studio can create.  Peter Pan is a nice, entertaining film, yet it has a few issues which give one pause to adopt it as an undisputed classic. 

In London town, the Darling family lives an upper-middle class life.  Mr. Darling (Hans Conried) agitatedly is getting ready for a party, while his wife (Heather Angel) is calm and ready.  Their children: John (Paul Collins), Michael (Tommy Luske), are playing with pirates while their oldest child, daughter Wendy (Kathryn Beaumont) fills in information about Peter Pan. 

George Darling, already flustered by not finding his cuff links, has had enough: both of Nana (the dog who serves as their nursemaid) and of Peter Pan stories.  He decrees that Wendy is to get her own room and move out of the nursery.  Everyone is devastated, but nothing can be done about it as Mr. and Mrs. Darling leave for the night.

As it happens, Nana had before the film started captured Peter Pan's shadow, and Wendy hopes he will come to get it.  Peter Pan (Bobby Driscoll) does come back, accompanied by his pixie, Tinker Bell (whose dialogue is all bells).  Wendy sews his shadow back on, and Peter now invites Wendy to go with him to Never Land where she can act as mother to the Lost Boys.  Tink makes it clear she is jealous of Wendy, but she can't do anything about it.  Wendy gets John, with his top hat and umbrella, and Michael with his teddy, and they're off.

Meanwhile, Captain Hook (Conried again, maintain a tradition of having the same actor play Hook and Mr. Darling) and his first mate Snee (Bill Thompson) is obsessed with capturing Peter.  Peter never takes Hook seriously, so he takes little note of Hook's machinations.  When Tinker Bell does trick the Lost Boys into nearly killing Wendy, he banishes her forever, then changing it to a week.

The Darling and Lost Boys go to capture the Indians and Peter takes Wendy to visit the mermaids.  Hook, believing the Indians are hiding Peter, kidnaps Princess Tiger Lilly.  Peter rescues her, which is good since the Indians have captured the Lost Boys.  Normally, they would have let them go to play at war again but not while Tiger Lilly is held prisoner.

Eventually, Wendy talks her brothers and the Lost Boys to go back to London.  Tink is hoodwinked by Hook to reveal Peter's secret lair.  Hook, having given his word not to lay a finger, or hook, on Peter, nonetheless plants a bomb.  The bad Captain takes the children prisoner and threatens them with the plank, but we get one last confrontation between Hook and Peter.  With Peter triumphant, they sail the ship back to London, where the Darling family is reunited.

What I found curious while watching Peter Pan is just how comical the whole thing was. 

Most of the comedy comes from Conried's interpretation of Captain Hook.  This Hook goes from one of two emotions: bellowing out his orders or whimpering like a baby whenever he's cornered. The curious thing is that Mr. Darling is pretty much the same loud character as Hook is.  Perhaps this decision to direct Conried to be so over-the-top was made in order to remind people the same actor was playing both characters.

However, to my mind it made Captain Hook less of an adversary and more a foil, a mere annoyance to Peter.  This has the effect of making Peter Pan less a struggle between Peter and Hook and more a series of adventures tied together by the thinnest of threads.  I figure that the imagery of Hook and the pirates was intentionally suppose to be comic in order to fit into the idea that Peter Pan is a children's story.  Pirates are always figures children will gravitate to in fantasy, and thus seeing the pirates be so comic would appeal to them.

I think this is why we have to look at the portrayal of the Native American in Peter Pan with a large grain of salt.  They are appropriately cartoonish and given how children also play at cowboys and Indians we can't be called to take it seriously.  Pirates and Indians play a major role in children's games, and since Peter Pan is suppose to be a place where children, in particular boys, are in suspended play I argue that they are suppose to be highly exaggerated.

However, I do wonder why Tiger Lilly is the only Native to be drawn in a respectful manner, looking no different than any other character save for the color of her skin.  All the other Indians, especially the Chief, are drawn to look like caricatures of stereotypical Indians. The fact that they speak in pidgin only makes matters worse.

I digress slightly to wonder how Disney can justify withholding Song of the South from official release because of the perceived racism in the film and specifically the character of Uncle Remus, but heavily promote Peter Pan with the imagery of Native Americans or Dumbo with the highly suspicious characters of the crows as perfectly acceptable to children. 

The Native American imagery is a bit cringe-inducing now, but one has to always keep in mind that the film was made in the early 1950s and the source material came from a British author, so while it does not hold up now I think there was no real plan to demean Native Americans.  That does not make it right, but this needs a little background.

Another curious thing in Peter Pan is that Peter and Wendy do not appear to be children.  As drawn, Peter looks like a teenager. I would guess his age between fifteen and seventeen, which makes sense given that Driscoll was sixteen when the film was released.  We know that Wendy was thirteen, so the romantic undertones between Peter and Wendy appear closer to Splendor in the Grass territory. 

This is heightened both by Tinker Bell's instant jealousy over Wendy offering Peter a kiss (which he never gets) and how Tiger Lilly also appears to flirt with Peter.  He is always oblivious to most of the female attention, but while watching I was a bit puzzled by how adult the relationship entre Peter et Wendy came close to being.

There were a couple of problems storywise.  For example, after the bomb went off in Peter's hideout and Peter having been saved by a repentant Tinker Bell, we don't get a sense of how Tinker Bell could make such a speedy recovery to go and help Peter rescue Wendy and the Lost Boys.  We don't get the traditional appeal to save Tinker Bell, which is all right but it does make one wonder how she appeared to come out of that explosion unscathed.

Also, when the children return to London, while it's never stated we get strong indications that the whole adventure took place in one night.  I did wonder about that.  Finally, we never found out anything about the Lost Boys, in particular why they all dressed up like forest animals.

This is not to dismiss the positive aspects of Peter Pan.  In particular, we have a good number of songs, a subject where Disney almost always excels.  The opening song The Second Star to the Right is a light, positive number, while You Can Fly oddly is more talked than sung.

The best song to my mind is Your Mother and Mine, a lovely, soft number about the importance of mothers to their children.  The number Following the Leader, while a cute number that appears targeted to children, just came off as a bit of a time filler.

The What Makes the Red Man Red? number today would probably never get off the ground: political correctness would never permit the imagery and broken English of the Native Americans be targeted to children though again, I strongly advise people to remember that pirates and Indians, being part of childhood imagination, are not intended to be primers of ethnic studies and should not be taken on face value. 

Added to the music choices, the idea of having a pan flute serve as the introduction music to Peter's appearances is a bright idea.  The animation is top-notch minus the Indians, especially the portrayal of Tinker Bell.  Even though she has no audible dialogue in keeping with tradition, her expressions whether admiring herself or showing her rising jealousy over Wendy showed the character to be a great pantomime performance.  She was fully expressive without saying a word.

Finally, animation allows for a greater and oddly more believable use for Nana than when an actor dressed as a dog would appear to us.  It's as close to making Nana a realistic character as we'll ever have.

Overall, Peter Pan is a light and generally charming affair.  People may correctly criticize the Native American imagery in the film, and while I was surprised at how Indians were still seen in the 1950s I look on it as less offensive and more silly.

I learned to count and remember lining up for lunch in elementary school singing "One little/two little/three little Indians" and did not grow up prejudiced against the Native American population, so we have to not throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.  It serves as a good, but not great, introduction to J. M. Barrie's story and at a mere 77 minutes long enough to keep children's attention.

Next Peter Pan Film: Hook 

PETER PAN RETROSPECTIVE:

Peter Pan Retrospective: An Introduction
Peter Pan (1924)
Peter Pan (1953)
Hook
Peter Pan (2003)
Finding Neverland
Pan (2015)

DECISION: B+

Peter Pan (1924): A Review

PETER PAN (1924)

A Silence Falls Throughout Neverland...

There has been a long tradition of casting a female in the lead of Peter Pan.  As such, it's no surprise that the first filmed version of Peter Pan adopts this and other theatrical traditions of the J.M. Barrie story. The 1924 version of Sir James' story is probably as close to what we would have seen when it first appeared on stage, but this is not a flaw.  Rather, Peter Pan is a delightful film that children will thoroughly enjoy for the fantasy aspects and adults will appreciate for the innovative use of special effects.

The story of Peter Pan is one that has become part of the culture in general, but a quick recap.  The Darling family consists of a father (Cyril Chadwick), a mother (Esther Ralston), and their three children: sons John (Jack Murphy), Michael (Phillipe DeLacey), and daughter Wendy (Mary Brian).  They are watched over by their dog Nana (George Ali).

Into the Darling house flies the shadow of the boy who wouldn't grow up: Peter Pan (Betty Bronson).  Peter himself soon enters the house, and Wendy sews his shadow to him.  Now Peter invites Wendy to travel with him to Neverland to be mother to his group, the Lost Boys.  She goes, as do John and Michael, much to the dislike of fairy Tinker Bell (the appropriately-named Virginia Browne Faire).

Once in Neverland, we meet those who live there: the Lost Boys, the Indians, and the pirates.  While Indian maiden Princess Tiger Lily (Anna May Wong) has a slight crush on Peter, neither she or Wendy get his attention.

His mind is on the evil Captain Hook (Ernest Torrence).  Captain Hook is determined to get his hand on Peter, and soon he overruns the Indians and takes the Lost Boys and the Darlings hostage.  Tinker Bell comes close to dying after taking poison meant for Peter, but thanks to the pleas of Peter directly to us, she comes to life.  Now Peter and Captain Hook meet for the last time.  Peter is victorious, and while he isn't happy with it, Peter lets the Darlings go back to their London home.  However, Peter and Mrs. Darling come to an agreement: Wendy can return to Neverland once a year.

What makes Peter Pan so delightful is that it is made with children strictly in mind.  Director Herbert Brenon creates a world that is thoroughly fantastical, whimsical, one where the imagination of children would be what is real.

There are simply beautiful shots in Peter Pan that make one forget that this is a silent film which let us rely on the visuals: the flight from London to Neverland is beautiful, as is when Peter builds a little cabin for Wendy and the shots on Captain Hook's ship. 

A great deal of the credit goes to cinematographer James Wong Howe, among others is one of the great cinematographers in film history. Howe's use of the camera in Peter Pan, in particular in the Neverland scenes, is sharp with beautiful touches such as when Peter 'tests' his shadow.  While we can if we look closely, see the strings that pull our cast to flight, we soon get so wrapped into the story that we either really don't see or care. 

The performances are a sheer delight from beginning to end.  We have to start with Ali's Nana: while having a dog as a nanny is unbelievable, we soon forget that it is a man in a dog suit.  It helps that the dog suit itself is large enough to make Nana appear to be merely a large dog rather than a man inside, but credit should be given to Ali for making the dog movement realistic.

We also soon forget that technically, 'Peter Pan' is really a female.  Bronson has a sweetness in her face that shows the eager youthfulness and braggadocio to Peter.  Admittedly, Bronson is quite balletic in her interpretation to Peter, where her body movements are very graceful.  When Peter pleads with us the audience to help bring Tinker Bell back to life, Bronson's face is so expressive in her hope for Tinker Bell mixed with fear that she will die that one can easily imagine small children getting wrapped up in the film and saving our fairy from death. 

The Darling children are quite good on screen.  Since Wendy is the primary character, Mary Brian communicates both the innocence of childhood and the growing romantic feelings for Peter.  Faire's Tinker Bell doesn't have much screen time but when she is there, the diminutive fairy is mixed so well into the film that one easily accepts the 'reality' of it all. 

The best performance is Torrence's Captain Hook, which curiously, breaks with tradition of having Mr. Darling and Captain Hook played by the same actor.  Torrence keeps the balance between the comic foil to Peter and the dangerous, menacing pirate who won't shrink from killing the children. 

There is an inventiveness in Peter Pan, a sweetness that goes so well with the source material.  Philip C. Carli's new score is sweet and loving and captures the innocence of Peter Pan.  The fact that this version is a silent film doesn't hamper the innocence and delight of the film.

Actually, it enhances it because we don't become distracted.  It is good that this film is no longer lost, but that it survived to delight future generations.

Silence is not a hindrance in Peter Pan.  Instead, the film inspires us to think wonderful thoughts...which is what one has after watching Peter Pan. 

Next Peter Pan Film: Peter Pan (1953)

PETER PAN RETROSPECTIVE:

Peter Pan Retrospective: An Introduction
Peter Pan (1924)
Peter Pan (1953)
Hook
Peter Pan (2003)
Finding Neverland
Pan (2015)

DECISION: A-

On To The Second Star To The Right: Peter Pan Retrospective Introduction

I decided to do a brief retrospective on Peter Pan in cinema.  I can't find a particular reason: the play premiered 108 years ago, the book version 101 years ago.  As far as I know there isn't a new version of Peter Pan coming out save for the Neverland miniseries from last year.  So, why do this retrospective?

I think it has to do with the fact that I've become fascinated by how much one work by one man has so entered the popular imagination.  The characters are now so iconic: the boy who wouldn't grow up, the Lost Boys, the villainous Captain Hook, even the world of Neverland/Never-Never Land itself are part of our lexicon.  The story and characters are such a large part of youth that one thinks they've been around forever. 

I think it's amazing that Sir James M. Barrie's story is now virtually part of our everyday world.  Few authors have that power to have their creations become part of everyone's childhood: Lewis Carroll does, perhaps Beatrix Potter, but while Barrie wrote much, what else besides Pan is remembered?  It is a credit to his remarkable talent that his creations are now part of every childhood, perhaps as he intended.

It's just a curiosity thing for me to explore the cinematic versions of the Peter Pan story.  With that, I decided to do a brief retrospective on all the sanctioned Peter Pan films.

Our first film version of Peter Pan is the 1924 silent version.  As with most silent films, it is remarkable that we have it at all, given how quickly silent films were disposed of or just disintegrated. 

One shouldn't give too much thought to the fact that Peter is almost always played by a female. This is a tradition that started with the original theater production and continues: the musical version of Peter Pan is so identified with Mary Martin that any woman is automatically measured against her.  All subsequent stagings of the musical will always have a female as Peter.   Thus, it made sense to cast a woman as 'the boy who never grew up', and in this first film version it was Betty Bronson.

Somehow, I think the idea of Chinese film star Anna May Wong as Native American Princess Tiger Lilly is more shocking than a woman playing a man.  However, Bronson as Peter is something that even now would appear perfectly natural if we consider the theatrical traditions.

On a strictly technical level, the 1953 animated Peter Pan is the first to have a male play the part, albeit in voice.

It's only been twenty-nine years since the silent Peter Pan, but now J. M. Barrie's story gets the Disney treatment.  The animated Peter Pan story had Bobby Driscoll voicing Peter, and I think that makes perfect sense: a person can distinguish between a woman's and a man's voice when that is the only thing they have. 

Curiously, whenever I see this version, I always think of both Peter and Wendy as being teens, which again makes sense: Driscoll was seventeen when he voiced Peter and Kathryn Beaumont was fourteen.  However, I always thought the animated versions looked a bit older than children, but now I digress.

We have our issue with the Indians in the 1953 version, which I will cover later.  For now, I will say that Disney to my mind is hypocritical in keeping Song of the South out of American circulation due to the perception of racism while having no difficulty having Peter Pan available.  Yet again, for another time. 

Now, in 2003, a mere fifty years after the animated Peter Pan, another breakthrough.  In the entire history of Peter Pan stage or screen, this is the first time that Peter was played on-screen by an actual male.  Jeremy Sumpter thus makes history with his interpretation.  While he was 13 when he started, he actually looks a bit younger, thus making the idea that he is a boy forever more believable.

What I find amusing is that while Peter Pan never grew up, Sumpter certainly did.  During production, he grew several inches, to where the sets had to be rebuilt to accomodate his growth spurt. 

In addition to the santioned versions of Peter Pan, for good measure, I decided to throw in a couple of Peter Pan-related features.  The first is what one could call a sequel to Peter Pan: Steven Spielberg's Hook.  Robin Williams as Peter Pan appears to be great casting, but at the moment I can't say whether it is a good film or not.  Still, it is a curious thing to see how the idea of the boy who never grew up actually did grow up a most fascinating one. 

This is the second Peter Pan-related film, this time focusing on its creation and creator.  Finding Neverland is the story of James M. Barrie himself, and while not strictly Peter Pan, this story is as close as we will get to a 'making-of' to Barrie and his immortal work.

In short, I will look over all three versions of Peter Pan (silent, animated, and live-action) as well as two stragglers: the 'sequel' and the 'prequel' if you will.  Perhaps I will go for a ranking, but I think that what I will end up with is just a simple overview to the films.  This retrospective, which at five I think will be the shortest thus far, is simply for mere pleasure of the story. 

I think that my Peter Pan retrospective will be an awfully big adventure. 

June 2018 Update: Since the writing, another Pan-related film was released.  Pan, a prequel to the J.M. Barrie story, was made in 2015. It is now included.  Any more Peter Pan-related films will be added when released.

Peter Pan Films:

Peter Pan (1924)
Peter Pan (1953)
Hook (1991)
Peter Pan (2003)
Finding Neverland (2004)
Pan (2015)