This eveing I sat down and watched the live actor version of Peter Pan which came out last year. The kids had never seen it before and neither had I. The kids loved it. Kiki and Link were entranced and giggling through the whole movie. Gleek watched the first bit where Peter and the other kids fly and then spent the rest of the evening jumping off of furniture. Patches was just glad to have everyone in the same place where he could climb on everyone equally.
I enjoyed the movie. I can see why my kids love it. But the movie makers got it wrong. Most interpretations of Peter Pan get it “wrong”. I’ve read the book. It isn’t about Growing Up, it’s about being a kid. Growing up is that little bit at the end where you have to step out of the stories and magic to pass them on to your children.
Peter is the quintessential child. He is charming and spontaneous and mystifying and thoughtless and cruel and mischeivious. He is younger than all the movies depict as well. Every version I’ve ever seen shows him on the edge of puberty, the largest of the lost boys. In the book he still has all his baby teeth. He acts like a 6-7 year old.
The movies are magical and each has it’s own message. I especially enjoyed Hook with Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman. But for me none of the movies truly capture the magic contained in the book.
There’s a book?
There’s a book?
THWAP
*Sandra thwaps Howard*
Peter Pan . . .
I started to read Peter Pan – once. It scared the living daylights out of me. I’m all for fantasy books, but the first few chapters made me feel like I was on drugs or something . . . *feels woozy*
I don’t suppose Peter Pan is one of those stories that was written by several different authors, and I just picked the wrong one?
Re: Peter Pan . . .
There may be more than one version, I only know of the original one written by James M. Barrie. I really hope you picked up a strange version somehow because I can’t imagine how it could frighten or make you feel like you’re on drugs. It reads very much like Alice In Wonderland, an english children’s story.
Re: Peter Pan . . .
I just read the original this past year. The only version I know is that of J.M. Barrie, who actually wrote the play FIRST. The book is a little more in-depth into Peter’s character, and showed all the things that Barrie couldn’t work into a stage version (due to casting difficulties and commercial value).
Frankly, I can understand how the book could make a person frightened or feel as though he’s on drugs — it’s very surreal in a number of places, which is a strong element of English children’s literature as I’ve experienced it. Alice In Wonderland can give the same feeling.
Re: Peter Pan . . .
I think part of the problem is that I get very wrapped up in whatever book I’m reading – it practically becomes a reality for me, and if I’m not careful it can warp my whole worldview for a few days (if it’s a new book, not one I’ve read already). My brain was trying really hard to wrap itself around Peter Pan . . .
And then the book started talking about things like unpacking childrens’ brains and sorting through their thoughts at bedtime. Ok, ok, I know it was more of a psychological thing then anything else. But the author insisted on treating this metaphor seriously. As if it was real. Which meant that I had to think of it as if it was ‘real’ in the book. Which gave me the willies, because there wasn’t any explanation as to how this phenomenon might possibly be ‘real’ without messing with everything I take for granted . . .
I absolutely hated the sensation of someone messing with my head that way.
So, I guess I’m just not well-suited for surrealism *blush*
Re: Peter Pan . . .
Ah. It makes sense now. You probably want to not read it then.
I heard that several critics had given bad reviews, in part because, “the movie was too sexual.” I wish critics would stop reviewing movies based on lousy Disney versions. Anyone else recall Tink’ trying to kill Wendy?