JMBarrie

JMBarrie => Davies Family => Topic started by: MLD on September 16, 2009, 05:10:57 PM

Title: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: MLD on September 16, 2009, 05:10:57 PM
I was taken back to learn that the photos we often see of Michael dressed as Peter Pan were not the only photos sent to the sculptor.  Barrie took nude photos of Michael as Peter Pan.  I do not remember that in Andrew's book, but have checked sources and this is in print more than once.  The reference is in one of Barie's letters. Michael was I believe 6 at the time those were taken and for me this raises some questions.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Andrew on September 16, 2009, 10:07:44 PM
"Barrie took nude photos of Michael as Peter Pan" ...  to the best of my knowledge, this is utter rubbish, and I challenge you to produce hard evidence for such a protentially damaging assertion! "The reference is in one of Barrie's letters" -- which one??
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: MLD on September 16, 2009, 10:43:37 PM
Andrew you are an ASS.  Read Dudgeon's book.   Page 178 I believe.  He quotes Barrie's letter to Silvia. 


And please, just because you don't know does not make someone else wrong.  You are not the only authority on Barrie and Peter Pan.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: MLD on September 16, 2009, 10:45:28 PM
Read the book before you make accusations ass! 
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Peter Pan on September 16, 2009, 10:52:18 PM
MLD, aren't you the same person who was accusing others of acting too childish? And now you're calling the administrator an ass? You sir, are a grand master of hypocrisy.

You also seem like someone who would make a very tasty crocodile treat.

*kick*
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Andrew on September 16, 2009, 10:56:26 PM
You still haven't cited your sources, merely quoted one highly unreliable book that doesn't even pretend to be a biography. And btw, please at least spell Sylvia's name right.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: TheWendybird on September 16, 2009, 10:59:09 PM
MLD...you are acting really aweful! You should have more respect for others especially Andrew this is his forum! He is only asking you to produce the proof. Any teacher would ask for citations from their students in an essay and I don't consider this any different you can't simply go around spouting stuff without respecting the thought that someone may want to know your sources. I don't think Andrew was being an ass at all. You could have just responded with the answer to his question instead of attacking him! What are you trying to prove?

As for taking nude photos...parents take photos of their children. My mom has photos of me in the bathtub when I was little. Back in the day from what I've understood nude photos were not that unheard of for art purposes. Diaper commercials show baby bottoms all the time on tv does that make the directors of those commercials "in question"? If there was something wrong with it and Barrie wrote Sylvia anything about it I would think it was nothing. Otherwise why would he tell her?
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: MLD on September 16, 2009, 11:05:06 PM
perhaps.  but the magic word is parents.  Barrie was not Michael's parent and was 6 years old?  It is disturbing and I would like to hear what a professional doctor has to comment. 

And I gave Andrew the source 2 times.  He confesses he hasn't
read the book but can say I make this up.  Andrew needs to read and do research before he comments if he is to play God.
I was extremely upset when i read this page in the book this morning.  What do I get, Andrew accusing me of making it up.  What is that about? 
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: MLD on September 16, 2009, 11:09:01 PM
Just read Andrew.  Doesn't matter what the book is called.  The quote is there.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: TheWendybird on September 16, 2009, 11:13:32 PM
I guess the thing is...Andrew has a lot of experience talking to Nico and researching Barrie..personally i dare say there is probably hardly another soul besides descendants of the Davies who know as much about Barrie as he does when it comes to being a biographer...I guess all i want to say to you myself on this topic is...it COULD be true...there are many things that we hear about people that COULD be true. But the fact is...are they true? How do we know the author was truthful? Has the letter been proven to be real or a forgery? These are the kinds of things one has to take into account.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: TheWendybird on September 16, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Could you please quote the authors source? That is what we'd all like to hear. Not the source of what you are saying (which is what you read in the book) but the source of HIS information?
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Andrew on September 16, 2009, 11:16:26 PM
Dudgeon is not a primary source.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 16, 2009, 11:17:23 PM
MLD...

*sigh*

Are you TRYING to get yourself banned?  Seriously?  Calling the administrator names and double posting on multiple occasions just so you can continue to do so?

And if it is true that "anyone" can find the info you've been talking about, why can't YOU do it?  You're the one who brought it up.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Peter Pan on September 16, 2009, 11:29:47 PM
(http://www.fragglerockforever.com/misc/epicbattle.jpg)
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 12:03:03 AM
(http://www.fragglerockforever.com/misc/epicbattle.jpg)

Haha, that was funny!  :D

But I think a more apropos comparison would be MLD as Mr. Darling.  Trying to make others take his medicine when he can't and won't swallow it himself.  ;)
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: TheWendybird on September 17, 2009, 12:06:43 AM
(http://www.fragglerockforever.com/misc/epicbattle.jpg)

Haha, that was funny!  :D

But I think a more apropos comparison would be MLD as Mr. Darling.  Trying to make others take his medicine when he can't and won't swallow it himself.  ;)

Oh my gosh thats the best...totally the right metaphor!
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Andrew on September 17, 2009, 08:09:01 AM
I have reluctantly ordered Dudgeon's book to see whether or not he provides source notes. If yes, I'll pursue them; if not, I'll toss the book where it belongs - in the trash can.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Westh76 on September 17, 2009, 08:31:47 AM
Andrew - don't waste your money on his book.  Dudgeon writes:
"...since Uncle Jim gave him photographs of the beautiful, angelic, naked Michael to go on. He wrote to Sylvia: 'Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures and I had to leave them with him,' but, no doubt to Michael's relief, "he prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child...".  However, although he cites the letter, he does not give its actual reference or source and the bit about giving Frampton the photos is written by Dudgeon, not Barrie's alleged actual words. I'm not saying that Dudgeon made it up, but why doesn't give his source - could it be because it's taken out of context? For all we know, there may well have been such pictures, but more likely similar to the very sweet and innocent ones of SLD and PLD in 1899 on the Rustington beach on an typical English summer day which feature in your book...

His book was interesting in parts, but I felt his main point was trying to prove that JMB was obsessed with George du Maurier's gift for hypnosis and his relationship with the Davies family was an attempt to emulate GdM in his talent for 'captivating' people and thereby harming them. It seemed to me that Dudgeon is trying too hard to force his theories to fit the facts at his disposal...
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Robert Greenham on September 17, 2009, 08:48:26 AM
I was taken back to learn that the photos we often see of Michael dressed as Peter Pan were not the only photos sent to the sculptor.  Barrie took nude photos of Michael as Peter Pan.  I do not remember that in Andrew's book, but have checked sources and this is in print more than once.  The reference is in one of Barie's letters. Michael was I believe 6 at the time those were taken and for me this raises some questions.

Sorry, MLD, but it seems clear to me that you have misinterpreted what Piers Dudgeon wrote and, in doing so, you jumped to a conclusion which, as yet, has not been justified by you.  May I respectfully suggest that you re-read the pertinent paragraph of page 178 of Captivated, and then kindly retract your sentence that "Barrie took nude photos of Michael as Peter Pan".  And after that, an apology to Andrew, for the way in which you so rudely treated him in this thread, would be appropriate.

For everyone's benefit, here is what Piers Dudgeon wrote:

"Nobody associated Peter with the Devil. Nor is it clear how Frampton was supposed to capture this demon boy, since Uncle Jim gave him photographs of the beautiful, angelic, naked Michael to go on. He wrote to Sylvia: 'Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures & I had to leave them with him,' but, no doubt to Michael's relief, 'he prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child . . .'"

MLD: Why would you think, from this, that it was Barrie who took the photographs of a naked Michael?  Is it not just as possible that the photographs were taken by Sylvia, or Arthur, and loaned to Barrie for the purpose of his loaning them in turn to Frampton?  And, not that it really matters, are not the scales tipped towards this second possibility by Barrie's words to Sylvia: "I had to leave them with him"?, which possibly implies an apology to her.  

Andrew: Dudgeon does not provide source notes for this particular issue, although his general source for this portion of the chapter, 'Peter Pan, a demon boy', is stated as Mackail's The Story of J.M.B.

 

I'll make it
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 09:11:07 AM
Thank you for finally clearing this up.  :)  You've probably scared MLD away with that information which he should have given in the first place....

But what is the significance of "I'll make it" at the end of your post?
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Robert Greenham on September 17, 2009, 09:23:45 AM
No significance whatsoever.  Sorry, I don't know how that got there. I don't remember typing those words, but I suppose I must have done, and I didn't notice them when I hit the 'Post' button.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Holly G. on September 17, 2009, 05:37:48 PM
God! I am late.
He or she did it on purpose, I guess. A little game. There are plenty of neurotic or simply stupid persons like that on forums. They have nothing to do in the whole day and they try to provoke people because they have nothing more in life. Find his or her IP's address and banish him or her from the forum. It's easy. I am for the "tyrannical" manner with these sort of décérébrés.
Piers Dudgeon's book is horse shit, that's all. Nothing more to prove or to discuss. He wants scandals, it's obvious. He is nothing. He is not even original in his false assertions.
Andrew is the man on Earth who knows Barrie the best and he is a talented man in many ways. No one did and will do better than him to explain Barrie's heart and soul. Take that, petite tête!
And MLD, if you read me and I am sure you do, pisse-froid, petit émasculé de mes deux, if you attack Barrie or Andrew, I consider that you attack me personally. Be careful, I am not as polite as the gentlemen and the women on this forum... Beat it!

Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Andrew on September 17, 2009, 05:43:20 PM
Many thanks Robert, although I've now sent off for Dudgeon's book so will cast a jaded eye over it. I have never seen any photos of Michael naked, regardless of who took them. I would guess that Barrie loaned Frampton a clutch of photos, including perhaps those very beautiful ones he took of Peter naked on the beach at Rustington -- with Sylvia and Mary Hodgson looking on, btw, as can be seen from the other photos in the same set.

There are only 4 photos extant of Michael dressed as P P, taken at Rustington in 1906. Two of them were in Peter's wife Pee's album (the one that mysteriously went missing after I returned it to Peter's son Rivvy in 1976, but which I had already rephotographed in 35mm), the 3rd was in Nico's album called "Sunny Memories" (the superb one on the cover of my book), and the 4th - of Michael and Barrie together (the photo on this website's homepage) was loose in a box. There may of course have been others, but to the best of my knowledge none have ever surfaced in the 30+ years I've been on the case.

Dudgeon's source notes sound very sloppy. Mackail makes no reference to the photos, and the quote from Barrie's letter to Sylvia (11 April 1909) comes from my book, p174:

"Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures & I had to leave them with him. He prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child. It will take him at least two years. George's wife can unveil it. I don't feel gay, so no more at present, dear Jocelyn."

End of story.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Peter Pan on September 17, 2009, 05:46:03 PM
And MLD, if you read me and I am sure you do, pisse-froid, petit émasculé de mes deux, if you attack Barrie or Andrew, I consider that you attack me personally. Be careful, I am not as polite as the gentlemen and the women on this forum... Beat it!

Beat it! Just... Beat it!

Had to do it, cuz... you know... MLD/Taylor is a HUGE Michael Jackson fan.  ;D
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Peter Pan on September 17, 2009, 06:03:25 PM
Andrew - don't waste your money on his book.  Dudgeon writes:
"...since Uncle Jim gave him photographs of the beautiful, angelic, naked Michael to go on. He wrote to Sylvia: 'Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures and I had to leave them with him,' but, no doubt to Michael's relief, "he prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child...".  However, although he cites the letter, he does not give its actual reference or source and the bit about giving Frampton the photos is written by Dudgeon, not Barrie's alleged actual words. I'm not saying that Dudgeon made it up, but why doesn't give his source - could it be because it's taken out of context? For all we know, there may well have been such pictures, but more likely similar to the very sweet and innocent ones of SLD and PLD in 1899 on the Rustington beach on an typical English summer day which feature in your book...

I would like to see some actual proof that the letter exists. think it could easily be true as well. The existence of the photos anyway. But those photos are actually indicative of absolutely nothing. Unless somehow there's a naked picture of Michael in a playboy bunny pose.  ::)

Even now in this age where people see pedophiles as frequently as American citizens saw "russian spies" during the cold war, nude children are a VERY common art subject. Painters do it, photographers do it, sculpters do it. And the further back in time you go, it becomes even more common. For just one example, one of the most recognizable fountain styles is that of the nude boy urinating into a pond. You can find these fountains practically anywhere in the world. Nobody seems to suggest that the artist made it as a pornography piece.

As for letters, whenever you get these censored blocks of text, you can never know what the original context of the message was.

Here's a nice example of how a reporter looking for sensationalism would quote my red paragraph above.

"I would like to see", Peter Pan said, "a naked picture of Michael in a playboy bunny pose."

Sadly, this kind of reporting is perfectly legal.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: ecb on September 17, 2009, 06:30:28 PM

Andrew stated:

Quote
the quote from Barrie's letter to Sylvia (11 April 1909) comes from my book, p174:

"Frampton was very taken with Mick's pictures & I had to leave them with him. He prefers the Peter clothes to a nude child. It will take him at least two years. George's wife can unveil it. I don't feel gay, so no more at present, dear Jocelyn."

I knew that I had read that letter before!  Nothing in the letter suggests that there are naked pictures of Michael as Peter Pan of course.  There is actually a nude picture of Michael at the beach - if you search 1906  in the Database, you will find a perfectly nice picture of Michael paddling at the shoreline - Jack is in the surf and Sylvia is in the water.  Michael is naked as any 6 year old boy at a beach like Rustington would be - nobody thought anything of it - nor should they!
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: TheWendybird on September 17, 2009, 06:39:35 PM
Amen...nudity doesn't automatically equal something sexual. If that's the case my mom should be going to jail for those bathtub pics at age 3 lol And half the parents on the planet :P
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: TheWendybird on September 17, 2009, 06:42:06 PM

Andrew is the man on Earth who knows Barrie the best and he is a talented man in many ways. No one did and will do better than him to explain Barrie's heart and soul. Take that, petite tête!
And MLD, if you read me and I am sure you do, pisse-froid, petit émasculé de mes deux, if you attack Barrie or Andrew, I consider that you attack me personally. Be careful, I am not as polite as the gentlemen and the women on this forum... Beat it!



Awesome and so true!
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Andrew on September 17, 2009, 08:20:43 PM
You're quite right, ecb - I don't think I ever really noticed that Michael was naked in that beach photo - actually a couple of them - but as you say, perfectly innocent, and I somehow doubt that these were the photos Barrie sent to Frampton as Michael is hardly striking a statuesque pose. As to MLD calling me an ass, it honestly doesn't bother me, but thanks for your support. Also I don't really regard it as "my" forum... it belongs to all of us.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 09:30:30 PM
Amen...nudity doesn't automatically equal something sexual. If that's the case my mom should be going to jail for those bathtub pics at age 3 lol And half the parents on the planet :P

PRECISELY--it amazes me how foolish our culture has become to think that nudity or even the reproductive organs are always automatically equated with sexuality.  What's next, parents being forbidden from bathing their children unless the children are in their clothes (so they won't be naked)?  Parents being required to keep their kids in diapers until they reach puberty (or perhaps adulthood) so they won't see their privates until they're "ready" to be sexually active?
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Peter Pan on September 17, 2009, 09:34:01 PM

PRECISELY--it amazes me how foolish our culture has become to think that nudity or even the reproductive organs are always automatically equated with sexuality.  What's next, parents being forbidden from bathing their children unless the children are in their clothes (so they won't be naked)?  Parents being required to keep their kids in diapers until they reach puberty (or perhaps adulthood) so they won't see their privates until they're "ready" to be sexually active?

Naa... that won't happen...

... everyone will just need to have a lawyer with them every time they're in a room with a naked child.  ::)
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: AlexanderDavid on September 17, 2009, 09:37:03 PM

PRECISELY--it amazes me how foolish our culture has become to think that nudity or even the reproductive organs are always automatically equated with sexuality.  What's next, parents being forbidden from bathing their children unless the children are in their clothes (so they won't be naked)?  Parents being required to keep their kids in diapers until they reach puberty (or perhaps adulthood) so they won't see their privates until they're "ready" to be sexually active?

Naa... that won't happen...

... everyone will just need to have a lawyer with them every time they're in a room with a naked child.  ::)

Including their OWN naked child, and then the lawyers will take advantage of their proximity to molest the children themselves and blame the parents and get the kids taken away by Child Protective Services, blah blah blah....

Point is, it's stupid.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Peter Pan on September 18, 2009, 01:22:53 AM
Including their OWN naked child, and then the lawyers will take advantage of their proximity to molest the children themselves and blame the parents and get the kids taken away by Child Protective Services, blah blah blah....

Point is, it's stupid.

Aye. There's already psych-evaluations and gawd knows what else when anyone wants to adopt a child. The governments take every possible precaution to ensure that adopters aren't looking for children for dubious reasons (you're even required to be married to prove that you want a "normal" family). I figure it's only a matter of time before the same kind of paranoia invades the homes of natural parents just as much. It's already on its way there.
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Crocodile on November 23, 2018, 09:46:27 AM

There are only 4 photos extant of Michael dressed as P P, taken at Rustington in 1906. Two of them were in Peter's wife Pee's album (the one that mysteriously went missing after I returned it to Peter's son Rivvy in 1976, but which I had already rephotographed in 35mm), the 3rd was in Nico's album called "Sunny Memories" (the superb one on the cover of my book), and the 4th - of Michael and Barrie together (the photo on this website's homepage) was loose in a box. There may of course have been others, but to the best of my knowledge none have ever surfaced in the 30+ years I've been on the case.

Was the missing album the same one which went up for auction in 2012?  This absolutely must be it, but oddly I can't find any mention of this momentous auction in the forum or elsewhere on this site.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164380/Meet-real-Peter-Pan-Long-lost-photo-album-shows-snaps-author-J-M-Barrie-boys-inspired-classic-novel.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164380/Meet-real-Peter-Pan-Long-lost-photo-album-shows-snaps-author-J-M-Barrie-boys-inspired-classic-novel.html)

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/english-literature-history-childrens-books-and-illustrations/lot.121.html (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/english-literature-history-childrens-books-and-illustrations/lot.121.html)

Does anyone know the story behind this?
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Brutus on November 25, 2018, 04:03:00 PM
Yes, that was the missing album. There was indeed a discussion about this on this forum at the time of the Sotheby's sale, but you must have missed it! It's on the second page of the Davies Family section, originally posted by ecb under the subject "Davies photo album for sale at Sotheby's".
Title: Re: Michael as Peter Pan
Post by: Crocodile on November 28, 2018, 07:22:26 AM
Thanks.