Author Topic: Screen versions of Peter Pan  (Read 15889 times)

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2010, 09:17:39 AM »
I saw Bernstein's version on stage, so shouldn't count here... It came on a couple of years ago in a pub/theatre in North London -- the King's Head in Islington. The production was a marvel of ingenuity, since the stage is very small and all the cast doubled up in different parts (e.g. Lost Boys also played Pirates). Bernstein didn't write a full score, just a few key songs and they were charming. I think you can get it on CD, though not a filmed version.

I'll have to keep my eyes (ears?) peeled for that, then.  I'll probably never get to see it, though....  I believe you that the songs were charming but I have difficulty seeing that kind of doubling....

I agree about Star Trek VI--I liked the nod to Peter Pan (even if it wasn't appropriate), but I don't like that it was wrong....

Westh76

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2010, 09:48:52 AM »
I know I'm straying off the subject of screen versions, but this will be the last time - here's a review of the King's Head show which you might be interested in seeing. Perhaps it will come to a theatre near you one day...

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/peter-pan-kings-head-theatre-london-429865.html

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2010, 10:04:36 AM »
I know I'm straying off the subject of screen versions, but this will be the last time - here's a review of the King's Head show which you might be interested in seeing. Perhaps it will come to a theatre near you one day...

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/peter-pan-kings-head-theatre-london-429865.html

Thanks for the review, although it doesn't sound all that great from what I read of it....

And thanks for making this the last time--I hope to get some more talk about the various screen versions, especially if there's someone else on these forums who's seen all of the ones I listed.

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2010, 02:36:22 PM »
I love Disney in general but they take over everything....I was into the story Beauty and the Beast before they got their paws on it too. While I loved that one...it's still not the same....and everyone thinks they came up with the stories.

Westh76

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2010, 07:06:31 PM »
I know what you mean - what Disney did to one of my favourite childhood fairy tale - Andersen's The Little Mermaid - made me want to weep!

But back to screen versions - I used to get a little annoyed when the iconic image of the Peter and the Darling children flying against the background of the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben got used by everyone as I thought it was a Disney invention (it's not in the play or the novel). However, after recently reading Barrie's own movie script, I was delighted to see he thought of it first, long before Disney!

I watched this morning the Australian animated film which came out in the 80s - it's by far the worst version I've ever seen! Not only does Peter have the pointiest ears ever, but his face is also pixie-esque with slanted eyes. He's just horrible. To compound the whole thing, according to the Australians, the way to Neverland is 'First to the left, straight on till morning". No stars, but ... The rest was pretty dire, needless to say.

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2010, 08:07:03 PM »
I'm not even going to comment on that version....

This is slightly off-topic but not entirely--has anyone seen the Russian version, and if so, what do you think of that?  I've heard Hook's song when he poisons Peter's medicine and it's EXCELLENT.

JAQ

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • Neverpedia
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2010, 05:09:17 PM »
Bernstein didn't write a full score, just a few key songs and they were charming
Actually Bernstein wrote more songs, but the principals weren't up to all the singing, so all but a few songs were dropped.
See http://peterphile.info/pan/Peter_Pan_%281950_musical%29

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2010, 09:25:39 PM »
is there any way to find the lyrics to all the songs even the dropped ones? I tried typing it in a search engine but I had no luck. I'm very curious about this one.

yohei306

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2010, 02:22:48 AM »
The very first version of Peter Pan I saw was the Mary Martin version. I was very young and the only thing I remember now was being very upset at the "When Wendy Grew Up" part. I have since seen the same version performed live on stage several times. Going back to look at the clips on youtube, Mary Martin seems awfully old to be prancing around as a little boy. This is a musical, and the songs really are not that great for the most part.

The Disney version? it is much too syrupy and not faithful to the original. I really dislike that this has become the version most people think of when Peter Pan is mentioned. Tinker Bell is just too much- the Victorian version of the fairy with dragonfly wings. The mermaids are simply silly girls.

The 2003 movie version? A nice try, but it didn't work for me. It took too many liberties with the original and added a sexuality to the mix. Red Handed Jill? What are we to make of that? I liked Peter and Hook in this one.

I have never seen the Mia Farrow version. There are some clips on youtube. Does anyone know if the songs were written by Bricusse  and Newley specifically for the production of Peter Pan, or were they written earlier and then used for this version?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8txW_kSwU4

andrew

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2010, 09:26:42 AM »
They were specifically written for the NBC "Peter Pan", though you could have fooled me. Amazingly, both Newley and Bricusse were proud of them. I only saw the Mary Martin version as an adult, and thought it truly awful - Martin being not only far too old but far too butch to boot! I remember Ruby Wax telling me how much she loved it as a child, and forcing her to sit down and watch the video; within a few minutes she was groping for a barf bag...
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 09:28:45 AM by Andrew »

yohei306

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2010, 04:04:56 PM »
They were specifically written for the NBC "Peter Pan", though you could have fooled me. Amazingly, both Newley and Bricusse were proud of them. I only saw the Mary Martin version as an adult, and thought it truly awful - Martin being not only far too old but far too butch to boot! I remember Ruby Wax telling me how much she loved it as a child, and forcing her to sit down and watch the video; within a few minutes she was groping for a barf bag...

Maria Von Trappe was also a bit of stretch for Mary Martin. : )

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2010, 06:03:31 PM »
They were specifically written for the NBC "Peter Pan", though you could have fooled me. Amazingly, both Newley and Bricusse were proud of them. I only saw the Mary Martin version as an adult, and thought it truly awful - Martin being not only far too old but far too butch to boot! I remember Ruby Wax telling me how much she loved it as a child, and forcing her to sit down and watch the video; within a few minutes she was groping for a barf bag...

Mary Martin "too butch"?  Are we talking about the same Mary Martin...?

Anyway, I thankfully never saw that version as a kid, and I have no intention of ever watching it again.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 12:20:10 AM by AlexanderDavid »

mikey2573

  • Guest
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2010, 12:11:31 AM »
The Bernstein score to PETER PAN was dusted off and re-recorded a few years ago.  You can find it here if you are in the USA:

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Pan-2005-Studio-Cast/dp/B0009EZ0Q6/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1277510893&sr=1-11

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2010, 05:25:31 PM »
I've never cared for the Mary Martin version either..or the music...BUT we went to see a production of it at the Papermill Playhouse here in the states and the way they did it I was VERY impressed. It took a musical I really didn't care for and made me enjoy it! And I loved the actress who played Peter she was VERY boyish and I kept forgetting a woman was playing the role! Ugg-A-Wugg almost didn't feel like the same song at all! They had all this huge dancing going on and the music was upped a bit i guess you could say..and all the "kids" and natives were dancing around and pounding on the drum it was so cool! haha I found it hard to watch Mary Martin's anyhow but especially after at least seeing that version done really well it will be even harder!

SingsWithRavens

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
    • SingsWithRavens' DeviantART Page
Re: Screen versions of Peter Pan
« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2010, 05:15:39 AM »
I was a child who grew up with Disney, and though I loved Disney's -Peter Pan- as a kid, I always knew something was dreadfully amiss even at a young age. Hook's character in particular was /extremely/ flimsy in this version, and I recognized that early on. Though I haven't seen the movie for many, many years, I do remember that the story was "fluffy"; Neverland was too friendly - the pirates dim-witted, the savage nature of the island was dulled.
The 2003 live-action version is the only other version I've seen, sadly :( Though I'm a huge fan of Mr. Isaacs, I believe Mr. Hogan didn't let Isaacs reach to his full potential in the role of Hook. We all know Isaacs can be loathsome, vicious, and eloquent (take -The Patriot- for example). I believe that Hogan leaned too far toward his intended audience (children), and didn't allow the true character of Hook to be expressed in the movie. Had he allowed the character to thrive (as brilliant and deep characters do), his movie may have appealed a little more to adults. Rather than trimming and form-fitting the character so the characterizations would appeal to the younger generation, Hogan could very well have let Isaacs be Isaacs, and thus let Hook become Hook.
What's incredibly unfortunate about all the movie versions (from what I've heard and read) is that Hook's character is often "dulled". It is very clear from the book and play that he is an educated man, having attended Eton and Oxford. He is literate, eloquent, witty, and most of all, sensitive. One sees similarities between Hook and Hamlet, even. But what seems to be the misunderstanding to most directors is that -Peter Pan- is just as much a story for children as for adults. Complexity and depth of character appeal to adults. Visual effects and fast-paced plots appeal to children. If directors were to approach the wonderful story of -Peter Pan- with this view, perhaps we'd get a more accurate depiction of Barrie's play and the characters aside.
I'd most certainly like to see a clean, clear-cut take on the story. Yes, please do still give me the fantastical world of Neverland that we all love, but also the savage, dirty, MORTAL side. In all my years of watching Hook's flight from the crocodile, I've never seen the kind of fear I knew the character should feel. Watching Pan, I've never seen the defiant attitude we all know he should show when saying, "To die would be an awfully big adventure!". In movies, if Barrie's characters were treated more like people and less like characters, the story would feel so much more real. That's what all of the versions seem to be missing. That's what directors need to understand: for a movie to come to life - and I mean really come to life - the actors must become the characters. Once this happens, the feelings speak for themselves; the actors are no longer mute - they communicate directly to the audience, and the story comes to life.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 03:10:20 AM by SingsWithRavens »