Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

A catch-all for older favourites.

Moderators: thunder, kjshd05, Marie, fruitbat, Gillian, Chari910, catloveyes, Helen8, LadyLucius

Post Reply
grannybear
Posts: 2582
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:36 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by grannybear » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:38 am

I kind've like the hair. Even when I was young I didn't have hair that curly. In fact I didn't have curls. Do you think he'd loan me his wig?

User avatar
inamac
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:18 am
Location: Essex, England

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by inamac » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:05 pm

Well, the curls are canon - ringlets dripping like black wax... And I love them (not so keen on the beard though).

fruitbat
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Just hangin' around.

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by fruitbat » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:07 pm

Chari910 wrote: . This new screencap looks good though, don't you think?
Yes. Image

User avatar
Hilary the Touched
Site Registrant
Posts: 7050
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: The Frozen North
Contact:

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by Hilary the Touched » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:09 pm

Well hello sailor!!

User avatar
kjshd05
Data Miner, east coast division
Posts: 6299
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by kjshd05 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:38 pm

the hair, the scruff, the tatts, the entire package gives me chills (in a good way) :woot

Angel Tavington
Posts: 4968
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: Col. Tavington's tent
Contact:

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by Angel Tavington » Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:59 pm

I dont know but everytime I look at his hair...it makes me think of Bob Marley LOL

~me

marilaine
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:54 pm
Location: Desperately searching for Michael

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by marilaine » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:21 am

Doesn't he mention his hair being rather Marley-ish. Very Waylers? Gonna have to watch his behind the scenes again.

~ML :scratch :wheee :hit :orangface

User avatar
laurielove
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Probably somewhere in a ruggedly fandabydozy part of England
Contact:

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by laurielove » Sun May 01, 2011 10:46 am

So glad this topic has had some recent posts. Loving that last screen cap!

I hadn't posted here as the initial premise of the thread depressed me.

Hook is probably my favourite JI character. He is simply scintillating: hypnotic, empathetic and utterly compelling.

I know full well that there has been discussion of the appropriateness of themes in this film but I regard this somewhat Puritannical reaction as misguided, reactionary, a sad indictment of our lack of vision in these times and revealing a lack of understanding of the book and the purpose of this production of it.

'Peter Pan' is as much a story for adults as for children and can be appreciated by all ages on many different levels. But, yes, at its heart it explores the inevitability of having to grow up, the comfort, but blindness of childhood, and the despair and regret we all feel at having to leave that behind.
Wendy's exploration of Neverland is an exploration of her own journey into adulthood - her encounters with Peter represent the torment of knowing that she is not going to be able to remain like him or with him, and her encounters with Hook represent what adulthood and Man can be, although, at the end of it, we are shown that in some ways we can all remain children at heart - as Man is defeated by Boy. But, Wendy, the Girl, grows into Woman. Oddly enough, 'Peter Pan' is most definitely a triumph of Woman over Man. ALL the strong, admirable characters are female (Mrs Darling, Wendy, Tinkerbell). Peter is never presented as more than a flippant, self-absorbed youth. Mr Darling is weak and lacks self-identity. Hook is Villain, pure and simple, but by far the most fascinating male character, even in the book. His history, his perception of women (especially mothers), his desperate loneliness are all heart-rending.
Above all else, Hook is LONELY. How does he perceive Wendy: as a daughter, a mother, a potential lover? Well, as Barrie probably knew, and we probably know - the ideal woman for a man is all of these things combined. But those issues are explored even less in the film than in the book, in a way.
Should we feel affronted that these issues were presented so compellingly, beautifully (and very tastefully, in my opinion) in this film? Hook, indeed, is deliberately presented as a sexual being here - he has to be, in contrast to the asexuality of a pre-pubescent Pan. Hook was of course stirring feelings in Wendy, but we glimpsed that through her eyes only - at no point did I believe that Hook's motivation was any more than to gain advantage over Pan - very subtly and beautifully done with what could have been a minefield.
And it is in the book that Wendy was 'entranced' by Hook- Ch 13 - Do You Believe in Fairies? - "He did it with such an air, he was so frightfully distingué, that she was too fascinated to cry out. She was only a little girl.
Perhaps it is tell-tale to divulge that for a moment Hook entranced her."
Curious that he fascinated her because she was a little girl - (do we stress the little or the girl? Is the implication that the little boys were not fascinated? I think so.)

This is the most beautiful film which tastefully explores issues so universal to us all, from our birth to our death, and captures the essence of Barrie's intentions better than anything else I've seen. There are things which could not have been spelled out for Edwardian readers, but the issues of developing adulthood are inherent in the text. It is now that we can explore that more fully in other productions. Does that mean some things are going to be a little uncomfortable - I should hope so! Do children grow into sexual beings? Of course. Do those feelings begin in childhood? Yes. Should that be ignored? No. How, if we do, are we to educate our children in the very real and complex issues they are to face as adults? What an indictment of modern life that the sight of boys' bottoms dangling innocently from a tree should lead us to call out the perv police. The more attitudes like that exist, the more likely it is that secrecy and an increased perception of taboo will allow the real evils of this world to take advantage of a society lacking an emotional identity and independence.

I could go on, about Pan, about these issues, and about Hook (most definitely!) and I do elsewhere, as some of you know. But I'll shut up now.

'Peter Pan' is an extraordinary book, and this film an extraordinary film. I love it.

User avatar
a.p.k.
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by a.p.k. » Sun May 01, 2011 11:38 am

laurielove wrote:So glad this topic has had some recent posts. Loving that last screen cap!

I hadn't posted here as the initial premise of the thread depressed me.

Hook is probably my favourite JI character. He is simply scintillating: hypnotic, empathetic and utterly compelling.

I know full well that there has been discussion of the appropriateness of themes in this film but I regard this somewhat Puritannical reaction as misguided, reactionary, a sad indictment of our lack of vision in these times and revealing a lack of understanding of the book and the purpose of this production of it.

'Peter Pan' is as much a story for adults as for children and can be appreciated by all ages on many different levels. But, yes, at its heart it explores the inevitability of having to grow up, the comfort, but blindness of childhood, and the despair and regret we all feel at having to leave that behind.
Wendy's exploration of Neverland is an exploration of her own journey into adulthood - her encounters with Peter represent the torment of knowing that she is not going to be able to remain like him or with him, and her encounters with Hook represent what adulthood and Man can be, although, at the end of it, we are shown that in some ways we can all remain children at heart - as Man is defeated by Boy. But, Wendy, the Girl, grows into Woman. Oddly enough, 'Peter Pan' is most definitely a triumph of Woman over Man. ALL the strong, admirable characters are female (Mrs Darling, Wendy, Tinkerbell). Peter is never presented as more than a flippant, self-absorbed youth. Mr Darling is weak and lacks self-identity. Hook is Villain, pure and simple, but by far the most fascinating male character, even in the book. His history, his perception of women (especially mothers), his desperate loneliness are all heart-rending.
Above all else, Hook is LONELY. How does he perceive Wendy: as a daughter, a mother, a potential lover? Well, as Barrie probably knew, and we probably know - the ideal woman for a man is all of these things combined. But those issues are explored even less in the film than in the book, in a way.
Should we feel affronted that these issues were presented so compellingly, beautifully (and very tastefully, in my opinion) in this film? Hook, indeed, is deliberately presented as a sexual being here - he has to be, in contrast to the asexuality of a pre-pubescent Pan. Hook was of course stirring feelings in Wendy, but we glimpsed that through her eyes only - at no point did I believe that Hook's motivation was any more than to gain advantage over Pan - very subtly and beautifully done with what could have been a minefield.
And it is in the book that Wendy was 'entranced' by Hook- Ch 13 - Do You Believe in Fairies? - "He did it with such an air, he was so frightfully distingué, that she was too fascinated to cry out. She was only a little girl.
Perhaps it is tell-tale to divulge that for a moment Hook entranced her."
Curious that he fascinated her because she was a little girl - (do we stress the little or the girl? Is the implication that the little boys were not fascinated? I think so.)

This is the most beautiful film which tastefully explores issues so universal to us all, from our birth to our death, and captures the essence of Barrie's intentions better than anything else I've seen. There are things which could not have been spelled out for Edwardian readers, but the issues of developing adulthood are inherent in the text. It is now that we can explore that more fully in other productions. Does that mean some things are going to be a little uncomfortable - I should hope so! Do children grow into sexual beings? Of course. Do those feelings begin in childhood? Yes. Should that be ignored? No. How, if we do, are we to educate our children in the very real and complex issues they are to face as adults? What an indictment of modern life that the sight of boys' bottoms dangling innocently from a tree should lead us to call out the perv police. The more attitudes like that exist, the more likely it is that secrecy and an increased perception of taboo will allow the real evils of this world to take advantage of a society lacking an emotional identity and independence.

I could go on, about Pan, about these issues, and about Hook (most definitely!) and I do elsewhere, as some of you know. But I'll shut up now.

'Peter Pan' is an extraordinary book, and this film an extraordinary film. I love it.


:hands

User avatar
Helen8
Pillar of the Community
Posts: 9475
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:18 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by Helen8 » Sun May 01, 2011 12:09 pm

but I regard this somewhat Puritannical reaction as misguided, reactionary, a sad indictment of our lack of vision in these times and revealing a lack of understanding of the book and the purpose of this production of it.

I think, and this is my opinion, that most of the controversy stems from American critics and those of us brought up on Peter Pan through the 1960 TV version with Cyril Ritchard (who, though not sexy, was pretty darn scary); the Disney cartoon version, which was, well, the Disney version--sexless; or more recently, Dustin Hoffman in Hook, who by no stretch of the imagination is sexy. So, suddenly seeing Jason as Hook gave all new meaning to the story, or as laurielove ably points out, the true meaning of the story. We've been fed and accepted the G-rated (general) version of Peter Pan and couldn't handle or were upset by the actual PG-13 version. It's not our fault.

User avatar
laurielove
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Probably somewhere in a ruggedly fandabydozy part of England
Contact:

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by laurielove » Sun May 01, 2011 1:02 pm

I accept that, and indeed, in the UK, Hook is most regularly seen as pantomime villain now, which is rather tragic, as that was never what Barrie intended. Hook was always supposed to be strangely attractive - that is the point - he is attractive in a way that we cannot fully identify or understand. In that, he epitomises adulthood in all its complexity, especially from a child's eyes: that unknown which beckons to us, which appeals to us, but which we do not fully understand until we are fully engrossed in it when we ourselves are adults. That mystery, the sense of something forbidden is in itself attractive.

In a speech he gave to Eton College (the school Hook attended, according to Barrie) Barrie gave an account of Hook returning to Eton. A person saw him and described him thus (Barrie's words, obviously): 'In a word, the handsomest man I have ever seen, though, at the same time, slightly disgusting ...'

Sums it up perfectly. I could never describe Jason as 'slightly disgusting', but certain habits he gave to Hook certainly were.

User avatar
inamac
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:18 am
Location: Essex, England

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by inamac » Sun May 01, 2011 2:14 pm

Helen8 wrote: I think, and this is my opinion, that most of the controversy stems from American critics and those of us brought up on Peter Pan through the 1960 TV version with Cyril Ritchard (who, though not sexy, was pretty darn scary); the Disney cartoon version, which was, well, the Disney version--sexless; or more recently, Dustin Hoffman in Hook, who by no stretch of the imagination is sexy. We've been fed and accepted the G-rated (general) version of Peter Pan and couldn't handle or were upset by the actual PG-13 version. It's not our fault.
I've seen a number of American reviews that were outraged that the 2003 film version 'was a travesty of the 'original' wholesome Disney story - it's one reason that the film flopped so badly in the US, though has been successful in Europe where there is a greater familiarity with the darker, adult text of fairy stories. I remember seeing the film in he cinema and being soooo grateful that it stuck to the story and conventions of the original play - with which I've been familiar through Church hall productions since I was three (believe me, the image of Tinkerbell demolishing an entire row of Indian teepees in one fell swoop burns itself on the psyche - this is probably why I never went into acting but stuck with backstage support.)

PP is also frequently played as a pantomime - and there really is no US equivalent of cross-dressing, larger-than-life villains (I can so see Jason as Baron Hardup or Abanaza), and sexual innuendo.

User avatar
laurielove
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:41 pm
Location: Probably somewhere in a ruggedly fandabydozy part of England
Contact:

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by laurielove » Sun May 01, 2011 2:34 pm

Pantomime and I do not mix.

Having lived abroad for most of my childhood and adolescence I was thankfully spared, but with kids of my own I have had to suffer through at least three (maybe more - I've blocked it out).

Last year my children genuinely forgot to ask to go, and I conveniently forgot to suggest it. It's not the tradition I object to, but the generally appalling productions and performances. (I'm talking about professional productions with headline 'stars' - I use that term loosely.) And the pantomimes down here have a reputation for being really good. Bloody hell.

There is so much fantastic theatre out there, for kids as much as anyone. I want my children to learn what real theatre can be. Spare me and them, please, from pantomime hell.

Ooh - I've been all cynical and mean-spirited. I hate that. Sorry.

:soap

On a happier note -

Image

Now, that IS good form. :cool:

Chari910
Multimedia Maven
Posts: 5267
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:11 pm
Contact:

Top Ten Fantasy Movies-Screen Junkies

Post by Chari910 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:12 pm

#9 Peter Pan (2003). While this film has its moments of uncomfortable strangeness, it's hard to deny that its cinematography and loyalty to the book make it truly enjoyable. This adaptation is also the only screen version that sticks with the stage tradition of having the same actor play both Captain Hook and Mr. Darling-and to top that off, that actor here is Jason Isaacs. An interesting take on a classic, 2003's Peter Pan is definitely one of the top ten fantasy movies.

http://www.screenjunkies.com/movies/gen ... sy-movies/

Angel Tavington
Posts: 4968
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: Col. Tavington's tent
Contact:

Re: Peter Pan...AAIIEE!

Post by Angel Tavington » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:38 am

Good to see it among the top ten fantasy movies. I wonder why Harry Potter isn't on the list??



~me

Post Reply