My first entry
Well, I don't know who will end up reading this, if anyone, but I've finally joined the computer age to the point of registering a livejournal. Yay, me, I guess.....
I went and saw the film Peter Pan last night. Here's a case where the critics have managed to murder an absolutely wonderful film by scaring off its potential audience with PC-handwringing. A few reviewers have done it justice, but most have decided that, since it isn't the Disneyfied musical version, it's crap.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's fascinating to watch the film and see an interpretation with out treacle coating we're so used to. The actors handling the parts of Peter, Wendy and the Lost Boys all turn in stellar performances, and Jason Isaacs' turn as Hook/Mr. Darling proves what a skilled actor he is, and hopefully will give him a chance to play something other than the villains he has unfortunately been boxed into playing.
As for the design and effects, the art directors managed to capture the fairy tale world of Neverland in a way that conveys the imagination of a child without indulging in Spielbergian technicolor excess - no Dayglo Neverfood, no Our Gang Lost Boys, no comedy effect pirates, no anorexic fairies - and speaking of fairies, Tinker Bell is perfect! The director took everything that worked about Disney's Tink and then expanded it into a unique portrayal that once again captures the essence of the part.
The director has also gone back to what is really the heart of the story -- a child's fear of growing up, and confusion over all that entails. Yes, the tension between Wendy and Peter that develops as Wendy begins to feel emotions that scare the bejeesus out of Peter is an awkward one, especially in this day and age when twelve year old girls are already dressing like 20 year old hookers, but in the context of the story, Victorian England where new emotions did not mean jumping into the sack, the tension is necessary and poignant. Wendy is a girl on the crux of becoming a woman, which in her time was a much more gradual process than it is today, and Peter represents both an escape from that process and a catalyst for her maturing emotions. Peter in turn is a much more elemental force in this version, with a touch more emphasis on the Pan part of his nature; he is a young boy and a young godling at the same time, as evinced by Neverland's response to his feelings. His human side is tempted by what Wendy represents, and the struggle between that and his mythic side is also crucial to the story's development.
All in all, if I had to come up with a yardstick to measure it against, the only recent films that compare to it as far as spirit, imagination, and execution are the ones done by Peter Jackson. Yes, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a much more massive undertaking, with literally a cast of thousands and a huge amount of effort, but as far as the vision behind the camera, and the skill with which that vision is realized, they belong together. If you haven't seen it, DO SO!!!!!
I went and saw the film Peter Pan last night. Here's a case where the critics have managed to murder an absolutely wonderful film by scaring off its potential audience with PC-handwringing. A few reviewers have done it justice, but most have decided that, since it isn't the Disneyfied musical version, it's crap.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's fascinating to watch the film and see an interpretation with out treacle coating we're so used to. The actors handling the parts of Peter, Wendy and the Lost Boys all turn in stellar performances, and Jason Isaacs' turn as Hook/Mr. Darling proves what a skilled actor he is, and hopefully will give him a chance to play something other than the villains he has unfortunately been boxed into playing.
As for the design and effects, the art directors managed to capture the fairy tale world of Neverland in a way that conveys the imagination of a child without indulging in Spielbergian technicolor excess - no Dayglo Neverfood, no Our Gang Lost Boys, no comedy effect pirates, no anorexic fairies - and speaking of fairies, Tinker Bell is perfect! The director took everything that worked about Disney's Tink and then expanded it into a unique portrayal that once again captures the essence of the part.
The director has also gone back to what is really the heart of the story -- a child's fear of growing up, and confusion over all that entails. Yes, the tension between Wendy and Peter that develops as Wendy begins to feel emotions that scare the bejeesus out of Peter is an awkward one, especially in this day and age when twelve year old girls are already dressing like 20 year old hookers, but in the context of the story, Victorian England where new emotions did not mean jumping into the sack, the tension is necessary and poignant. Wendy is a girl on the crux of becoming a woman, which in her time was a much more gradual process than it is today, and Peter represents both an escape from that process and a catalyst for her maturing emotions. Peter in turn is a much more elemental force in this version, with a touch more emphasis on the Pan part of his nature; he is a young boy and a young godling at the same time, as evinced by Neverland's response to his feelings. His human side is tempted by what Wendy represents, and the struggle between that and his mythic side is also crucial to the story's development.
All in all, if I had to come up with a yardstick to measure it against, the only recent films that compare to it as far as spirit, imagination, and execution are the ones done by Peter Jackson. Yes, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a much more massive undertaking, with literally a cast of thousands and a huge amount of effort, but as far as the vision behind the camera, and the skill with which that vision is realized, they belong together. If you haven't seen it, DO SO!!!!!