Hello, Darling.
October 7, 2015 6:22 AM Subscribe
This Friday, people will be able to go to the theater and see yet another interpretation of J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan". Such news does not necessarily excite Barrie fans, given the middling results of some past interpretations (and Pan isn't being received much better). But the AV Club's Ryan Vlastelica argues they can take heart that the best "Peter Pan" movie was already made... in 2003.
I've never even heard of that movie, but the correct answer to "What's the best one?" is Hook.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:27 AM on October 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:27 AM on October 7, 2015 [16 favorites]
That is the only one I've seen were peter is adequately damaged and spooky.
Although he's pretty creepy in the Disney animated one. Try watching that again sometime, it's pretty fucked.
posted by French Fry at 6:38 AM on October 7, 2015
Although he's pretty creepy in the Disney animated one. Try watching that again sometime, it's pretty fucked.
posted by French Fry at 6:38 AM on October 7, 2015
Oh, I saw that one in the theater and it was really really good. (Jason Isaacs as Mr Darling AND Captain Hook! YES PLEASE.)
I should watch it again. I don't really get this new one coming out with Hugh Jackman. The plot sounds a bit fussy to me.
posted by Kitteh at 6:38 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I should watch it again. I don't really get this new one coming out with Hugh Jackman. The plot sounds a bit fussy to me.
posted by Kitteh at 6:38 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
but the correct answer to "What's the best one?" is Hook.
Hook is many things: hilarious, weird, filled with actors we lost too soon... but the best adaptation it is definitely not.
posted by Fizz at 6:38 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hook is many things: hilarious, weird, filled with actors we lost too soon... but the best adaptation it is definitely not.
posted by Fizz at 6:38 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't really get this new one coming out with Hugh Jackman. The plot sounds a bit fussy to me.
I believe its a kind of prequel or that is what the trailer led me to believe. But to be honest, I wasn't paying much attention because it just looked terrible and I tuned it out.
posted by Fizz at 6:39 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I believe its a kind of prequel or that is what the trailer led me to believe. But to be honest, I wasn't paying much attention because it just looked terrible and I tuned it out.
posted by Fizz at 6:39 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yep, this was a good movie. It's very Freudian and probably not appropriate for children. It goes to some dark places and some really creepy male-gaze themes, but it works so well because Wendy is actually the main character of the story and not an instrument for the other characters. It's also the one film adaptation I've seen that takes Mr. Darling seriously and gets into the creepiness of the dual-role performance.
Hook is great too and I consider it canon.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 6:41 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hook is great too and I consider it canon.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 6:41 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hook is great too and I consider it canon.
Well sure. When discussing Hook, you always have to consider the cannon.
posted by The Bellman at 6:46 AM on October 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
Well sure. When discussing Hook, you always have to consider the cannon.
posted by The Bellman at 6:46 AM on October 7, 2015 [18 favorites]
The 2003 Peter Pan is on heavy rotation in my house. It is wonderful on every level. And Jason Isaacs (as has been mentioned) is wonderful. Ludivine Saigner (sp?) is the best Tinkerbell.
We rewatched Hook with the kids this past year (first time I'd seen it since it came out), and it really doesn't hold up at all. The plot makes zero sense, the kids are completely obnoxious, and the whole experience is like a giant sledgehammer with "THIS IS THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE" written on it. It's a treacly, silly mess.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:52 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
We rewatched Hook with the kids this past year (first time I'd seen it since it came out), and it really doesn't hold up at all. The plot makes zero sense, the kids are completely obnoxious, and the whole experience is like a giant sledgehammer with "THIS IS THE MESSAGE OF THE MOVIE" written on it. It's a treacly, silly mess.
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:52 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
yet another interpretation of J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan" . . . isn't being received much better.
Tomatometer: 38%
Pan panned.
posted by Herodios at 6:54 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Tomatometer: 38%
Pan panned.
posted by Herodios at 6:54 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
The only thing I know about this new one is that a band of pirates sings Smells Like Teen Spirit.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:57 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 6:57 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't really get this new one coming out with Hugh Jackman. The plot sounds a bit fussy to me.It's Phase 1 of the Never-never land cinematic universe.
posted by cnelson at 6:58 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh look. Another article claiming the "best" X is the darkest X. Next he'll be telling us why DS9 is the best Trek and why ewoks are horrible. Yawn.
I'm so over dark and conflict. I have enough of that in my real life. The bright, light-hearted version is usually the "best" for me.
And any claim of "best" that doesn't also include "for me" is pure b.s.
posted by yeolcoatl at 7:16 AM on October 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm so over dark and conflict. I have enough of that in my real life. The bright, light-hearted version is usually the "best" for me.
And any claim of "best" that doesn't also include "for me" is pure b.s.
posted by yeolcoatl at 7:16 AM on October 7, 2015 [5 favorites]
The original Peter Pan is so much of its (claustrophobic, utterly white, utterly upper-class-English, utterly male-centric) time that I could never feel any of the enchantment. The newest one appears to have some Strong Female Characters but I suspect that the limitations of the original will not be overcome this time either. I'm not sure they can be. I haven't seen the 2003 version, admittedly.
Hook can be explained as a vanity project/Robin Williams vehicle that just barely edges from terrible to so-bad-its-compulsively-watchable territory. The source material is not all that important, in that case.
posted by emjaybee at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hook can be explained as a vanity project/Robin Williams vehicle that just barely edges from terrible to so-bad-its-compulsively-watchable territory. The source material is not all that important, in that case.
posted by emjaybee at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
From the trailers, the new movie looks really appealing to the eye, but otherwise not my thing.
posted by drezdn at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2015
posted by drezdn at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2015
We never got to see GWAR's interpretation of Peter Pan. I consider this a lost opportunity.
posted by delfin at 7:21 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by delfin at 7:21 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
I loved Hook as a kid, and because of it I went on to read Barrie's play. That year, Peter Pan (2003) came out. What was most striking was how much the film mirrored how I imagined the feel of the play. Seriously, it's really good. Hook is a fun movie about a dad who learns to dad again, and also Rufio. Peter Pan (2003) recaptures how the story really revolves around Wendy, and that tension between childhood and young adulthood.
Oh, and Peter Pan (2003) gets props for casting a native (Haida) actress as Tiger Lily.
posted by nicodine at 7:26 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Oh, and Peter Pan (2003) gets props for casting a native (Haida) actress as Tiger Lily.
posted by nicodine at 7:26 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Consider this: Despite the love he and Wendy share, Pan always stays in Neverland. The Lost Boys go to London with the Darlings, but family is “one joy from which [Pan] must be forever barred,” according to the film’s narration."
... Doctor Who?
posted by Devoidoid at 7:59 AM on October 7, 2015
... Doctor Who?
posted by Devoidoid at 7:59 AM on October 7, 2015
If the 2003 version is the one I think it is, there is a scene where right after Tinkerbell tricks the boys into shooting at Wendy, Peter thinks Wendy is dead and turn to kill the boy who's arrow struck home. It was an accepted part of being a lost boy, as the boy opens his shirt and prepares to die. That scene stuck with me more than anything else. Children can be brutal and this version is the only one that I've seen that acknowledged that.
posted by Hactar at 8:13 AM on October 7, 2015
posted by Hactar at 8:13 AM on October 7, 2015
You know how people always say the book is better? You should read the book. It's absolutely wonderful. And you should know that J M Barrie gave all the rights to Peter Pan to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1929, and this was later confirmed when he died in 1937.
posted by theora55 at 8:22 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by theora55 at 8:22 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Wow. I should read the book. And then see the 2003 version. Thanks.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:29 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 8:29 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've mostly been hearing about the new Pan movie because of the white-washing of Tiger Lily (racebending tumblr peter-pan tagged posts), and saw another post recently that the filmmakers are not going to donate any proceeds to the Great Ormond Street Hospital (which they apparently in the clear for legally, but that all other previous adaptations that weren't legally required to give the foundation a cut did so anyway for the sake of good PR/good will). So, yeah, no plans on watching "Pan" anytime soon.
posted by oh yeah! at 8:40 AM on October 7, 2015
posted by oh yeah! at 8:40 AM on October 7, 2015
Wow. I should read the book.
Just armor yourself to deal with the rather horrifying racism and sexism.
Anyway, the Best Peter Pan is the Mabou Mimes' staged version with puppets/marionettes and a score by Johnny Cunningham. So brilliant: one of the most memorable theater experiences I've ever had.
posted by suelac at 8:41 AM on October 7, 2015
Just armor yourself to deal with the rather horrifying racism and sexism.
Anyway, the Best Peter Pan is the Mabou Mimes' staged version with puppets/marionettes and a score by Johnny Cunningham. So brilliant: one of the most memorable theater experiences I've ever had.
posted by suelac at 8:41 AM on October 7, 2015
So, yeah, no plans on watching "Pan" anytime soon.
I saw the trailer last night. It looks awful, frankly. Bloated and full of CGI, with no mystery, no sense of magic or the fleeting nature of childhood.
posted by suelac at 8:43 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
I saw the trailer last night. It looks awful, frankly. Bloated and full of CGI, with no mystery, no sense of magic or the fleeting nature of childhood.
posted by suelac at 8:43 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
and saw another post recently that the filmmakers are not going to donate any proceeds to the Great Ormond Street Hospital (which they apparently in the clear for legally, but that all other previous adaptations that weren't legally required to give the foundation a cut did so anyway for the sake of good PR/good will)
Is there a link for this? If this is true, I would like to spread this around to friends because that would be one severely dickish move on the part of the filmmakers.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 8:48 AM on October 7, 2015
Is there a link for this? If this is true, I would like to spread this around to friends because that would be one severely dickish move on the part of the filmmakers.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 8:48 AM on October 7, 2015
The RSC's Wendy and Peter Pan was phenomenal.
Wendy and Tinkerbell and Tiger Lilly are the characters you follow, and all the boys are just incomprehensible side-characters who get to go off and play while the women are saddled with all the work of carrying the story forward.
They did a run of it again this year, simply because it was so well received.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 8:53 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wendy and Tinkerbell and Tiger Lilly are the characters you follow, and all the boys are just incomprehensible side-characters who get to go off and play while the women are saddled with all the work of carrying the story forward.
They did a run of it again this year, simply because it was so well received.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 8:53 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is there a link for this? If this is true, I would like to spread this around to friends because that would be one severely dickish move on the part of the filmmakers.
Oops, sorry, that's what I get for skimming Tumblr, per the Great Ormond Street Hospital FAQ the production did make a donation:
Will GOSH benefit from the new Warner Bros. Pan movie?
Warner Bros. was not obliged to pay a royalty to Great Ormond Street Hospital for the production of Pan as it is a prequel which does not need to be licensed. However, in recognition of the very special relationship between the hospital and Peter Pan, the production team chose to make a significant donation to the hospital’s charity before filming started.
posted by oh yeah! at 8:59 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oops, sorry, that's what I get for skimming Tumblr, per the Great Ormond Street Hospital FAQ the production did make a donation:
Will GOSH benefit from the new Warner Bros. Pan movie?
Warner Bros. was not obliged to pay a royalty to Great Ormond Street Hospital for the production of Pan as it is a prequel which does not need to be licensed. However, in recognition of the very special relationship between the hospital and Peter Pan, the production team chose to make a significant donation to the hospital’s charity before filming started.
posted by oh yeah! at 8:59 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I adore the 2003 Peter Pan. It's the only version that comes close to capturing the ornate, dreamy strangeness of the source, and the only version that really seems to have gotten the *point* of the source. Neverland is stunning, and quite a bit of the dialogue was lifted directly from the book or the play, and using the Mr. Darling/Hook double casting was exactly the right choice.
posted by nonasuch at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nonasuch at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The 2003 version came out just a year after we put on Peter Pan at my high school (I was a "native neverlander"), and I really liked that the movie kept a lot of the same dialogue and general feel. This is a great reminder to watch it again.
posted by hopeless romantique at 9:34 AM on October 7, 2015
posted by hopeless romantique at 9:34 AM on October 7, 2015
but the correct answer to "What's the best one?" is Hook.
Yea, well no.
The very best was on a tiny black&white tv and your sisters believed you when you told them they didn't use wires for flying. And at the end everyone clapped and believed!
posted by sammyo at 9:38 AM on October 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yea, well no.
The very best was on a tiny black&white tv and your sisters believed you when you told them they didn't use wires for flying. And at the end everyone clapped and believed!
posted by sammyo at 9:38 AM on October 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you can't find your way to deriving enjoyment from Hook, then I really don't know what to tell you. In fact, I'd probably not tell you anything ever again and find someone else to talk to. Yes, I'm Hook-ist.
Hook is Peter finally regaining the childhood he never had and the belonging that even the Lost Boys couldn't give him by discovering his own capacity for the love his parents weren't there to give him. And if you don't want to get into that, Robin Williams can fucking fly and has a cool sword and Dustin Hoffman is a damn pirate, and Glenn Close has a beard, and David Crosby gets a nutshot, and the Boo Box. It's one of the best enjoyment-at-any level movie ever made.
Dustin Hoffman for chrissakes.
posted by cmoj at 9:41 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hook is Peter finally regaining the childhood he never had and the belonging that even the Lost Boys couldn't give him by discovering his own capacity for the love his parents weren't there to give him. And if you don't want to get into that, Robin Williams can fucking fly and has a cool sword and Dustin Hoffman is a damn pirate, and Glenn Close has a beard, and David Crosby gets a nutshot, and the Boo Box. It's one of the best enjoyment-at-any level movie ever made.
Dustin Hoffman for chrissakes.
posted by cmoj at 9:41 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
buncha refugees from Burning Man breathlessly proclaiming some little white kid who puts on his Brave Voice to talk about how he's gonna stand up to evil their Chosen One no thank you BTDT *barf*
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:08 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:08 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
roomthreeseventeen : I've never even heard of that movie, but the correct answer to "What's the best one?" is Hook.
Argumentation from ignorance is rarely so bald-faced.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:10 AM on October 7, 2015
Argumentation from ignorance is rarely so bald-faced.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:10 AM on October 7, 2015
cmoj, I do like Hook but I feel like it misses the mark in a bunch of places. Tonally it's SUPER weird-- 30 seconds after Rufio's tragic death scene they're back to wacky pirate fighting (that one kid literally rolls around like a bowling ball! Rufio JUST DIED, you guys!) and the stuff with Peter's kids is overly sentimental.
Plus I feel like it misses Barrie's point. In Hook, Peter spends the movie rediscovering joy and love and caring, which are framed as childlike things, but in the original Barrie repeatedly reminds you that children are heartless-- that's the exact word he uses, 'heartless.' I think he's pretty clear that part of growing up is learning to give up the natural selfishness of childhood.
The 03 Peter Pan does a fantastic job with that idea-- that Peter, having been on his own essentially from birth, is terrified of caring about anything but himself. Wendy's drawn in at first because she's afraid of adult responsibility, too-- of putting her dreams in a drawer, as her mother says-- but by the end of the movie she understands how limited Peter is and chooses to go home. She wants to grow and change, even if it means leaving behind parts of her childhood self. That feels much closer to what Barrie wrote.
(which is ironic given Barrie's actual life, but anyway.)
posted by nonasuch at 10:11 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Plus I feel like it misses Barrie's point. In Hook, Peter spends the movie rediscovering joy and love and caring, which are framed as childlike things, but in the original Barrie repeatedly reminds you that children are heartless-- that's the exact word he uses, 'heartless.' I think he's pretty clear that part of growing up is learning to give up the natural selfishness of childhood.
The 03 Peter Pan does a fantastic job with that idea-- that Peter, having been on his own essentially from birth, is terrified of caring about anything but himself. Wendy's drawn in at first because she's afraid of adult responsibility, too-- of putting her dreams in a drawer, as her mother says-- but by the end of the movie she understands how limited Peter is and chooses to go home. She wants to grow and change, even if it means leaving behind parts of her childhood self. That feels much closer to what Barrie wrote.
(which is ironic given Barrie's actual life, but anyway.)
posted by nonasuch at 10:11 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
My partner and my son are huge fans of Peter Pan. The partner liked the 2003 version a fair bit getting to the heart of the story better than the story does but believes it is too dark for our young son.
Peter Pan was not something I grew up with so I only really came to it as an adult. I'm not much of fan. I have a hard time seeing passed its claustrophobic, utterly white, utterly upper-class-English, utterly male-centric core (as emjaybee elegantly describes). I'll add that I can't look passed its portrayal of First Nations people either. Any modern interpretation needs to come to terms with those things to make it consumable, in my opinion. Regardless, this new film looks terrible beyond words.
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:25 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Peter Pan was not something I grew up with so I only really came to it as an adult. I'm not much of fan. I have a hard time seeing passed its claustrophobic, utterly white, utterly upper-class-English, utterly male-centric core (as emjaybee elegantly describes). I'll add that I can't look passed its portrayal of First Nations people either. Any modern interpretation needs to come to terms with those things to make it consumable, in my opinion. Regardless, this new film looks terrible beyond words.
posted by Ashwagandha at 10:25 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh look. Another article claiming the "best" X is the darkest X. Next he'll be telling us why DS9 is the best Trek and why ewoks are horrible. Yawn.
I'm so over dark and conflict. I have enough of that in my real life. The bright, light-hearted version is usually the "best" for me.
And any claim of "best" that doesn't also include "for me" is pure b.s.
It's not the best because it's the darkest, it's the best because it's the smartest. It's the one that is most aware of (and interrogative of) its own components, and it doesn't try to make Peter Pan into the protagonist when he is clearly a villainous, borderline evil figure. The fact that it happens to be the darkest as well is down to the fact that Peter Pan is a really fundamentally broken being, which is an element that's present in all the stories no matter how they're told, because as the A.V. Club article points out it's central to his never-grow-up characterization. There is nothing so pure and cruel as a child.
Honestly, the other versions of the story are much darker in reality, because most of them are all about how Wendy is merely an object in the struggles of others (and they're fine with it) and a lot of them try to put us on the side of the man-child who prefers endless pirate battles to growing up. They're brighter on the surface, but if you give them more than a few moments' thought it becomes clear how much toxic bullshit they reinforce, in no small part due to the ignorance of their presentation (did anyone on the production think for a few minutes about what the story they're telling actually says?). If you honestly prefer that kind of fingers-in-the-ears don't-look-at-it-too-hard-and-it's-fine storytelling, maybe it's time you stopped following Peter Pan's advice.
posted by IAmUnaware at 12:22 PM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm so over dark and conflict. I have enough of that in my real life. The bright, light-hearted version is usually the "best" for me.
And any claim of "best" that doesn't also include "for me" is pure b.s.
It's not the best because it's the darkest, it's the best because it's the smartest. It's the one that is most aware of (and interrogative of) its own components, and it doesn't try to make Peter Pan into the protagonist when he is clearly a villainous, borderline evil figure. The fact that it happens to be the darkest as well is down to the fact that Peter Pan is a really fundamentally broken being, which is an element that's present in all the stories no matter how they're told, because as the A.V. Club article points out it's central to his never-grow-up characterization. There is nothing so pure and cruel as a child.
Honestly, the other versions of the story are much darker in reality, because most of them are all about how Wendy is merely an object in the struggles of others (and they're fine with it) and a lot of them try to put us on the side of the man-child who prefers endless pirate battles to growing up. They're brighter on the surface, but if you give them more than a few moments' thought it becomes clear how much toxic bullshit they reinforce, in no small part due to the ignorance of their presentation (did anyone on the production think for a few minutes about what the story they're telling actually says?). If you honestly prefer that kind of fingers-in-the-ears don't-look-at-it-too-hard-and-it's-fine storytelling, maybe it's time you stopped following Peter Pan's advice.
posted by IAmUnaware at 12:22 PM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Best Peter Pan is Loisel's Peter Pan.
posted by SageLeVoid at 2:20 PM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by SageLeVoid at 2:20 PM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
The best Peter Pan was the only late 80s(?) cartoon with Tim Curry as Captain Hook! To this day, I can hear his delicious bellow of "Smee!" (Smee was the bosun, always being yelled at by Hook).
posted by TwoStride at 6:48 PM on October 7, 2015
posted by TwoStride at 6:48 PM on October 7, 2015
You know what the trailer reminds me of? Oz the Great and Powerful. Two flicks from the same template: take a well-loved story for children and make up a backstory that corrects the original story's chief flaw from Hollywood's perspective, that the viewpoint character is a girl.
posted by baf at 8:17 PM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by baf at 8:17 PM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]
Susan Wloszczyna's review of Pan on Ebert.com is an evisceration that I'd think Roger would have appreciated:
Every once in a while, a movie comes along that is so punishing to one’s mental and physical being that the narrative should be divided into rounds instead of acts. Add in dizzying 3-D effects and a booming sound system, and the pummeling can be rope-a-dope exhausting.posted by octothorpe at 12:11 PM on October 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
-----
From the music (the soundtrack employs the anachronistic tunes “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Blitzkrieg Bop” for absolutely no reason, unless pirates are into grunge and punk) to the CGI tricks (to justify the 3-D, we get to follow the trajectory of a falling bomb, watch a floating chicken lay an egg and enjoy a fight conducted on a trampoline), “Pan” is a pandemic of poor choices. And no one is going to clap their hands to save it.
« Older Manoj Bhargava wants to change the world | An outrage in Kunduz Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by curious nu at 6:26 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]