Peter Pan

Okay, so just a week ago I saw this version all the way through for the first time (and now I've seen it 3 times). This is, of course, after having seen 3 other versions of the same story of Peter and Wendy (Mary Martin version of the play, the Disney version which really sucks because it is so inaccurate, and the new live-action version). The one advantage I think I had with this version was that I've read the book (twice now) before seeing it. (I actually just finished reading it the second time today.)

So what do I think of this version? It is very unique in that it incorporates different aspects that are captured in the book but not in any other version I've seen. Such as Peter's "shortish" name, Wendy calling Peter ignorant, Peter's outright unquestionable "in charge" attitude toward the boys, and probably the most important aspect--the dark and dangerous perspective of Neverland itself.

Someone said in another comment that this version made Neverland out to be scary, and to be quite frank, it can be a scary place. Let's think about this, shall we? Neverland is the compilation of all imaginary playlands of children (according to the book), and (correct me if I'm wrong) many children find danger and darkness to be exciting. Don't boys sometimes imagine playing in misty dark waters with real danger lurking nearby? As Sir JM Barrie said himself, "In the old days at home the Neverland had always begun to look a little dark and threatening by bedtime. Then unexplored patches arose in it and spread; black shadows moved about in them; the roar of beasts of prey was quite different now, and above all, you lost the certainty that you could win. You were quite glad that the night-lights were on. You even liked Nana to say that this was just the mantelpiece over here, and that the Neverland was all make-believe. Of course the Neverland had been make-believe in those days; but it was real now, and there were no night-lights, and it was getting darker every moment, and where was Nana?" (Peter Pan, Chapter 4 "The Flight") Obviously Neverland could be a dark and dangerous place.

Also, along the same lines, it has been said that the jokes don't seem to fit or something like that. I must say that I found the jokes quite entertaining and they fit quite well. They keep with the playful and childish attitude that the play should be taken with. Are grown-ups so de-sensitized by modern comedy that they cannot even find a little humor in what two or more children say to offend each other? Or even the usual banter, during a play, between the villain and audience?

Even Peter's overall cockiness is refreshing. Barrie said himself, "It is humiliating to have to confess that this conceit of Peter was one of his most fascinating qualities. To put it with brutal frankness, there never was a cockier boy." (Peter Pan, Chapter 3 "Come Away, Come Away") And Cathy Rigby kept that cockiness in Peter throughout the play.

I must also say that I was very impressed with the emotional turmoil that Peter is shown going through. Cathy Rigby does a wonderful job at portraying the pain that Peter is feeling at Wendy's leaving Neverland and about remembering how his mother had closed the window. And in the end, the anguish of finding Wendy grown up makes you want to hug Peter and tell him it's all right.

And I'm surprised no one has mentioned Smee really. In this version he truly is lovable, just as Barrie described him. I found him very amusing, especially at the end when he returns with the Lost Boys to the Darling nursery (even if that wasn't really part of the story, it was still humorous and forgivable).

The Indians, I think, gave an extra flare that was lacking in especially the Mary Martin version. Here we find the Indians actually acting like Indians instead of random people dressed in loose Indian shirts and pants. Whether the actors were true Indians in this version (which I highly doubt they were) they were much more believable and menacing, just as in the book.

All in all, this version is very very close to the book itself, which I think is a great thing, as I am a stickler for accuracy in storytelling.

Don't get me wrong, though. I grew up (literally) with the Mary Martin version and I will always have a special place in my heart for it, even if it is a bit cheesy on the acting and sets. I love the music in both versions equally (since they are pretty much the same), but sometimes I wonder... would the real Peter Pan break out into a catchy song about Neverland and about never growing up? Hmm... I wonder.

I found this film to be upbeat and entertaining. The actors did their jobs so well that they made you lose sight of the fact that you were watching this play on a stage with a full audience.

The musical numbers were positive, the acting was excellent. The dog was funny.

All the actors performed their roles exceedingly well. I especially enjoyed the scenes when the actors flew over the stage. All around a nicely filmed stage production of the Broadway play with a great cast and crew. Recommended.

I have seen both the Mary Martin version and this version, and even though I have fond memories of watching the Mary Martin version when I was younger, I enjoyed this one a lot more. The Mary Martin version was excellent, don't get me wrong, but while watching it, you consciously think to yourself,"This is a woman playing a little boy." In many ways, this can ruin the experience. In the Cathy Rigby version, Rigby acts as a little boy would. She uses the gestures a boy would, she moves as a boy would, and when delivering her lines and singing you actually believe that she is a little boy that just did not want to grow up. Elisa Sagardia was also wonderfully enchanting in her role as Wendy. When watching it you feel as if Wendy is your own sister or mother. Everything is an improvement from the Mary Martin version-the pirates are animated and hilarious, the lost boys are also quite funny and child-like, the Indians have wonderful dance sequences and you almost feel hypnotized while watching them. I suppose it is a matter of taste and what appeals to you more-charming, quaint, heart-warming productions, or believable, spectacular, animated, eye-catching, mind boggling, rhythmic, hypnotic productions. Out of 10 stars, I give it a solid 7 1/2.

I for one, never liked the Mary Martin version. I always thought it was too corny - good songs but BAD casting and worse lines. The mediocre sets and costumes can be forgiven because it was the 50s, but there is no excuse for casting a blonde Tiger Lily. The girl that played Wendy had the most annoying voice in the world - thank God she never appeared in anything else.

Anyway, when I found out that they were releasing the Cathy Rigby version on DVD I couldn't wait to see it. Peter Pan is a wonderful show, it really is. It deserved a much better production than was out there, and Rigby's version is splendid! All of the actors were wonderful! I was SO happy with this Wendy who, for starters, has a lovely voice (what a concept!) and just seems to love her role. She plays Wendy throughout the entire show (grown up as well - in the Martin version the same annoying girl played Jane at the end which never made sense to me) so I was happy to see that.

Cathy Rigby is superb - she LOVES her part and just brings so much energy and love to her role as Peter that you get completely swept up into her world. I wonder how many Olympians, after retiring can say that they've been able to do something like that - playing the lead in Peter Pan - she just seems to be having the time of her life up there, and it's contagious!

I could go on and on, because this is just a beautiful production. Tiger Lily is beautiful and (surprise) actually looks like an Indian! She's a beautiful dancer too, I hope to see more of her in the future. Paul Schoeffler is the best Captain Hook I've ever seen, both as Hook and Mr. Darling he just had so much great appeal and charisma. I can't stop watching this movie! Five stars, 10/10, it's perfect!

Peter Pan is, of course, a timeless classic. But that doesn't mean every production of it is timeless as well. I've been a fan of the Mary Martin version for about 50 years. (Good God!) I, too, have been involved, in a very minor capacity, in an extremely well-produced amateur staging of the venerable Broadway classic. But this new staging is the new standard. (Viewers should be aware that the Mary Martin version which was aired, annually, as I recall, was a re-staged production of the broadway show for a live television studio broadcast. The recorded version we have today was, I think, from one of the last years of the broadcast, and was pre-recorded on video tape for the airing. Quite an ambitious feat for the time, but creaky, in its interpretation and the technical limitations of the time.) Rigby is perfect as a Pan for today's audiences. The Cockney accents seem to be appropriate for the "forgotten" children of London's lower and middle classes of J.M. Barrie's time. The well-known songs sound fresh. The flying is awesome.

This is a great recording of a modern live performance of this "timeless" classic.