Peter Pan

It should be clarified that the wonderful Mary Martin actually did "Peter Pan" on television three different times, and I'm relatively sure that only the last version is available on home video. The 1955 broadcast was done on bona-fide live television, as a chapter in the PRODUCER'S SHOWCASE anthology a few years before videotape- and I imagine must've been a sight to see. It was re-staged all over again, live, the following year, and I suspect that this version is on kinescope- but is probably only viewable at the MT&R in New York or L.A. (There are production stills of all the performances, and Martin's costume and hair color are slightly different each time.) It was finally videotaped, in 'living color,' in 1960, and if you are as old as I am, you may remember the network re-broadcasts always being preceded by the blooming NBC peacock. The tape is now a DVD, and still includes the original network cards, but sadly, not the peacock. It holds up quite nicely, although the heavy stage makeup and flying wires are now painfully obvious. But it is a marvelous time capsule of an earlier, gentler, period of TV entertainment.

Somehow or other, although I was around for all of them, I had never seen one of the Broadway productions, nor any of the three Mary Martin TV productions, of PETER PAN until two nights back. Younger readers may not recall that Mary Martin was considered a titan of the musical theater from the late 1930s to at least the mid-1960s, fully on an equal footing with the great Ethel Merman. In a day when almost nobody knows the names of most Broadway stars who are not also movie and TV luminaries, it is astounding to think of just how famous the Broadway stars of those days were all over the world - think not only of Martin and Merman, but of Alfred Drake, Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne, Katherine Cornell, Dennis King, and so many others who rarely or never appeared in films. Whenever I have seen Mary Martin on TV, even just on kinescopes (this one is not a kinescope), she exudes a kind of all-encompassing professionalism and joy, along with a charisma, that nobody today can match. Maybe that comes from going out onto a real stage and performing for real theater audiences 7 or 8 times a week, I don't know, but whatever it was, nobody else had it in this superabundance. This PETER PAN is the epitome, I think, of her style, and I do wish I had seen her 'live' on stage. As I say, I was around to have done so, but never did. And that's all I'll say about her or about this production, but there is still more to say.

More than one reviewer has complained that Peter Pan is being played by a woman here, and they are obviously sorely deficient in knowledge of the history of musical theater in the 20th century. Peter Pan, in the approximate 115 years it has now been on the stage, has ALWAYS been played by a woman, usually one as petite as possible in order to appear credible as a boy of ten (well, let's say, ten; I'm not sure his age is stipulated). There probably isn't a child, boy or girl, of that age who could possibly encompass the acting range and other abilities needed for the role. Perhaps the 14- or 15-year old Mickey Rooney (thinking of Puck, in his MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM of 1935) might have been able to pull it off, but that just about ends the possibilities. The first Peter Pan (and the author's choice) was Maude Adams, who when she died in 1952 at the age of 80, was still remembered by people like my mother, because she had been the Peter Pan for a whole generation of kids from 1905 up to about 1930. That was in the straight play version, of course, not in a musical. She was succeeded in it by one of America's greatest actresses, Eva La Galliene, and by America's reigning female Broadway star of the 1920s and early 1930s, Marilyn Miller. Came 1950, and the great Jean Arthur (52 at the time) did it on Broadway, to the Captain Hook of Boris Karloff. Now, THAT must have been something to see! I'm writing only of Broadway here, but the role was played by myriad actresses all over the English-speaking world. When the musical came into being in 1954, it was, of course, Mary Martin who did it on Broadway, and then three separate times on TV. Thank God she did, for this is one of the very few famous Broadway performances pre-1965 or so to have been preserved in any form for posterity. Since Mary Martin, the musical has also been done on Broadway by Sandy Duncan and, of course, by Cathy Rigby. First essaying it in 1981, the last time Rigby appeared on Broadway in the role was in 2013, when she was 61 years of age! Being less than five feet tall, a famous gymnast, and, of course, appearing on stage at a good distance from the audience, she could still pull it off. But Mary Martin is well over five feet tall and is appearing here in close-up, yet she still exudes both youth and boyhood, a considerable achievement when you think that her previous great success on Broadway was as leading lady to Ezio Pinza in SOUTH PACIFIC, and that at the same time this TV show was in production, she was playing Maria (how old? 18? 19?) in THE SOUND OF MUSIC 8 times a week. For anyone to complain that a boy isn't playing Peter Pan betrays some ignorance of show business history and a total unwillingness to suspend disbelief for a mere 90 minutes. I'm amazed that people who find fault with this aren't also upset that the Darlings' dog isn't really a canine, and that the alligator who ate up Captain Hook's arm isn't real, either. (By the way, lest we forget, the tape also preserves the wonderful Captain Hook of Cyril Ritchard, a great stage star and director of his time, but pretty much forgotten today, although he starred in and/or directed some two dozen plays on Broadway, and played stage roles there that were then taken in films by talents as diverse as Fred Astaire and Jerry Lewis! And during the time his various Hook performances were taking place, he also directed 4 productions for the Metropolitan Opera, in one of which, Offenbach's LA PERICHOLE, he appeared as co-star some 4 dozen times. THAT is what a Man of the Theater is supposed to be, and he was! His obscurity today doesn't quite rise to the level of tragedy, but it should!)

This thread has some confusing information in it. I think I can add some information.

The 1955 version of Peter Pan was done live from NY and then redone the following year. That version was preserved on Kinescope, but not videotape.

In 1960, NBC re-staged the production and videotaped it in their wonderful old Brooklyn studios - by the way, I believe that The Cosby Show in the '80s was produced at the same NBC Brooklyn Studios.

The 1960 production was videotaped and rebroadcast a number of times, and may be available on VHS now.

As the 4-year old son of an NBC publicity flack, I had the wonderful privilege of attending the taping of the show and I have a magnificent b&w photograph of me, in a gray flannel suit - in gray shorts no less - with Mary Martin in full costume.

It is one of the treasures of my childhood and Peter Pan has always been a favorite of mine.

By the way, there is/was a cast recording of Peter Pan - I want to say that it was on RCA Victor records, since of course, RCA owned NBC. But I have always been under the impression that is was of the Broadway play. This thread implies that the show never made it to Broadway, so I am not sure. However, I am certain that there was a record - vinyl, 33 1/3, long play, etc.

"I know a place where dreams are born...."

Eric

In my opinion, this film should not be missed by any child, adolescent, or adult who likes music and loved J.M. Barrie's masterpiece novel. Unlike the animated Disney film made seven years earlier (also a classic musical), this film follows the original story more closely, as adapted by Jerome Robbins for the stage. The music is beautiful, catchy, and fun. Peter Pan is portrayed by a woman because any male old enough to play the role would have gone through puberty -- thus no longer looking or sounding like a 10 year old. In this day of shows about cross dressing and sexuality bending, is it really such a stretch to believe that a woman in costume is a little boy?

Of course its special effects are lacking in quality: it was filmed in 1960, before the innovation of Lucasfilm, and is not just a movie, but a filming of an actual stageplay. This is the reason for the "poor" special effects. Sorry, videogame generation, there's no CGI, so you'll have to leave something to your imagination...if you still have some.

This movie is one of the best versions of the Peter Pan story that I have ever seen I've been watching it for years and now at the age of 20 I still find myself singing the songs and tapping my toe to the beat.

It was done in the traditional theater way, with a woman playing Peter Pan, but Mary Martin did such a wonderful job you never think of her as a 'girl'. Tinkerbell is a light that whizzes across the stage, and the audience is drawn into the movie when asked to clap for the little fairy after drinking poison meant for Peter.

This is a wonderful movie and I recommend it for adults and children alike, its full of the wholesome kind of magic that you hardly see nowadays in film.