Peter Pan

In Mary Martin's Peter Pan, the dances were very thrown together. This is not a bad thing when the cast can make it look like that is not the case. That WAS not the case. You could see mistake after mistake, and you could tell when even the littlest mistake was made.

Furthermore, the casting for Mary Martin's was terrible. Wendy had a piercing to the ear sounding voice, and Mary Martin in no way, shape, or form made a believable little boy. She instead made a believable little old man.

In Cathy's version, everyone sang on key, and everyone seemed prepared for the performance at hand. Cathy's performance made it easy to forget that she was an adult woman, and truly made you believe that she was that of a young boy. This is not easy for many actors/actresses out there. What's funny is that she had little training. Mary Martin had lots.

Makes you wonder who possessed the real talent.

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.

Personally I can't stand Peter Pan.

However, my 5 year old daughter found this at the library and asked to borrow it, and I have to admit that it is a wonderful and funny performance. The songs are great (much to my annoyance I have even been discovered humming them to myself). Cathy Rigby is extremely well suited to the role of Peter Pan, and I loved Paul Schoeffler as Captain Hook/Mr Darling.

So even though I don't like Peter Pan I gave it 7/10 and am able to sit through certain bits as my daughter watches it over and over again (unfortunately I was persuaded to buy the video for her).

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.

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.