![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pauraque_bkI was quite eager to see Peter Pan, and it didn't disappoint. It really *gets* what the story is about and isn't afraid to tell it, unlike the rather toothless animated version. When you watch the cartoon, you don't understand why the kids wanted to go home. In this version, you do, and it's clear that that's the central conflict. The theme of passing over the threshold of puberty, back and forth, is restated and elaborated in several layers (the teddy bear!), which works very well.
What beautiful performances from Jason Isaacs and Olivia Williams (Mrs Darling). We already knew JI has no problem playing "non-serious" roles to the hilt, and the two do a great job of making the parents into characters that feel real, yet distanced enough to successfully serve as archetypes of adulthood and unconditional love.
The sexual elements of the story can't really be called subtext -- they're basically text. As I said, the story is about puberty, about approaching an understanding of sexual/romantic love. Children feel just as passionately as adults, the focus and nature of that passion simply transform. Pan and Hook's mutual obsession is passionate in the childlike sense, yet, as Hook acknowledges, Pan and Wendy's romantic love would leave Hook abandoned -- there isn't room for both. Hook and Wendy are in similarly ambiguous positions -- because he's a product of her imagination! The push-pull between the characters is also that between childhood and adulthood, taking place in Wendy's mind.
All the same, I love the way everything in Neverland looks a bit brighter and smaller than it would in real life, so it's understood that it's a child's fantasy, not an adult's -- it's a world that's just dangerous *enough*, but not so much so that the children themselves wouldn't believe they could handle it.
Now, it must be said, I have a thing about amputees and prosthetics (cf Alex Krycek, Peter Pettigrew, Jet Black), so the lingering over Hook's, er, hooks, and the elaborate metal and leather apparatus that holds them... Okay, that was good shit, so I was primed to like this character from a few different angles. It definitely works beyond the squee value, though. James Hook is one of the two literary characters that primarily shaped the romantic pirate archetype, Long John Silver being the other. You can look at it as Silver being the good side of the romantic pirate, the humble origins, the heroic nature; and Hook being the dark side, the surprising intelligence and education (Hook went to Eton, of course!), the real danger.
These tropes have been repeated in pirate literature ever since; they're certainly evident in PotC -- if Jack is a bit reminiscent of Silver (with quite a lot of the trickster archetype mixed in), Barbossa is *very* reminiscent of Hook. Intelligence, cruelty, obsession, physical disability -- and Hook is also cursed in a way, by Pan, in the form of the ever-pursuing crocodile. The quiet cabin scene between Barbossa and Elizabeth is a close match to that between Hook and Wendy.
But getting back to the movie, if I have a complaint, it's that Pan seemed a bit miscast. Jeremy Sumpter is the only American in the movie, and is given British dialogue (straight from the play, I'd imagine) that sounds rather odd coming out of his mouth. I'm not sure why he was cast; he wasn't bad, but he didn't have the kind of presence that would merit casting him over a Brit.
It's still quite a good movie, though, as an adaptation and in its own right. I'd certainly recommend it.
What beautiful performances from Jason Isaacs and Olivia Williams (Mrs Darling). We already knew JI has no problem playing "non-serious" roles to the hilt, and the two do a great job of making the parents into characters that feel real, yet distanced enough to successfully serve as archetypes of adulthood and unconditional love.
The sexual elements of the story can't really be called subtext -- they're basically text. As I said, the story is about puberty, about approaching an understanding of sexual/romantic love. Children feel just as passionately as adults, the focus and nature of that passion simply transform. Pan and Hook's mutual obsession is passionate in the childlike sense, yet, as Hook acknowledges, Pan and Wendy's romantic love would leave Hook abandoned -- there isn't room for both. Hook and Wendy are in similarly ambiguous positions -- because he's a product of her imagination! The push-pull between the characters is also that between childhood and adulthood, taking place in Wendy's mind.
All the same, I love the way everything in Neverland looks a bit brighter and smaller than it would in real life, so it's understood that it's a child's fantasy, not an adult's -- it's a world that's just dangerous *enough*, but not so much so that the children themselves wouldn't believe they could handle it.
Now, it must be said, I have a thing about amputees and prosthetics (cf Alex Krycek, Peter Pettigrew, Jet Black), so the lingering over Hook's, er, hooks, and the elaborate metal and leather apparatus that holds them... Okay, that was good shit, so I was primed to like this character from a few different angles. It definitely works beyond the squee value, though. James Hook is one of the two literary characters that primarily shaped the romantic pirate archetype, Long John Silver being the other. You can look at it as Silver being the good side of the romantic pirate, the humble origins, the heroic nature; and Hook being the dark side, the surprising intelligence and education (Hook went to Eton, of course!), the real danger.
These tropes have been repeated in pirate literature ever since; they're certainly evident in PotC -- if Jack is a bit reminiscent of Silver (with quite a lot of the trickster archetype mixed in), Barbossa is *very* reminiscent of Hook. Intelligence, cruelty, obsession, physical disability -- and Hook is also cursed in a way, by Pan, in the form of the ever-pursuing crocodile. The quiet cabin scene between Barbossa and Elizabeth is a close match to that between Hook and Wendy.
But getting back to the movie, if I have a complaint, it's that Pan seemed a bit miscast. Jeremy Sumpter is the only American in the movie, and is given British dialogue (straight from the play, I'd imagine) that sounds rather odd coming out of his mouth. I'm not sure why he was cast; he wasn't bad, but he didn't have the kind of presence that would merit casting him over a Brit.
It's still quite a good movie, though, as an adaptation and in its own right. I'd certainly recommend it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-07 11:35 am (UTC)my reaction pretty much echoed
more on the movie as an adaptation - it is Better than the book. the book is like an exact combination of this movie and the most wacked-out, nonsensical, childishly ridiculous version you can imagine... The movie crafts real characters whose action makes sense. It's all derived from the book, moreso than any other version, but I for one am utterly gobsmacked at how much they managed to incorporate while maintaining a logical storyline and character development.
for example, in the book, peter is british. raised by birds, mind... but i think making him seem american was a stroke of genius.
also, the 'mineral? vegetable? man? boy?' scene in the book paints hook as a buffoon... in fact, throughout the entire book, hook alternates between sexy as hell and completely ridiculous, prompting Many of my 'barrie what the hell >_<' reactions.... **will stop ranting** but you get the idea...
also also wick wick
Date: 2004-01-07 11:44 am (UTC)overly optimistic of me
Movie-Wendy OWNZ Book-Wendy's ass. what they did was they made her sort of a combination of john and wendy and also made her the central character by making everything her fantasy, which was in the book, but barrie just didn't pull it off, IMO. she contradicts too much of what goes on, she's too much of a mother rather than a playmate. maybe it made sense to the victorians... But, today, it just doesn't work. Giving Wendy some of John's attributes is absolutely the right, perhaps the only, way to go...
***more love for the adaptation***
i'd also like to say that mr. darling... they kept the pathetic, ridiculous characterization... but restrained it to make him utterly sympathetic.... <3 <3 <3 God. I want to find every person responsible for this movie and bake them each a cake....... <3 <3 <3
Re: also also wick wick
Date: 2004-01-07 03:37 pm (UTC)I'm not entirely sure why Sumpter didn't work as well for me. It reminded me a bit of Tom Felton's performance in SS/PS -- just too young-seeming, not quite sure enough, not completely woven into the fabric of the story. I didn't feel like he *believed* his lines the same way the actress who played Wendy did.