RL Death and movie irritation
May. 23rd, 2023 09:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakI woke up to very sad news - Ray Stevenson has died, at only 58 years of age, after a sudden illness mid shooting, according to the articles. He's never disappointed in anything I've seen him in (my Blackbeard in Black Sails problem is a me problem, not a Stevenson problem), but the role which immediately still comes to mind when I think of the name "Ray Stevenson" is Titus Pullo in the tv series Rome, where he could exude terrifiying brutality and incredible human warmth, and you believed both that this is a man cheerfully assassinate Cicero on the orders of the second Tribunate while taking the time to collect some peaches for a family picknick and someone who'd when threatened with his own (he thinks) impending death in the arena would pray for his only friend and his family despite said friend at the time having rejected him. So ave atque vale, Ray Stevenson. Thirteen!
Away from rl and into fantasy: I watched Peter Pan & Wendy, the latest effort by the Mouse on the tale. Oh dear.
I wonder whether I'd have liked it better if I didn't inwardly keep comparing it to the excellent 2003 Peter Pan, but I don't think so, because if the later is an excellent example of how to do an adaption of a classic that does shift some narrative emphasis and looks at its themes from a current day perspective yet manages to preserve all that made the classic so memorabl ein the first place, the new one is an example of how NOT to do it by consistently going for the most banal, safe option. But of course, the 2003 film is explicitly not based on the 1950s Disney cartoon but goes straight back to the play and novel by Barrie.
Now, when it started, I thought, aha, they're taking a cue from the 2003 film by making it Wendy's coming of age story, good, that's an idea worth repeating. But alas: the sledgehammery dialogue in combination with "safest option" policy very quickly highlighted the differences between the two films. Peter Pan and Wendy ostensibly uses the Edwardian setting but goes present day teen drama dialogue like "What if I don't want your life?" (Wendy to her mother, Mrs. Darling), and Mrs. Darling telling her daughter that as a big sister, she needs to be a leader to her brothers.
(The script keeps being like that, so that the few actual Barrie quotes, which are only the catch phrases everyone remembers - "proud and insolent youth/ Dark and sinister man"/ "to die would be an awfully big adventure" - stand out like sore thumbs. By contrast, the 2003 film has a lot of wit in its original dialogue along with its Barrie derived dialogue - "You offend gravity, Sir - I should like to offend it with you!" (to the flying Peter Pan) being a case in point.)
Then there's the whole growing up thing Peter refuses to do and which Wendy at the start doesn't want to and during the course of both films comes to embrace. Growing up involves responsibilities in both cases, yes, but the 2003 film very much connects it with Wendy at the brink of puberty and adulthood including sexuality as well, not, I hasten to add, in a Wendy-exploitative way (the young actress never gets given the male gaze treatment, we remain firmly in her gaze instead). But it's there, and it's embodied by Hook, in 2003 , played by Jason Isaac oozing charm and menace who gets introduced bare-chasted (he's the objectified one in that movie), who manages to temporarily bring Peter down (literally) by his taunting about the implication of Wendy growing up in their big showdown. By contrast, the question of puberty and growing up involving sexuality does not arive in this by-the-numbers Disney pic. Tthe Peter Pan & Wendy Hook might be played by Jude Law but is styled to look as unattractive as possible; also, he and Peter get backstory that sounds suspicously familiar, and not from Peter Pan. Because, you see, they used to be friends untilAnakin James was worried about his mother, Peter overreacted, and then there was the fallout and duel when Anakin James lost an arm to Obi-Wan Peter and became Vader Hook. Good grief. Look, I'm as much a sucker for the "we used to be friends" trope as anyone who's ever fangirled Xavier and Magneto, but this really isn't for Hook and Peter Pan, who do not, repeat, do not need that kind of backstory. Neither of them. Anyway, since Peter Pan & Wendy's journey to wanting to grow up instead of refusing to do so is about ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, not about both being appalled and attracted to the mess of adult emotions, you have Wendy in her introduction scene when all Darling children play-fight and break a mirror blaming her brothers (hence Mrs. Darling giving her "as a big sister, you need to be a leader" speech), while the big climax is her offering to walk the plank and die for them, thus becoming a good big sister and leader.
Even letting aside the comparision between adaptions: The script removes with a surgical precision anything that might strike an audience as disturbing from the Barrie original and replaces it with platitudes. Including the famous traditional double casting of Mr. Darling and Captain Hook with its Freudian implications (here, Mr. Darling is played by Alan Tudyk, not Jude Law). Tinker Bell isn't jealous and doesn't try to get Wendy killed, which is the kind of surface improvement (no animosity between female characters) that actually takes away Tinker Bell's arc and moral ambiguity, and of course no death/resurrection moment for Tink. Peter isn't cheerfully heartless and in the moment living (not when he has a backstory with Hook to brood over, and we even find out near the end that the home of the Darlings was actually his old home before he became Peter Pan, which he did when his mother chided him, not as in Barrie when he heard her talking about him growing up as a baby). The Lost Boys (now both boys and girls) certainly do not have to go through a choice of Neverland vs returning to London with the Darlings. There's no moment near the end when Peter meets the now adult Wendy and doesn't realise years have gone by until she switches on the light of her bedroom and rises (once of the novel version's reliable shockers to me, along with Wendy later realising Peter really has forgotten Hook ever existed or most of their adventures together because that's how only iving in the moment as a child works). And as if set to make a parody of the Disney Death (i.e. the cliché of Disney films killing villains by letting them fall to their deaths, thus getting rid of them without making the hero(es) actually kill them with their own hands), all the pirates are defeated by Wendy, with pixie dust help, turning the by now flying ship upside down. (The crocodile shows up once early on, but not at the end. In fact, there's a Marvelesque tag scene where Peter comes back to rescue Hook and Smee who are drifting in the ocean.)
Look, I don't mean Disney should have gone Darkside Peter Pan instead. (Once Upon a Time did that very cleverly in its third season, but that was in a tv show about other people with him as one of the antagonists.) But if you remove anything that might disturb anyone, you're actually robbing this particular story of its power. And lastly: for an adaption that titles itself "Peter Pan & Wendy", it refuses to do much if any groundwork in makng the audience care about their relationship. The 2003 film also had them temporarily falling out on Neverland, but it showed them bonding first, and most importantly had a Peter compelling and charismatic enough to make it understandable why Wendy and her brothers and the Lost Boys are so drawn to him. Whereas, as the 2023 film seems to notice half way through when it has Wendy saying "All we do is argue", there's no reason why this Wendy should care about this Peter. I get they didn't want to make her too starry eyed or doormatty, but the 2003 proved you can center the story on Wendy (and not in a "she's everyone's mother" way) while still making it clear what the fuss re: Peter is all about. The kid playing Peter here isn't bad, don't get me wrong, but the script really does not help. Final case in point: "You know, Peter," says Wendy near the end, "to grow up could be an awfully big adventure, too."
That sound you hear is J.M. Barrie turning into a turbo.
Away from rl and into fantasy: I watched Peter Pan & Wendy, the latest effort by the Mouse on the tale. Oh dear.
I wonder whether I'd have liked it better if I didn't inwardly keep comparing it to the excellent 2003 Peter Pan, but I don't think so, because if the later is an excellent example of how to do an adaption of a classic that does shift some narrative emphasis and looks at its themes from a current day perspective yet manages to preserve all that made the classic so memorabl ein the first place, the new one is an example of how NOT to do it by consistently going for the most banal, safe option. But of course, the 2003 film is explicitly not based on the 1950s Disney cartoon but goes straight back to the play and novel by Barrie.
Now, when it started, I thought, aha, they're taking a cue from the 2003 film by making it Wendy's coming of age story, good, that's an idea worth repeating. But alas: the sledgehammery dialogue in combination with "safest option" policy very quickly highlighted the differences between the two films. Peter Pan and Wendy ostensibly uses the Edwardian setting but goes present day teen drama dialogue like "What if I don't want your life?" (Wendy to her mother, Mrs. Darling), and Mrs. Darling telling her daughter that as a big sister, she needs to be a leader to her brothers.
(The script keeps being like that, so that the few actual Barrie quotes, which are only the catch phrases everyone remembers - "proud and insolent youth/ Dark and sinister man"/ "to die would be an awfully big adventure" - stand out like sore thumbs. By contrast, the 2003 film has a lot of wit in its original dialogue along with its Barrie derived dialogue - "You offend gravity, Sir - I should like to offend it with you!" (to the flying Peter Pan) being a case in point.)
Then there's the whole growing up thing Peter refuses to do and which Wendy at the start doesn't want to and during the course of both films comes to embrace. Growing up involves responsibilities in both cases, yes, but the 2003 film very much connects it with Wendy at the brink of puberty and adulthood including sexuality as well, not, I hasten to add, in a Wendy-exploitative way (the young actress never gets given the male gaze treatment, we remain firmly in her gaze instead). But it's there, and it's embodied by Hook, in 2003 , played by Jason Isaac oozing charm and menace who gets introduced bare-chasted (he's the objectified one in that movie), who manages to temporarily bring Peter down (literally) by his taunting about the implication of Wendy growing up in their big showdown. By contrast, the question of puberty and growing up involving sexuality does not arive in this by-the-numbers Disney pic. Tthe Peter Pan & Wendy Hook might be played by Jude Law but is styled to look as unattractive as possible; also, he and Peter get backstory that sounds suspicously familiar, and not from Peter Pan. Because, you see, they used to be friends until
Even letting aside the comparision between adaptions: The script removes with a surgical precision anything that might strike an audience as disturbing from the Barrie original and replaces it with platitudes. Including the famous traditional double casting of Mr. Darling and Captain Hook with its Freudian implications (here, Mr. Darling is played by Alan Tudyk, not Jude Law). Tinker Bell isn't jealous and doesn't try to get Wendy killed, which is the kind of surface improvement (no animosity between female characters) that actually takes away Tinker Bell's arc and moral ambiguity, and of course no death/resurrection moment for Tink. Peter isn't cheerfully heartless and in the moment living (not when he has a backstory with Hook to brood over, and we even find out near the end that the home of the Darlings was actually his old home before he became Peter Pan, which he did when his mother chided him, not as in Barrie when he heard her talking about him growing up as a baby). The Lost Boys (now both boys and girls) certainly do not have to go through a choice of Neverland vs returning to London with the Darlings. There's no moment near the end when Peter meets the now adult Wendy and doesn't realise years have gone by until she switches on the light of her bedroom and rises (once of the novel version's reliable shockers to me, along with Wendy later realising Peter really has forgotten Hook ever existed or most of their adventures together because that's how only iving in the moment as a child works). And as if set to make a parody of the Disney Death (i.e. the cliché of Disney films killing villains by letting them fall to their deaths, thus getting rid of them without making the hero(es) actually kill them with their own hands), all the pirates are defeated by Wendy, with pixie dust help, turning the by now flying ship upside down. (The crocodile shows up once early on, but not at the end. In fact, there's a Marvelesque tag scene where Peter comes back to rescue Hook and Smee who are drifting in the ocean.)
Look, I don't mean Disney should have gone Darkside Peter Pan instead. (Once Upon a Time did that very cleverly in its third season, but that was in a tv show about other people with him as one of the antagonists.) But if you remove anything that might disturb anyone, you're actually robbing this particular story of its power. And lastly: for an adaption that titles itself "Peter Pan & Wendy", it refuses to do much if any groundwork in makng the audience care about their relationship. The 2003 film also had them temporarily falling out on Neverland, but it showed them bonding first, and most importantly had a Peter compelling and charismatic enough to make it understandable why Wendy and her brothers and the Lost Boys are so drawn to him. Whereas, as the 2023 film seems to notice half way through when it has Wendy saying "All we do is argue", there's no reason why this Wendy should care about this Peter. I get they didn't want to make her too starry eyed or doormatty, but the 2003 proved you can center the story on Wendy (and not in a "she's everyone's mother" way) while still making it clear what the fuss re: Peter is all about. The kid playing Peter here isn't bad, don't get me wrong, but the script really does not help. Final case in point: "You know, Peter," says Wendy near the end, "to grow up could be an awfully big adventure, too."
That sound you hear is J.M. Barrie turning into a turbo.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-23 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-24 06:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-23 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-24 06:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-23 06:23 pm (UTC)Peter Pan 2003 is a magnificent movie, fun and a bit disturbing, it is a pity it's almost forgotten behind Disney versions.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-24 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-23 06:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-24 06:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-25 05:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-25 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-25 06:05 am (UTC)Because, you see, they used to be friends until Anakin James was worried about his mother, Peter overreacted, and then there was the fallout and duel when Anakin James lost an arm to Obi-Wan Peter and became Vader Hook.
WHAT NO. I agree, they don't need that!
Anyway, since Peter Pan & Wendy's journey to wanting to grow up instead of refusing to do so is about ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, not about both being appalled and attracted to the mess of adult emotions, you have Wendy in her introduction scene when all Darling children play-fight and break a mirror blaming her brothers (hence Mrs. Darling giving her "as a big sister, you need to be a leader" speech), while the big climax is her offering to walk the plank and die for them, thus becoming a good big sister and leader.
Oh noooooo. (I guess I have a gendered sort of response to this; I don't have problems with growing-up themes of Accepting Responsibility for boys, but in general I feel girls, especially big sisters, tend to get way too much of this messaging anyway!)
no subject
Date: 2023-05-25 04:18 pm (UTC)I guess I have a gendered sort of response to this; I don't have problems with growing-up themes of Accepting Responsibility for boys, but in general I feel girls, especially big sisters, tend to get way too much of this messaging anyway!
I get that, though I think putting the emphasis on facing up to responsibility as the mark of passage to growing up is a narrative mistake anyway, at least in terms of what the movie tried to accomplish, which wasn't the audience feeling that Wendy was making a mistake not staying in Neverland. One of the many great things the 2003 film accomplishes is that while it does present Neverland as compelling and great to visit, it also shows it - and life there - is somewhat limited, and that adulthood has its own messy charms, and you get why Wendy ends up wanting that and understands she can't have it when staying with Peter.