September 5, 2013
If you're familiar with the end to J.M. Barrie's
immortal play and novel Peter Pan, you'll know that at the
end of it, the title character makes a promise to return to Wendy,
the story's heroine, for spring cleaning. Due to the nature of
Neverland, he loses track of time, and by the time he remembers,
Wendy has grown into an adult woman with a child of her own. It's
fitting, therefore, that the Thursday Treasure intended for Brent
Week arrives 3 weeks late. As far as I know, Brent hasn't matured
into a mother, so the similarities end there, but the tardiness does
very much seem in the spirit of the boy who won't grow up (and that
can mean either Peter or Brent).
Peter Pan:
One Story, Three Interpretations
By Kelvin Cede'o
Prologue: 'When there's a smile in your
heart, there's no better time to start.'

Few novels have transcended time the way Peter
Pan has. While it's true that many works of literature are
widely-read classics, J.M. Barrie's play-turned-book is part of an
elite category I like to call 'honorary fairy tale.' Honorary fairy
tales are fantasy novels that have resonated with the world to such
a degree that people often pass around simplified versions of them
orally the way genuine fairy tales have been passed down. These
books often do get lumped together with fairy tales from the
Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, and Charles Perrault. They
include Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard
of Oz, and, of course, Peter Pan.
With the title of honorary fairy tale comes the film
adaptation, and like the other three novels mentioned above,
Peter Pan has been interpreted many times in many different
ways. Sometimes they're direct adaptations (such as the most popular
version, Walt Disney's 1953 animated feature), other times they're
'What if?' sequels (1991's Hook directed by Steven
Spielberg). That's not even counting television series (Fox's 'Peter
Pan and the Pirates'), miniseries prequels (Syfy's Neverland)
and even Broadway musicals (most famously starring Mary Martin). For
this article, I'll be comparing three theatrical features that set
out to tell the same story: the 1924 silent film by Paramount, the
1953 animated film by Disney, and the 2003 live-action film by
Universal.
Act One: 'All this has happened before, and it
will all happen again.'

The reason I've chosen to highlight these three
features is because, while Barrie's novel has clearly influenced all
sorts of interpretations, these three are the only domestic
theatrical releases based directly on his work. The 1924 film
starring Betty Bronson was the first, and it's important to note
that Barrie himself had a hand in it. One would think that if that's
the case, then this is the version to most accurately reflect his
vision. However, Barrie had a very specific idea of how to translate
Peter Pan into a film, and wrote a detailed treatment for it
that Paramount lifted only a few ideas from. Instead, they opted for
the safer route of re-enacting the stage play on a broader canvas.
It's a bit of a shame as Barrie was quite ahead of his time and had
fascinating ideas that would've taken advantage of the cinematic
medium, not to mention added scenes that are neither in the play or
book. He did, however, have final say over casting and personally
contacted Bronson to tell her the news that she was Peter before
Paramount could even do so. Another reason the 1923 film is so
important is that it influenced a young boy who would later go on to
make his own version of the story: Walt Disney.

The 1953 animated feature is perhaps the most iconic
interpretation of Barrie's work, arguably even eclipsing it in terms
of familiarity. The visual translations of both Neverland (spelled
by Disney as 'Never Land') and its residents have become the
definitive take for many people, especially in the case of Tinker
Bell. It has spawned a sequel, a spin-off franchise, classic theme
park attractions, and a slew of merchandise. Besides what came after
it, Disney's Peter Pan is important because it was the first
time a boy, Academy Award winner Bobby Driscoll in this case, had
been cast as Peter (stage versions cast females in the lead as they
could glide more gracefully on wires). Disney in general is a
company ingrained into all of our consciousness, and we're all
exposed to it at a very early age. As such, Disney's film more often
than not serves as a child's first exposure to the story. That's
just as well as the picture proves animation can accomplish many
fantastical things that are difficult to achieve in live-action.

That didn't stop Universal, however, from releasing
an ambitious live-action film in 2003. This version would take
advantage of computer-generated imagery prevalent in high-profile
releases today. Unfortunately, it didn't fare as well at the box
office the way Paramount's and Disney's did due to coming on the
heels of Best Picture Winner The Lord of the Rings: The Return of
the King. Regardless, it has since found an audience and is
worth mentioning as it'll likely be the last feature film adaptation
of the book for quite some time. Not counting the flashbacks in
Hook, this was the first time a live boy was seen on film in the
title role, and the use of modern technology meant more freedom in
regards to things like animals and flying. Just as Disney was
inspired by Paramount's, Universal was obviously inspired by
Disney's, and this chain reaction makes the comparisons all the more
fascinating.
Act Two: 'Oh, Peter, it's just as I've always
dreamed it would be!'

All films take on a specifically different approach
to Barrie's material. As previously stated, the 1924 Paramount
feature is essentially the play. That isn't to say it's made up of
3-sided sets the way, say, the Mary Martin musical is. While some
sets like the Darling nursery and the Lost Boys' hideout feel like
they merely plus the show's production design, there's quite a bit
of location filming, as well, that helps avoid claustrophobia.
Virtually all of the dialogue is Barrie's, but bizarrely, the
Darling children are American and make that very clear several
times. Outside of a few moments added for embellishment (some of
which from Barrie's elaborate treatment), this follows the play
virtually scene for scene. In a curious move, the entire rescue of
Tiger Lily is not included. The lack of this robs the story of some
meat and also gives the Pan and Hook dynamic a different flavor as
they spend the entire film apart from each other until the climax.
That climax, however, is most impressive and stands up well today.
It's obvious the third act is what Paramount was most looking
forward to when they acquired the rights as that takes up a larger
chunk of this adaptation than it does Disney's and Universal's.

Disney's 1953 film, in comparison, is a bit looser
with the material. It still follows the events of the play and book,
but the details surrounding those events are what change. While
Paramount's version is notable for depicting Tinker Bell for the
first time as something other than a ball of light on a stage,
Disney clearly had more flexibility due to the animation medium.
Tinker Bell is tied closer to the plot in that she's the one who
reveals Pan's hideout in a fit of jealousy towards Wendy (in the
book, Hook discovers it when sitting on a mushroom that acts as a
chimney). The Lost Boys are given a little parallel adventure of
their own with the Indians while Peter and Wendy interact with
mermaids and subsequently rescue Tiger Lily. While Paramount kept
the audience participation aspect of Tinker Bell's resurrection
intact, Disney knew it would be awkward. Instead, they leave the
circumstances surrounding Tink's injury vague (she's caught in a
bomb rather than drinking poison). Wendy is given a clearer arc than
she is in the novel which will be discussed later.

The 2003 Universal film essentially has its cake and
eats it, too. It takes more creative license than Paramount, but
adheres closer to Barrie's work than Disney. The most notable change
is the introduction of Aunt Millicent, a character who serves as the
catalyst for the change at the Darling household and thus makes
George appear far more sympathetic than in other versions. Perhaps
to better appeal to modern audiences, Wendy is far more involved
with how the plot unfolds. After a squabble with Peter, she briefly
considers the idea of joining Hook's crew as Red-Handed Jill. Her
lack of discretion (mingled with the carried-over Disney plot point
of Tink's betrayal) leads Hook to the hideout. The Tiger Lily rescue
is moved from Marooner's Rock to the Black Castle, allowing Wendy
and her brothers to participate in the fight. She also prominently
fights during the Jolly Roger climax, and a love's-first-kiss fairy
tale motif ends up playing a part in Peter's victory.
In terms of tone, Universal's captures J.M. Barrie's
sense of wit and whimsy most accurately. That may seem odd given the
fidelity of Paramount's, but that version is hindered by its silent
film quality, thus relegating its title card dialogue to fewer lines
than what was in the play. Disney's highlights the sense of
adventure the most as the Peter and Hook dynamic is front in center.
Their feud fuels the storyline whereas in Universal's, it's the
Wendy and Peter relationship that does that. Despite being the
shortest, Disney's may have the most pacing. Paramount's looks to
the play as its source and as such, scenes can go on for quite a
while longer than expected. Universal's looks to the book as its
source, but it's so determined to cram in as much as possible (plus
its own added material) that it can be a bit too fast paced. Disney,
in contrast, whittles down the basic storyline to the essentials and
works on fleshing out those pinpoints. On the counter side to that,
it also means it ends up being rather lightweight in the adaptation
department.
One stage tradition the Paramount film does away
with is casting the same actor as both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.
It's funny it should make that distinction when both Disney and
Universal would decide to uphold that tradition. All three, though,
portray Tinker Bell as a person rather than just a flashlight
darting around a stage. We see her only in a few brief shots in
1924, though. 1953 portrays her as the sassy and hot-tempered pixie
that the general public has fully embraced, while 2003 retains that
quality but also adds more pantomime and silliness to help make her
seem less spiteful. Funnily enough, J.M. Barrie in his script
treatment requested that while Tink be shown as a person rather a
ball of light, she should not receive any close-ups so that the
audience always remembers how tiny she is.
It's worth noting that while the play didn't
originally end with this, the novel concludes with a flash forward
in which Peter returns to discover Wendy has grown up. All three
films avoid this epilogue. That ending was filmed for the 2003
version, but test audiences reacted negatively to it and thus it was
cut. Leaving that ending off does leave the viewer with a better
sense of euphoria, but it also robs Peter himself of some depth.
Act Three: 'My name is Wendy. Wendy Moira Angela
Darling.'

While the novel is known as Peter Pan, its
original title is, in fact, Peter Pan and Wendy. That's
fitting as it's clear when reading J.M. Barrie's tale that this is
just as much Wendy's story as it is Peter's, if not more so. Each
film highlights her in a different manner and as such, shifts in the
tone and focus arise. Due to its slavish nature to the original
play, the Paramount film is most focused on Wendy's role as a mother
to the others. It's all Peter sees her as even though she clearly
has feelings for him. She has very maternal instincts which
accurately reflect the way Barrie wrote the character, always
preoccupied for others before herself. Unfortunately, because the
film adheres so closely to the play, many of Barrie's embellishments
that made their way into the book don't make it in here. This
affects Wendy most of all as she feels more of a dominant character
in the book than she does in the show. There's little for her to do
once she arrives at Neverland other than care for all the children
and pine over Peter. Of the three Wendys, highlighted in this
article, Mary Brian is the most nurturing and mature (fitting as she
was 18, making her the oldest of the trio).

Kathryn Beaumont would play the role in Disney's
version both physically and vocally as she also performed the role
via live-action reference footage for the animators. Wendy is given
more to do here than in Paramount's thanks to several factors.
First, the London bookends add a scenario where George Darling feels
Wendy is too old for the nursery and must grow up. This immediately
puts her into focus as opposed to Paramount (and, conversely, the
play) which make the Darling family one big ensemble before Peter's
arrival. It also adds a sense of urgency to the story that wasn't
already there. Secondly, the centerpiece in Never Land is presented
in a manner in that we're always seeing Wendy's reaction to a given
situation, even if she isn't proactively participating. Even when it
seems like the focus is becoming more on Peter, which happens often,
the filmmakers try to remind us that Wendy is still present. Of
three Wendys, Beaumont's is the most understated and refined. Her
interpretation of the character shows us a girl who thinks she wants
to cling to childhood but frequently finds her sensibilities are
already tuned towards adulthood.

Universal's film actually goes further than Barrie's
novel and makes it very clear this is Wendy's story, an interesting
contrast to the supporting player in Paramount's and the co-star in
Disney's. Here, writer Michael Goldenberg shows his Disney influence
in that Wendy is once again being forcibly pushed into adulthood
just before Pan's arrival. The character development for her in this
film is the most fascinating in that Wendy seeks adventure but
eventually realizes an adult life has its own adventure that neither
Peter nor Neverland can give her. There's a level of, dare I say,
sexual confusion in the character that lends itself to all sorts of
psychosis. She has romantic feelings for Peter who is unable to
return them, and when she realizes this, she seems to momentarily be
drawn to Captain Hook's elegant facade. Of the three Wendys, Rachel
Hurd-Wood's most seeks out a relationship with the title character.
She's treated by Pan not just as a mother, but as an equal who
fights alongside him. The motherly aspect is treated as make-believe
Wendy engages in, so instead of her maturity arising from motherly
instincts like in other interpretations, it arises from a need to
discover love with someone. It's a complex characterization, and
Hurd-Wood manages to capture all of its nuances. Both she and the
other Wendys act as a reflection for the adaptation approach they
find themselves in.
Epilogue: 'I have the strangest feeling that
I've seen that ship before. A long time ago when I was very young''

Peter Pan means something different to everyone,
and a lot of that can be attributed to how you were introduced to
the story. Whether it was via the Disney film, the play, the book,
or the many other interpretations, it's clear that this story isn't
going anywhere soon. It resonates with people ' people who love
adventures with pirates and Indians, people who love fantasies with
flight, fairies and mermaids, and people who are still in touch with
their childhoods enough to appreciate all that J.M. Barrie had to
say. It's clear that the 1924 Paramount, the 1953 Disney, and the
2003 Universal films were all made with love. They each bring a
unique perspective to the tale, and just like the character himself,
they each will continue to bring children with them to the island of
dreams known as Neverland.