Skip to main content

I'M A CODFISH!

Peter Pan
(1953)

(SPOILERS) I’m all for slaying Disney sacred mice if they have it coming. The animated classics aren’t impervious to criticism, and the more earnest they are, the closer they tend to skirt the territory of the dangerously starchy, bland even. It’s very easy to be left looking elsewhere for vibrancy – to the sidekicks or the villains – as the lead characters fail to cut it in the longevity stakes. With Peter Pan, I think the problem is perhaps a slightly different one, that the piecemeal narrative doesn’t really lend itself to a traditional movie structure, even in as relatively slim-line form as this.


There isn’t much momentum or internal tension to the tale, which means it gets along on incidental pleasures for the most part (that Peter’s shadow makes it in here, a better concept than it is enacted, shows how lacking it is in dynamism). Watching Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, Hamilton Luske and Jack Kinney’s take following the PJ Hogan Peter Pan, both of which hit many of the same marks, it’s even more evident that, without a strong driving force, the tale too easily splutters in fits and starts. Which probably works like gangbusters on stage, where audience interaction is everything, but here you’re left with longueurs.


Not untypically, this Peter really isn’t terribly interesting, notable mainly for his ever-youthful perkiness and a vaguely feral look (with Vulcan ears and highly becoming buck teeth), which may be why Michael Jackson, who wasn’t terribly interesting either, cosmetic inclinations aside, liked him so much. The inability to grow up isn’t really underlined as a failing, so there isn’t much to motivate Peter beyond his being unswervingly cocky and his feud with Hook. He’s more defined by, and projected upon, by others; Wendy and Tinkerbell are besotted with him, Hook needs his foe.


Also veering towards the bland are the songs, even the best known, “He can fly”. Wendy is impossibly cut-glass, although not so much that Tinkerbell evokes sympathy in her quest to put an end to the interloper for Peter’s affections. The fairy, a spiteful little wench, is perhaps not modelled after Monroe, but it’s easy to understand the rumour, as the animators definitely fixated on her arse; there’s a smattering of mildly risqué moments in the mix, such as topless mermaids of indeterminate age, Smee shaving a bird’s butt, and children smoking.


Michael is the typical Disney moppet (see also the baby elephant in The Jungle Book) and the Lost Boys for some reason wear animal suit pyjamas. The decision not to have them return to the real world at the end of this version further underlines the inconsequence (and therefore the absence of sadness) of Peter swearing off growing up. While Wendy recognises the need to move on (and isn’t hopelessly smitten with Peter), there’s no real push back in terms of his choice.


And, while the Native American “Indians” interlude is undoubtedly not the kind of thing you’d want to be putting in your Disney movie today, its bigger crime is that it’s incredibly dull, the kind of passage where, if you go and make a cup of tea, you’ll only improve your perception of the picture.


What really work, and lift the picture considerably, are the larger-than-life elements. Hans Conried provides marvellous stylings as both George Darling and Captain Hook, the different visual approaches to the characters allowing him a subtler variation on the tradition of the same actor playing both parts. As the former, he offers the classic double-taking disbeliever in fantasy, despite happily going along with appointing a dog as the children’s nanny.


Of which, if Barrie hadn’t included such a character, Disney would have been compelled to invent her. Her waving goodbye as George drags her down the stairs is delightful, as is George’s reluctant, sort-of apology (“And sooner or later, Nana, people have to grow up”). There’s excellent comic timing from the assorted animators too, such as in the sequence where George finds chalk all over his shirt front.


Hook is deliriously good fun, unrepentantly caddish in a manner that would later make Shere Khan so perfect. “Scurvy brat” is the perfect insult from an adult intolerant of infants, and equipped with a generally superior tone (“Ah, yes, jealous females can be tricked into anything”), and the offer of a free tattoo to anyone who will sign up to his crew, Hook is peerless. Smee’s a bit too much of an eighth dwarf to be really winning, but like nana, the crocodile is an ideal complement to Hook, nursing infectious joie de vivre over its mission.


For all that the picture inoculates itself against the darker or more resonant elements of the Barrie play (the kids’ worried parents aren’t even aware that they are gone), it also institutes improvements all its own on occasion. The framing device is marvellously, potently cyclical, as we are told at the opening “All this has happened before, and it will happen again”, and at the end we hear George, witnessing Peter’s cloud ship, say he saw it before, “a long time ago, when I was very young”.


It’s easy to see why the Disney picture is the best-loved big screen Peter Pan, for all that it isn’t quite an unalloyed masterpiece (Disney was reportedly discontent with it, because he didn’t think Peter was likable enough, which is finding fault in the wrong areas if ever there was). There are certain elements that naturally lend themselves to animation over the live arena, and the more cartoonish those are, the better the four directors deliver. But in all versions I’ve seen, the essential conundrum yet to be solved, and it’s by no means confined to Barrie, is how to make the protagonists – and their goals – as engaging as the villains.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …