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

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?