You'll have to pick a generic filename prefix, or you'll need to remember to go in and change the filename before each auto-grab session! *Quite-Gone Genie wrote:..."Scene Filter" that I'm looking up right now.
*Learned the hard way.
You'll have to pick a generic filename prefix, or you'll need to remember to go in and change the filename before each auto-grab session! *Quite-Gone Genie wrote:..."Scene Filter" that I'm looking up right now.
Here are some aspects of the film that I like. Ha, I like nearly everything about it. In fact, this list will become embarrasing:YTMN at RT wrote:Peter Pan was always played by a female. Maybe even voiced by a female. Someone who was “mature” enough to know how to play the character, but had a high-pitched voice—like a boy. When I learned that P. J. Hogan was releasing a Peter Pan with a 14-year old boy playing Peter, I knew I had to see it. I was prepared to be disappointed.
Disappointment never got close to me. As soon as the DVD came out, I went to buy it. There is something charming to me about the story of Peter Pan. Fortunately, I was not able to get stuck in childhood forever (no one I know has been able to do that). But the film resonates with me because I know that buried under layers and layers of jading experience and the passage of time, the boy I used to be is still alive inside my heart and mind. He remembers things that happened. He remembers dreams that never came to pass. He remembers wondering what it would be like when he was — well, when he was me.
So, for children Peter Pan is a story about fantasy. For adults, Peter Pan is a story about the childhood that got away (like a big fish).
Having seen the Disney animated version, the TV show with Mary Martin playing Peter, and a couple of other incarnations (one in live theater) in my lifetime, I had a lot to compare this version with. It could have easily fallen to the bottom of the list. But, most importantly, it is not a musical, and it is constantly straddling the fine line between reality and fantasy with a great sense of balance. I think the small kid inside me came out of retirement for a couple of hours while I watched. And he puts this Peter Pan at the top of all the versions he has seen.
In the theater with me were two 14-year old guys I know, but their older brothers waited until I bought the DVD to see the film. The teenagers laughed at all the places I did. That’s why I say the kid inside was the one watching the movie.
It’s good fun from start to finish. This version does not flinch at the dark side of Peter’s existence, though. Jeremy Sumpter manages to make you believe that Tinker Bell has died, and that he believes it with all his heart. His tears seem quite real for such a young actor to pull off. His fascination with Wendy seems real, also. It seems just like I remember it being when I was awkwardly discovering the magic of the opposite sex. When threatened by Hook with sudden, irrevocable death, Peter’s only response is, “To die would be a very great adventure.” And later, when he is offered the chance to live, his response is, “To live would be a very great adventure.” And yet, the fictional boy’s life is nothing but one wall-to-wall adventure.
There is great attention to detail, a humorous example of which are the colorfully-stained soles of Peter’s feet! There is no 100% effort to make anything about Never-Never Land look real, but it all rings true, anyway. All the children (Wendy and her brothers, and the Lost Boys) are played by very competent young actors. Tink is artfully played by French actress Ludivine Sagnier using mime rather than dialogue. The special effects look like they cost as much as they did. And everything blends together seamlessly, to an extent I’ve not seen in a kid’s movie since Babe. But, if anyone reading this believes that Peter Pan is only a kid’s film, try watching this version. It will meet you at your place in life.
Yes. I love this one. There's real magic in it.YouTookMyName wrote:But, if anyone reading this believes that Peter Pan is only a kid’s film, try watching this version. It will meet you at your place in life.
What I don't know is: was it the result of very careful and intensive effort, the way Alfred Hitchcock's films were...or was it just a lot of lucky accidents that happened in the same time at the same place?Shieldmaiden wrote:Yes. I love this one. There's real magic in it.
I'm sure it was a little of both, but I lean toward the effort side. I have the impression (I'm not sure from where) that Hogan had very strong ideas about how to do it right, and I think his instincts were golden. I've only seen Muriel's Wedding, which is definitely worth checking out, but nothing else on that list tempts me, even a little.YouTookMyName wrote:What I don't know is: was it the result of very careful and intensive effort, the way Alfred Hitchcock's films were...or was it just a lot of lucky accidents that happened in the same time at the same place? Have you read anything about that? I don't think I've seen anything else by Hogan. (goes to look) Nope. Only this film out of his 12 titles. How many of his films have you seen, Maiden?
Yes, not a director whose entire filmography I'm craving. But when I get a chance I'll check out Muriel's Wedding. Does it have a similar feel to Peter Pan at all? Whimsy, and light-heartedness underlain by a bit of dark smudgery?Shieldmaiden wrote:I'm sure it was a little of both, but I lean toward the effort side. I have the impression (I'm not sure from where) that Hogan had very strong ideas about how to do it right, and I think his instincts were golden. I've only seen Muriel's Wedding, which is definitely worth checking out, but nothing else on that list tempts me, even a little.
Not really. It's a dark comedy, with a lot of harsh caricature and some surprising tenderness. And Abba, of course!YouTookMyName wrote:Does it have a similar feel to Peter Pan at all? Whimsy, and light-heartedness underlain by a bit of dark smudgery?
I saw it on DVD, with a five-year-old, which probably amped up the magic a bit.Under what circumstances did you see this Peter Pan for the first time?
I've only seen the Disney version, which is very low on my Disney 'list.' (As an adult, that is. I liked it when I was a kid.) I saw the musical in the theater circa 2005, which I liked, and I've read the book, which was all right, I guess.Oh, and have you seen either of the other two films?
The "Waterloo" bit they perform is marvelous.Shieldmaiden wrote:Not really. It's a dark comedy, with a lot of harsh caricature and some surprising tenderness. And Abba, of course!
Now I'm confused, because I thought I was talking to you. Dreiser's right about that scene, though.YouTookMyName wrote:Wow. An actual conversation in this thread that doesn't involve me!
You probably found this already, but the second screenwriter indicates here that Hogan completely rewrote the screenplay.P.J. Hogan often receives a writer credit alongside his directing credit. He does so with Peter Pan.
So we're both confused at this point. Time to move along! I thought you and dreiser were talking about it because I haven't seen the film.Shieldmaiden wrote:Now I'm confused, because I thought I was talking to you. Dreiser's right about that scene, though.
Shieldmaiden wrote:You probably found this already, but the second screenwriter indicates here that Hogan completely rewrote the screenplay.
I'm glad you found this. I'll steal it and thank you for it. I might have found it when I went searching for links and information, but it was a part of my vast ignorance up until I read your post! The Screenplay tech post comes up on Saturday, if I'm able to stay on schedule. This statement of Goldenberg's is of interest to me because you probably noticed that in the Disney film review I picked up on that very same lens: Wendy and Hook seem to me to be the main characters. There is no doubt that in Hogan's film Wendy is the equal character to Pan, if not his better in terms of importance. After all, he says that a girl is worth 20 boys.Michael Goldenberg wrote:Though, director PJ Hogan had a different view of how the story should play and eventually rewrote the script, he did keep Wendy as the character through which we view the world of Pan.
Obviously, his work on Peter Pan is top notch, lending a great deal of the magic to the proceedings.If you study his Filmography, you will see a lot of other famous titles in the list. He has been the director of photography on 57 titles from 1969 to 2013. McAlpine has worked on a large number of high-profile titles, including Moulin Rounge!, Peter Pan (2003), The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and most recently Ender's Game. His career has had him in charge of lighting and principle photography on a lot of titles that you've likely heard of. Between Paul Vogel's time and McAlpine's time the prestige of films with science-fiction content rose amazingly, to the point where someone like McAlpine can be worked into the budget of such a movie. Whatever flaws you might see in the 2002 remake of The Time machine, they are not the fault of the DP!
Rilian wrote:Goldenberg modestly describes the Pan producers’ desire for him to write Pan with a sense of wonderment, like he doesn’t quite understand why they came to him with the project, why he was suddenly the guy for the job. This is why he believes Heyman had to have played a role in it.
So thrown by the eagerness and the subject of the project, Goldenberg even said no...twice! He said no on the grounds that Pan is a classic story with so many adaptations, we weren’t in need of another one at the time. Hook had most recently come out and was a wonderful retelling. However, the more he thought about it, the more he was able to see the relevancy the story had to modern times and agreed.
He had to, as he says, “get in touch with his inner Wendy.” He looked at the story as Wendy’s and wrote the screenplay with her as the central figure. Though, director PJ Hogan had a different view of how the story should play and eventually rewrote the script, he did keep Wendy as the character through which we view the world of Pan.
The film Finding Neverland may have mentioned this, but I don't recall any mention being made.The notion of a boy who would never grow up was based on J. M. Barrie's older brother who died in an ice-skating accident the day before he turned 14, and thus always stayed a young boy in his mother's mind.
Especially during the holidays.YouTookMyName wrote:I've read the Armitage Trail novel Scarface. I've watched both films and auto-grabbed both.
Two weeks to write and post all the entries? That's nuts.
In the novel Barrie takes advantage of that medium's ability to examine the inner lives of his creations. He is able in the novel to set up a scenario in advance that lets us know that Peter makes up the directions to Neverland that he rattles off to Wendy, simply because he feels like he has to say something. They are meaningless directions!James M. Barrie wrote:PETER (passionately). I don't want to go to school and learn solemn things. No one is going to catch me, lady, and make me a man. I want always to be a little boy and to have fun.
(So perhaps he thinks, but it is only his greatest pretend.)
MRS. DARLING (shivering every time WENDY pursues him in the air). Where are you to live, Peter?
PETER. In the house we built for Wendy. The fairies are to put it high up among the tree-tops where they sleep at night.
WENDY (rapturously). To think of it!
MRS. DARLING. I thought all the fairies were dead.
WENDY (almost reprovingly). No indeed! Their mothers drop the babies into the Never birds' nests, all mixed up with the eggs, and the mauve fairies are boys and the white ones are girls, and there are some colours who don't know what they are. The row the children and the birds make at bath time is positively deafening.
PETER. I throw things at them.
WENDY. You will be rather lonely in the evenings, Peter.
PETER. I shall have Tink.
WENDY (flying up to the window). Mother, may I go?
MRS. DARLING (gripping her for ever). Certainly not. I have got you home again, and I mean to keep you.
WENDY. But he does so need a mother.
MRS. DARLING. So do you, my love.
PETER. Oh, all right.
MRS. DARLING (magnanimously). But, Peter, I shall let her go to you once a year for a week to do your spring cleaning.
(WENDY revels in this, but PETER, who has no notion what a spring cleaning is, waves a rather careless thanks.)
MRS. DARLING. Say good-night, Wendy.
WENDY. I couldn't go down just for a minute?
MRS. DARLING. No.
WENDY. Good-night, Peter!
PETER. Good-night, Wendy!
WENDY. Peter, you won't forget me, will you, before spring-cleaning time comes?
(There is no answer, for he is already soaring high. For a moment after he is gone we still hear the pipes. MRS. DARLING closes and bars the window.)
We are dreaming now of the Never Land a year later. It is bed-time on the island, and the blind goes up to the whispers of the lovely Never music. The blue haze that makes the wood below magical by day comes up to the tree-tops to sleep, and through it we see numberless nests all lit up, fairies and birds quarrelling for possession, others flying around just for the fun of the thing and perhaps making bets about where the little house will appear to-night. It always comes and snuggles on some tree-top, but you can never be sure which; here it is again, you see John's hat first as up comes the house so softly that it knocks some gossips off their perch. When it has settled comfortably it lights up, and out come Peter and Wendy.
Wendy looks a little older, but Peter is just the same. She is cloaked for a journey, and a sad confession must be made about her; she flies so badly now that she has to use a broomstick.
WENDY (who knows better this time than to be demonstrative at partings). Well, good-bye, Peter; and remember not to bite your nails.
PETER. Good-bye, Wendy.
WENDY. I'll tell mother all about the spring cleaning and the house.
PETER (who sometimes forgets that she has been here before). You do like the house?
WENDY. Of course it is small. But most people of our size wouldn't have a house at all. (She should not have mentioned size, for he has already expressed displeasure at her growth. Another thing, one he has scarcely noticed, though it disturbs her, is that she does not see him quite so clearly now as she used to do.) When you come for me next year, Peter—you will come, won't you?
PETER. Yes. (Gloating) To hear stories about me!
WENDY. It is so queer that the stories you like best should be the ones about yourself.
PETER (touchy). Well, then?
WENDY. Fancy your forgetting the lost boys, and even Captain Hook!
PETER. Well, then?
WENDY. I haven't seen Tink this time.
WENDY. Oh dear! I suppose it is because you have so many adventures.
PETER (relieved). 'Course it is.
WENDY. If another little girl—if one younger than I am—(She can't go on.) Oh, Peter, how I wish I could take you up and squdge you! (He draws back.) Yes, I know. (She gets astride her broomstick.) Home! (It carries her from him over the tree-tops.
In a sort of way he understands what she means by 'Yes,I know,' but in most sorts of ways he doesn't. It has something to do with the riddle of his being. If he could get the hang of the thing his cry might become 'To live would be an awfully big adventure!' but he can never quite get the hang of it, and so no one is as gay as he. With rapturous face he produces his pipes, and the Never birds and the fairies gather closer, till the roof of the little house is so thick with his admirers that some of them fall down the chimney. He plays on and on till we wake up.)
Also, Barrie is able to examine the kinds of fantasies that individual children might concoct:James M. Barrie wrote:If he thought at all, but I don't believe he ever thought, it was that he and his shadow, when brought near each other, would join like drops of water, and when they did not he was appalled. He tried to stick it on with soap from the bathroom, but that also failed. A shudder passed through Peter, and he sat on the floor and cried.
His sobs woke Wendy, and she sat up in bed. She was not alarmed to see a stranger crying on the nursery floor; she was only pleasantly interested.
"Boy," she said courteously, "why are you crying?"
Peter could be exceeding polite also, having learned the grand manner at fairy ceremonies, and he rose and bowed to her beautifully. She was much pleased, and bowed beautifully to him from the bed.
"What's your name?" he asked.
"Wendy Moira Angela Darling," she replied with some satisfaction. "What is your name?"
She was already sure that he must be Peter, but it did seem a comparatively short name.
"Is that all?"
"Yes," he said rather sharply. He felt for the first time that it was a shortish name.
"I'm so sorry," said Wendy Moira Angela.
"It doesn't matter," Peter gulped.
She asked where he lived.
"Second to the right," said Peter, "and then straight on till morning."
"What a funny address!"
Peter had a sinking. For the first time he felt that perhaps it was a funny address.
"No, it isn't," he said.
"I mean," Wendy said nicely, remembering that she was hostess, "is that what they put on the letters?"
He wished she had not mentioned letters.
But your mother gets letters?"
"Don't have a mother," he said. Not only had he no mother, but he had not the slightest desire to have one. He thought them very over-rated persons. Wendy, however, felt at once that she was in the presence of a tragedy.
There is a school of interpretation that has all the story taking place in Wendy's imagination (compare this to the later tale, Atonement which possibly owes some of its subtextual structure to long-standing critical ideas about what Barrie's story means). In that view, everything that happens is just a story the girl Wendy Darling concocts to tell herself and her brothers. But in both the play and the novel they are presented as if they are really taking place. The 1953 film picks up on this Wendy-is-imagining-it idea and has Wendy telling stories about Neverland to John and Michael. In the bizarre twist on the story that became Hook, Grandma Wendy says more or less that she told those stories but that they came to life. Interesting, isn't it, how a critical notion can later become part of the tradition about a literary piece?James M. Barrie wrote:Of course the Neverlands vary a good deal. John's, for instance, had a lagoon with flamingoes flying over it at which John was shooting, while Michael, who was very small, had a flamingo with lagoons flying over it. John lived in a boat turned upside down on the sands, Michael in a wigwam, Wendy in a house of leaves deftly sewn together. John had no friends, Michael had friends at night, Wendy had a pet wolf forsaken by its parents, but on the whole the Neverlands have a family resemblance, and if they stood still in a row you could say of them that they have each other's nose, and so forth. On these magic shores children at play are for ever beaching their coracles. We too have been there; we can still hear the sound of the surf, though we shall land no more.
Of all delectable islands the Neverland is the snuggest and most compact, not large and sprawly, you know, with tedious distances between one adventure and another, but nicely crammed. When you play at it by day with the chairs and table-cloth, it is not in the least alarming, but in the two minutes before you go to sleep it becomes very real. That is why there are night-lights.
And thus, Tinker Bell is saved. In the play, as you know, the audience is invited to clap to save her. And in the 2003 film Peter leads a chorus of "I do believe in fairies," which is always silly yet always makes me tear up for some reason.James M. Barrie wrote:"O Tink, did you drink it to save me?"
"But why, Tink?"
Her wings would scarcely carry her now, but in reply she alighted on his shoulder and gave his nose a loving bite. She whispered in his ear "You silly ass," and then, tottering to her chamber, lay down on the bed.
His head almost filled the fourth wall of her little room as he knelt near her in distress. Every moment her light was growing fainter; and he knew that if it went out she would be no more. She liked his tears so much that she put out her beautiful finger and let them run over it.
Her voice was so low that at first he could not make out what she said. Then he made it out. She was saying that she thought she could get well again if children believed in fairies.
Peter flung out his arms. There were no children there, and it was night time; but he addressed all who might be dreaming of the Neverland, and who were therefore nearer to him than you think: boys and girls in their nighties, and naked papooses in their baskets hung from trees.
"Do you believe?" he cried.
Tink sat up in bed almost briskly to listen to her fate.
She fancied she heard answers in the affirmative, and then again she wasn't sure.
"What do you think?" she asked Peter.
"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."
A few beasts hissed.
The clapping stopped suddenly; as if countless mothers had rushed to their nurseries to see what on earth was happening; but already Tink was saved. First her voice grew strong, then she popped out of bed, then she was flashing through the room more merry and impudent than ever. She never thought of thanking those who believed, but she would have liked to get at the ones who had hissed.
Thanks.Shieldmaiden wrote:Huh, interesting! I'd never heard of The Window. That was a fun read!
I'm really looking forward to this matchup, Gort.YouTookMyName wrote:The Scarface Quickmatch will be a bear!
ESSAY # 4 - sched 19 Jan 2013 - Guest (dreiser)
The only one that's finished is the text for dreiser's post!