In class our class discussion, my group analyzed genre in terms of Peter Pan. The book Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie is one of the most well-know children's stories. This novel has been adapted into multiple forms: plays, musicals, films, animated films and abridged books. With each different adaptation comes a different interpretation in my opinion.
We have now all read the original novel Peter Pan, but below I have attached some different YouTube videos of clips from various adaptations. Take a look at them and let me know what you think. Also, if you had seen or read any other version of Peter Pan before reading the novel did it affect how you read the book? Which version are you partial to?
This first clip is a scene from the Broadway production of Peter Pan. The scene, "I'm flying" starring Cathy Rigby as Peter Pan.
Here is a scene from the 1953 Disney animated film, "You can fly".
This is the trailer from a recent film version of Peter Pan. It came out in 2003 as a film adaptation of Barrie's novel and play.
After reading the novel I had my own vision of Peter Pan. I knew the story from children's cooks but somehow I made it through life without every seeing a movie or play of Peter Pan. After watching these different clips I see so much variation in the characters and the plot and really just what I wanted Neverland to be like! I think the way you are introduced to something can greatly impact the way you always think of it. For you avid Harry Potter fans, what if you had seen a movie before reading a book? Would that not just be terrible? Let me know your thoughts...
Purpose for Imaginative Literature
14 years ago
I feel that the 2003 film version does a better job conveying the sense of danger I associate with Neverland than the Disney and Broadway versions. Also, it plays more heavily on Wendy's attraction to Peter. The stage and cartoon versions really water down many elements of the story to make them more "appropriate" for children, but I feel that as a kind of betrayal to the story's central vision of childhood as "gay, and innocent, and heartless".
ReplyDeleteI agree that the stage and Disney versions of this book definitely take out much of the menace lurking around Neverland! I thought the 2003 version was awesome when it came out, and I actually own it (on VHS!). I distinctly remember how creepy the mermaids were in that version, and in the novel as I was reading the part about the mermaids slowly dragging Wendy into the water to kill her I actually got a little creeped out, which is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteAnother version of this book, or perhaps we should call it a continuation, is Hook with Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams. I LOVE this movie, though it too presents a less scary Neverland. What I did find interesting though was how many points in the actual novel I remembered from Hook. I don’t really remember a scene in any of the other versions where they have an “imaginary dinner,” but I could quite easily recall the one from Hook. I also love that Tootles appears in this movie as he is such a sweet, though down-trodden character in the book. Hook is also interesting to me because as a continuation of Peter’s story, we get to see him as the boring, corporate man he swore never to be as a boy. (I wonder what Barrie would think of this interpretation…) Nonetheless, I would highly recommend it!
While reading Peter Pan for this class, I couldn't help but think about the 1953 cartoon version of the story. Because that was the only version of Peter Pan I knew, it was hard to read the novel for this class without taking the cartoon into account. I remember Peter Pan as funny and innocent, but after reading the novel I felt like he was more selfish and annoyingly cocky. I didn't get that at all from the cartoon, however, I was like 8-years-old when I saw it so I could be mistaken. But even though it was so long ago, the imprint of the cartoon overtook my perception of Peter Pan in the novel and made it hard to think of him otherwise.
ReplyDelete