Peter Pan and the Art of Adaptation
Debates are quite a fun activity, don't you agree? You do all this preparation, research, and script formulation, all so that you can have a battle of wits against others who have done the same. Then, there are times where you're placed on the spot, forced to run impromptu. Sometimes, words and ideas pour out of your mind, successfully forming cohesive arguments with strong logos and emotional appeal. Other times you just fall flat on your face, and the entire room ridicules you for running in circles for five minutes straight. The most important quality of debates are that they are subjective, and thus, there is no definitive answer to the questions posed in a battle of the minds. Everything is filtered through one's own worldview, experiences, and perspectives, almost always allowing for fresh takes on subject matter ranging from the best ways to handle Economy in a pandemic-riddled world, to something as trivial as whether homework is beneficial for students.
I've been through some debates, often classroom debates which contain loose structure and are more so socratic seminars. We've discussed the role that money plays within our lives, as well as pondering the nature of love from a maternal, romantic, and materialistic perspective. Through the discussion of all these heady and grandiose concepts, the debate which has lived on in my mind occurred in 7th grade, after our English class finished viewing the Princess Bride film. Our teacher (Miss you Ms. Park) asked us whether we thought the Movie was any good in comparison to William Goldman's novel. Laura, a friend of mine, stood up and said that the movie failed in every way, as she claimed the acting was poor, and the story was bad in comparison to the book. I immediately stood up, and told her that she should treat the movie like a movie, and keep the book as a separate entity in her mind. Gosh, I was a stupid Seventh Grader. Everyone in the class acted as if this was the sickest burn in history, but that was it. I didn't have anything else to say. Though my one sentence response isn't much to be wowed about, the debate is burned in my memory, not for the response I was given by my fellow Seventh Graders, but for the question I had inadvertently created in my mind: What makes for a good film adaptation of source material?
Ask any book enthusiast of their opinion on the Harry Potter films, the Lord of the Rings adaptations, and especially the Percy Jackson duology, and they'll most likely respond by saying something akin to: "It didn't stay true to the source material" or "They cut certain parts from the book" that they swear on their lives are essential for a proper experience. That itself is quite a popular stance to take on film adaptations, yet the imagination of a reader isn't comparable to the movies. Then, there's also the Seventh Grade Matthew stance, in which the film and literary medium are separated entirely, meaning a film is judged on its own merits, but this also ignores the qualities of what makes the film an adaptation. Film itself is a visual-auditory medium, which has different boundaries and restrictions which something such as a television series or a novel doesn't have, yet it also has its share of advantages which make its interpretation special.
So which stories can provide a metric for how we judge film adaptations? Well perhaps we should turn towards the classics. Some of the most revered stories of all time receive a plethora of adaptations (i.e. Little Women, Frankenstein, Les Miserables), with some of these film versions providing a special twist on the original tale. Varied adaptations may be the best case studies for our little analysis here, and in my mind, the most legendary tale I've had the pleasure of experiencing also has numerous unique adaptations. That's tale is the story of a Darling girl and the boy who never grew up.
I think that my relationship with the J.M. Barrie legend began a lot later than for most people. The tale is a classic staple of Children's literature, and the Disney film is one of the most popular films to show children, providing something for everyone. I never watched Peter Pan, mainly because I thought that Peter Pan himself looked kind of stupid in terms of design, which again, is a really juvenile reason for disliking something. I didn't meet Peter Pan until one night in September of 2019, when a piano rendition of Second Star to the Right arrived on my Youtube screen after letting autoplay run its course throughout the studious night. Sam Yung's rendition held a sense of sorrow and gentleness, one which made me look back on my short life, and all the fond memories which I have made since then, and how I was approaching adulthood very soon. I quickly sought out the Peter Pan film of 1953, and fell in love with it. Today, along with the 1953 Disney adaptation, we will also be analyzing how Hook (1991) and Wendy (2020) adapt the original play.
Case Study 01: Peter Pan (1953)
The grandiose adventure of Disney's silver age, and one of the most iconic of the Disney Classics, Peter Pan is an absolute thrill of a film. Especially in the 4K scan of the film which Disney produced for their Diamond/Signature Collection lineup, the animation quality is crisp and fluid, being delightful to look at even after 67 years. The wide variety of Neverland creates momentum within the film, never staggering or feeling lethargic. The action between Hook and Peter Pan, for being Disney's first try at it, is fairly decent, and never feels brainless, always allowing for precise hits, and makes use of terrain around them to their advantages. The score is a classic Disney score, with its soundtrack being fitting, with catchy songs which break up pacing by presenting exposition through song. With a runtime of only 77 minutes, the film packs a lot of story, covering the Darling children's initial encounter with Peter, saving Tiger Lily, the scheming of Captain Hook, and the duel of Hook and Peter. From an online source (Shakespeare Theatre Company), their rendition of the original play lasts for an hour and fifty-five minutes, nearly fourty minutes longer than the film, meaning Disney economized the film's time quite well. Much of the cast remains sleight from a personality perspective, yet this isn't to the detriment of them, as their unique and loud personalities remain solid, such that the supporting characters are never boring. Wendy has an arc, the famous one, and the one that resonated most with me, of learning to grow up. Although it doesn't take many steps to reach there, but as it's primarily meant to be digested by children, the complexity of such feelings need not be explored. The sentiment is enough. Peter is solid as a protagonist, being fun, if a little outdated. We're not gonna talk about the Native-Americans. As Joe the Disney Guy once pointed out, this version is somehow very hormonal, with a lot of romantic jealousy being thrown around. It's not fully explored, but as something which doesn't seem to be a part of the original play, seems to weave into the story naturally, and give older audiences something to think about when it comes to relationships and loyalties. The ending hits it out of the park though, with the bittersweet feeling of goodbye to Neverland, representative of childhood, particularly striking a chord with me. A very strong film, one I can rewatch many times.
How does it fair in terms of adaptation though? Well, it's a very solid adaptation. With the exception of Hook's fate, and the final scene in which Peter takes Wendy back to Neverland in the play, many of the story beats remain identical to the play. In addition, much of the characterizations of the characters are in-line with each other. If one were to judge adaptations on their faithfulness to the source material, Disney's adaptation of Peter Pan is hard to beat. Yet, there seems to be an element missing, which is the mishandling of how Peter Pan himself is treated. In the play, Peter Pan is constantly referred to as, "The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up." The narrator of the play laments about Peter's inability to grow up, and states that the main message of the play is that, "To Live would be an awfully big adventure!" In the film, aside from Wendy's argument with Peter over returning home, Peter is never reprimanded for his refusal to live in the world and become an adult, with the ending leaving us off with the goodbye of childhood, without ever stating or weaving the theme of life being a great adventure within the plot. The butchering of this main message hampers Peter Pan a bit in my eyes, knowing how much more profound it may have been should the main message have been retained. Even so, this is a good adaptation, with the spirit of the play being mostly intact, but not quite there yet.
Case Study 02: Hook (1991)
Ah, Steven Spielberg's beloved take on Peter Pan, at least by the audiences, and those still riding the nostalgia of their childhood. I'm okay with this film. It's definitely not great, but I wouldn't say it's terrible by any stretch of the imagination. Robin Williams does a fantastic job as Peter Pan in the second half of the film, capturing the youthful charm of the character with such exuberance and glee. While it's clear that Peter has aged physically, he's still retained the wild spirit of youth. Williams' Peter Banning is good as well, doing its job to setup the dramatic stakes and riding the fine line of dislikeable and empathizable, with his Lost Boys scenes working particularly well for the stark contrast they provide of how much Peter has changed since leaving Neverland. The child actors are all doing fantastic, exhibiting a zaniness that always feels natural and representative of how energetic kids can be. Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins are great as campy villains, and capture Hook and Smee perfectly through their sinister but fun plotting, as well for the sheer amount of ridiculousness the bring. The cinematography and film quality definitely looks like a relic of the 1990s, but it has its own charms. There's a sense of fun within the film, recalling youth in an optimistic manner. The film's plot is original, and as far as that goes, it's fine. The main question of "What if Peter Pan Grew Up" is always kept in mind, so the film never loses focus. It is, however, heavily bloated, running at about 150 minutes, or about twice the length of Disney's Peter Pan. There's many scenes spent with the Lost Boys and Hook, and while fun individually, they start to add up, halting the film, and making it feel slow or lethargic. The action and choreography, as well as the sets, always felt artificial, breaking the immersion of Neverland often, particularly on Hook's ship and the town it's docked at. John Williams' score is upbeat and full of energy, blending well with the light tone which the film portrays. Peter has a full arc this time, and it's explored quite in-depth here, and so that earns points from me. Other than that, I feel the rest of the characters are adequately characterized, but none of them go through as much change as Peter himself. However, points to Rufio, who is awesome, purely based on the fact that he's played by Dante Basco. Yes, THE Dante Basco. I do feel as though the film comes off as very silly at times, especially when it dips its toes too much into the whimsical aspects of Neverland. So it's a flawed film, but I'm still glad it was made.
I have very sad news for the faithfulness camp: This ain't it, chief. It's original, and so, it bears little resemblance to the original play, but the backstory of Peter, which covers some events of the play, is done faithfully. However, it retains similar characterizations to the play, and the characters, with the exception of the jaded Peter Banning, never feel out of place. However, the jaded Peter Banning feels extremely out of character for someone such as Peter Pan, who I expected to at least retain some reminiscence of his childhood pre-Neverland trip. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as Banning is a mellow workaholic pushed to his limits, who does not have a speck of energy in the vein of his younger self. As such, Peter Pan fans looking to see Williams' take may be turned off for the first half of the film. The aesthetic captures Neverland well, and is reminiscent of both 1953's take and the original play. In terms of the spirit of the play, I like the direction Hook took. Many people interpret the message as, find the child in you. However, I believe it's that one should cherish what they have in their life, and how special being an adult, and particularly a parent, is. I think that the message itself is in line with and respects the play's message to live life, in that both are telling people that growing up isn't bad at all. In fact, it's fantastic. Big points from me for that take, and is why I respect Hook so much as an adaptation. So don't write this one off because Rotten Tomatoes told you it was bad.
Comments
Post a Comment