Oh, Disney and their live-action remakes. I’ve been at odds with the general critic consensus that say these remakes offer nothing new, or that they change details superficially, or that they screw around with important minor details that ruin the entire movie, and that’s what makes them bad. There’re a few reasons for this – one, as I’ve written before, I recognise these remakes for the cash making assurance they’ve been, and don’t begrudge Disney their dependable revenue machine. Two, it’s perhaps that I haven’t been so invested in the movie’s remade so far to quibble over a small detail here and there – except for The Lion King; that muck can go to hell. But I did something a little different today. I made sure I watched the original animated Peter Pan from 1953 just ahead of digging into Peter Pan & Wendy, for context. I want to be intrepid in the updates and changes to be seen, and know exactly how and where they occur. I’ve also read the original novelization of Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie once upon my time, seen a stage production on VHS, and Finding Neverland, so I think I hold a steady knowledge of the working themes of the material – if this movie tries to slip a fast one by me, by golly I’ll be ready!
Wendy Darling (Ever Anderson) is getting nagged by the inevitable pressures of growing up – her parents think she should be more responsible, while she barely fits into her childhood bed. When Peter Pan (Alexander Molony) shows up, barging through her window one night in pursuit of his shadow, the uncertainty of the future can be left behind, as Peter offers to take Wendy to Neverland, along with her brothers, John (Joshua Pickering) and Micheal (Jacobi Jupe), where they will never grow up. But Neverland brings its own dangers, for as soon as they arrive, they are hunted by pirates, who have a personal vendetta against Peter Pan, and will do anything to destroy his livelihood. David Lowery directs.
Okay, although this movie states that it’s precisely based off the original play and the animated cartoon, I now wish I’d also seen the semi-successful 2003 version of Peter Pan, and the critically panned (and aptly named) Pan from 2015, just for live-action comparisons. Ah, but I have seen Hook, and Jude Law and Jim Gaffigan have big boots to fill to compare up to the great performances of Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskin as scrumptious baddies Hook and Smee respectively. Jude Law comes into the role, playing a more embittered and downtrodden Hook than I’ve seen before, but Gaffigan is abysmal – stick to your hot pockets, sorry mate. On top of this, Alexander Molony as Peter Pan never feels worthy of the titular role 😬 Then, let’s talk Tink (Yara Shahidi) – some people may very well clap from the beginning, just to celebrate diversity, but coming straight off the cartoon like I did, I’ll be honest and say I found her introduction completely discombobulating. Yet, then I must remember, that Julia Roberts had auburn hair in Hook, different enough to the famous original petite blonde-beauty and she did fine, so I can accept that any jolt to the adjusted presentation of Tinkerbell is more a me-problem to overcome. More critically though, since the movie removes all subtext of romance in the air, Tink has nothing to be jealous about, and it’s just weird watching this adult woman, albeit at pixie proportions, react responsibly to the children’s nonsense. Maybe Tinkerbell works because she’s obnoxious; she fits in with the Lost Boys and Peter Pan because she’s similarly rough around the edges. But this Tinkerbell is boring, and hardly has any character at all – she’s helpful, I can say that about her. The Indian Princess Tiger Lily also gets shafted – the movie gives the Indians nothing to do, and so Tiger Lily (Alyssa Wapanatahk) just shows up to give sage advice, but every time she spoke, it almost put me to sleep.
So, with the best part of the cast giving me a headache, are there any compliments to be made? Well, I actually had a bit more time for the elements that I thought might evoke my least tolerance. Like some out there, I baulked at the blunt manner with which the trailer announced that some of the Lost Boys would be girls – “so?!” 🙄 But having the time to digest, I side with Wendy in that, “I guess it doesn’t really matter”. Pan seems to be travelling the world recruiting snotty kids for Neverland, and in this version the imperative word in “lost boys” is “lost”, where their sex, colour, and creed are indiscriminate… It’s probably weird that they still call themselves “boys” though; the movie didn’t plot a course around that, admittedly.
Wendy is also resolute and headstrong, (I type politely), and her role in the story has changed too. In the original, Peter brings her back to Neverland because she’s motherly, so she can tend to the needs of the lost boys; while here he’s been watching her, waiting for her to say those magic words, that she doesn’t want to grow up, so he can offer her a place to join them – it’s a subtle change, but I like it. When she arrives, the Lost Boys sense that she’s already too old to fit in with them – she’s sort’ve in that “not a girl, not yet a woman” phase that would make Britney Spears proud. But resultingly, Wendy has the sense to challenge Peter Pan where the littler ones may not – she questions Pan about James (Hook) and gets to the bottom of their mysterious past. And just on that past, let’s go deeper – I always think of Peter Pan as an anti-hero. He’s rude and self-centered, but he saves the day when the pirates mean to kill. I also always think you’re supposed to feel a little something for Captain Hook too – he’s perturbed and harangued by this flying immaturity, who won’t leave the adults to business. Pan cut off Hook’s hand once and allows the ticking to torture him whenever the crocodile is near; and yet, Hook is slimy and deceitful as well, so he’s the villain. In this secluded world of Neverland, where Peter Pan is the only character shown to be able to leave, I also imagined Hook was once a lost boy who wanted to have it all, seduced by the dark side, and a pirate’s life for him. But here, in bringing that backstory to life, Hook has seriously been hard done by. He was recruited and kicked out of the lost boy’s cult, all because he held a fondness for his mother. In the end, Peter Pan tries to make amends with him but only after Hook has bested him, and it’s really something that Pan should’ve done earlier if they were once best friends. Wendy’s role in all this, is to implore in Peter the empathy and awareness he is lacking, and I don’t mind that. Some might label her as bitchy, especially in moments at the beginning where she rats out her brothers playing swords, but it’s all to show how she’s shirking her maturing responsibilities and bothered that she’s supposed to have them, which is reasonable character development. But ultimately, through her unwavering cocksureness, I do side with those who don’t like her – striking Peter Pan out of nowhere was one completely abrupt no-no. Then there’s the line, “this magic belongs to no boy!”, and it’s like, settle down, Wendy. You and your brothers flew everywhere in the cartoon, Tinkerbell is the lady responsible for granting this ability – nobody is seriously suggesting that flying is just for men; this isn’t a moment to tear down the patriarchy 🙄 Wendy dominates this town, fighting off many pirates and arrogantly knowing what’s best in every foreign situation she finds herself in. The movie goes too far in making her OP – she’s a real Rey You-Can-Fly!-walker, if you know what I mean… 😏 But I shan’t pot the actress though – I can see Ever Anderson with a future, for she is simply providing Wendy the character that’s intended on the page; it’s just Wendy’s entire attitude that gives me the ick.
Compared to what has come before, Peter Pan & Wendy is a movie that takes more time covering less ground. The scenery is extremely ugly, and for how vast we know Neverland to be, we barely leave the coastal cliffs, to enter the caves once, and the dingy Lost Boy’s hideout. Realistically, after Oz, Neverland is the most fantastical mythical land we have, and Disney, with scrupulous amounts of money for location scouting, and a penchant for colourful CGI landscapes, make this production unacceptable. The story also only narrowly avoids doing that thing where it’s handcuffed to the in-world and familiar storybook, and I hate it when movies do that – Wendy asks Peter why he and Hook fight, and Peter responds by saying, “he’s a pirate, and I’m Peter Pan – isn’t that reason enough?”. Well, no, no, it really isn’t. Don’t do that. It’s a movie’s job to tell the story, and not lean on the cliché of what we already know. I understand the movie is aiming to use the narrative in Wendy’s storybook to explore deeper hidden motivations underneath, but it’s still poorly done. And what this movie does invent for itself is pockets of space where Peter Pan isn’t even present, and a death scene that holds less convincing permanence than Superman’s death in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, where we all knew Justice League was right around the corner. I don’t mind a movie trying to do something new – in fact, I often prefer it – but Peter Pan & Wendy has too many sullying hooks dragging it down. It’s sad to say, but I have to agree with the cantankerous George Darling on this one, when he called Peter Pan “absolute poppycock” in 1953, but I’ll apply it to this version in the modern day.
1.5
Leave a Reply