On Peter Pan

   

    We're 2 for 2 on televising Broadway musicals filled with brightly colored backdrops, pitch perfect singers and fun to watch dance routines (all of which get ruthlessly panned by reviewers the next day...What's up with that?)  I'm no reviewer and personally think no one should be a critic unless they've actually produced something themselves, but last night's performance of Peter Pan did offer plenty of food for thought.
     My first thought was: Wonder what's going on in our cultural psyche that's making these productions all the rage these days, after all, we're nation of On Demand/ Netflix/ "I'll watch it on MY own time" junkies when it comes to our TV viewing habits. But that we're all tuning in at once (at least to check it out)  kinda comforts me. Hooray! There still are some things that will bring us together that don't involve wars or riots. No doubt, "Live" is better (as Broadway fans and concert goers know). But that we're watching live through the mechanics of a TV lens (meaning camera crews are dancing backwards with techies shuffling cables, wires and boom mics while performers try to stay focused on their dance moves, well, it makes for a lot of potential trip ups. Maybe I'm giving us too much credit. Could be like Nascar--folks just want to see a wreck....hard to say.)
     But as it pertained to the production last night I myself was tripping over one element and one element alone: Why must Peter Pan always be a girl? While I thought Allison Williams adorable, I kept getting distracted, 1) because she looks so much like her dad in the face and 2) she's a girl, and a grown one at that! Even with the pixie cut, I had to keep reminding myself-- This is a girl, playing a boy, who's admired by a girl who has real boys all around her who can sing and dance...Why wouldn't they just pick one of those? Aren't the sexual undertones of Peter Pan confusing enough without adding one more?)

     In the original stage production (London, 1904) they chose a girl because girls were easier to hoist for the flying scenes. By the time it hit America, Mary Martin (a darling of Rodgers and Hammerstein) won a Tony for the role, so women it was! (e.g., Sandy Duncan, Cathy Rigsby, etc). But I was curious if the creator (J. M. Barrie) ever wanted Peter Pan played this way. (Turns out, no. Peter Pan was inspired by his brother who died in an accident before his 14th birthday; as he never aged in his mother's eyes, this is where Barrie came up with the idea. It's said Barrie always wanted a male in the lead, but that only happened once, and that was after Barrie had died.)
     In the original (Peter Pan & Wendy) we're told Peter "still had his first teeth" meaning he was probably more like 6 or 7 in the writer's mind. (I suppose staging a 6 year old would be even more disturbing to the relational element, but still, I would personally just once like to see it. I just kept thinking "Wouldn't that kid from Pay It Forward have been so perfect?" though I'm sure he's about 30 by now.)
     I recall seeing the stage production in London many moons ago and coming home to re-read the book entirely, as that version highlighted the Wendy/Tinkerbell conflict to the point of Freudian psychosis. (Wendy representing the oedipal complex on steroids; Tinkerbell being the catalyst for the Peter Pan Syndrome (e.g., men who never grow up, choosing perpetual childlike pleasures over responsible adult behavior despite the fact that they're grown). It was a fascinating play, but I felt bad for folks who'd brought their kids.