Born of J.M. Barrie's conflicted life,Peter Pan has enjoyed a complex place in the affections of audiences. This production did it’s damnedest to rip the plot out of its usual confines and emotional range. It succeeded, but not entirely. Its failure was on uneasy display when Tinkerbell attempted suicide by drinking medicine poisoned by Hook. We had been watching a production designed to obliterate belief in fairies but at this moment embarrassed applause, the aural manifestation of a belief in fairies without which Tink would die, still rippled through the auditorium. This was applause in support of the kind of fairies who have wings, mind you. Sexual politics be damned.
I doubt the wisdom of mounting a production like this. Jerry Robbins was no fool. He understood the need for charm, even when disguised by knife edged sophistication. Bard’s Captain Hook was indeed thrillingly presented by huge voiced William Michals but charm was not part of his palette. Nor, to be fair, was it part of the director’s palette. Terror, yes. Cleverisms run amok, yes. Charm? Not on your life. Peter Pan, for me, depends on the kind of Darling/Hook ineffably embodied by Cyril Ritchard. But like many other things nowadays, charm has been replaced with cynicism and bloated self infatuation. I was intrigued by this production, its design, its colors, its still charming score, but the ideas did not sustain themselves. Fascination faded, replaced by impatience and finally boredom.
1
My husband and I, along with some friends, traveled up to Annandale-on-Hudson to see this production.
It was — without a doubt — one of the worst, most self-indulgently directed productions I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the cast, particularly the talented William Michaels, who did his best to retain his dignity in an undershirt with blood poured all over it (we kept thinking: was he playing Captain Hook or Sweeney Todd?).
With the exception of the aforementioned Mr. Michaels, the Bernstein score was miserably sung, and the script was so pulled apart and abused, that anyone who didn’t know the piece going in would have no idea whatsoever what was going on. This production apparently used the script as an excuse to line potatoes up across the footlights and have Peter and Tinkerbell “get it on” while a punked-out Wendy roamed around the stage looking miserable. Michael and John were completely cut from the proceedings, and for some odd reason, the entire ensemble murmured Smee’s lines in unison.
In short, a travesty. And the headline is completely wrong — this was NOT in any way, shape or form, Leonard Bernstein’s PETER PAN.
For me, 'Peter Pan' will always be remembered as the animated boy in Walt Disney's 1953 full length cartoon feature. I was a little over four years old when my father took me to see my first movie at a grand old movie palace in Cincinnati. Seeing Peter,Wendy, John and Michael flying over the rooftops and spires of Edwardian London was overwhelming for this little boy glued to that big theater screen. Disney's superb animators, most of them the original 'Nine Old Men', wielded their magic drawing tools to create a magical world, and if not completely authentic to J. M. Barrie's stage play and novel the movie still exerted a powerful pull on kids at the time. This new production seems to be very cutting edge, with the added contribution of Leonard Bernstein's music, though I will always be partial to the Disney version.
1
Saw it last night. Enjoyed it. Agree with many of the criticisms but hope we;ll try again to mesh the gender issues with this really iconic story, And it's a joyful hour and a half!
3
"unapologetic racism"? It wasn't considered "racist" at the time, and to denigrate these classics in hindsight is itself narrow minded. What if in 50 years the entire queer movement is seen as nothing more than a fling, a passing perversion? Will we tar and feather "Angels and America" and other works in hindsight and disregard their significant contributions to theater? Grow up.
10
It wasn't "considered" racist at the time? Certainly that's just part of the problem, rather than a justification? While I agree that we may not need to always censor these older works for modern audiences - merely send them in with a little warning and, hopefully, forgiveness for the failings of our past - let's not pretend there is something wrong with calling out this casual, historical racism for what it is. That's just good manners, if nothing else.
And if you think that the "queer movement," as you call it, is ever going to be considered a "fling," then you clearly have no clue about what being gay actually is. But then your (hypothetical?) characterization of it as a "passing perversion" speaks volumes about where you're coming from. Just in case you didn't realize, that's pretty damn offensive to. Let's hope we don't ever see a future where that kind of casual judgment is once again considered okay.
3
“. . . a passing perversion?” It’s a review, an opinion piece so you are both entitled to your own views.
After Friday night’s performance we found ourselves pondering the exact moment we wanted this painfully vapid experience to end.
4
wasn't the Bernstein Peter already done on Broadway with Jean Arthur as Peter back in the 50's?
1
"then you will experience this version, which ran on Broadway in 1950's"
"Peter Pan" was considered racist? Can somebody out there explain this?
1
This was a Huffington Post article I'd read on this back when NBC tried to deal with the race matters for "Peter Pan Live" a few years ago. I thought it was more successfully handled than this blog author did, but a good description:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-broadbent/peter-pan-and-the-roo...
It's tough when the writers, who were just trying to put on a hit musical in their era, now are viewed through a more enlightened time. Happily, with Comden and Green's work, Adolph Green's daughter Amanda Green is a gifted award-nominated lyricist and can more than do the work proud, trying things out when needed there. Also, Sheldon Harnick is still very sharp in his 90's and has been able to rewrite his own work; he even created a same-gender wedding "Sunrise Sunset!" Likewise, John Kander is still active, so can approve whenever needed for his collaborative work. Charles Strouse is still active at 90 and letting changes be tried, and many of his lyricists are still active, too. Interestingly, Sondheim's great work doesn't seem to have had as many issues, except maybe "Forum" (which seems to make fun of sexism anyway, and seemed to work in a 2015 Red Bank, NJ revival) but he seems to always be on top of the many revivals or revisals. (And everyone jokes about the title of "Gypsy" now that the Gypsy Robe has been renamed, but that's got to be just joking.)
1
It is considered racist in its portrayal of Native Americans, or "Indians," as they were then called. That's why they deleted all of Tiger Lilly's dialog. I guess she plays the part mute?
1
@Sarah B., They've pretty much cut her part to nothing. Appears as a captive, gets released, then never reappears.
And our group’s reaction, quite the opposite. This is a concept production (meaning full of tricks and imagery) that has no point. Yes, why the potatoes? And I won’t even start talking about Peter’s shadow. One of our group pondered, in discussing the performer playing Wendy, if the actress was ever alive. Hook and Ms. Darling/Tiger Lily indeed trilling and seemingly the only focused professionals in this mis-step of a production. Thank god for the music!
7
Absolutely spot on. Incoherent production.
4
The review is right on; a really thrilling, complex production - sad, funny, sexy, and performed with nuance and zest.
4