![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icepixieI finally got around to watching the 2003 live-action Peter Pan.
WOW, that was Freudian. Wow. It's like shooting fish in a barrel when one applies Freudian analysis[1] to texts about puberty and growing up, so generally I try not to do it. (To those kinds of texts or anything, really, because usually someone doing that makes me want to scream, "It's just a sword, okay?!") AND YET, for various reasons, this version made it pretty much impossible not to.
Peter, to Wendy, on what he'll do if he finds she's turned into a wicked pirate: "I'll run you through"? Think about that for half a second. Think about it using phrases like "loss of innocence" and "puberty." Aaaaahhhhh. And Hook says to Peter, "You can't give her what she wants; you're incomplete!" and I'm over here going HOW DID YOU GET THIS PAST THE FILM BOARD??? And then they follow it up with Hook blathering on about how one day Peter will look in the nursery window to find that Peter himself has been replaced by a husband, when usually that conversation/narrative digression concentrates on how Wendy will be replaced by her children the next time he goes to the nursery, and there's just a whole different spin on things.
Even Wendy's white nightgown now seems suspcious.
(ETA: And how could I have forgotten the Darlings making a big production over how Wendy is becoming a woman with a hidden kiss at the corner of her mouth, and Peter is the one who takes that kiss? How much more obvious can you be?)
Not to mention there were two or three INCREDIBLY disturbing scenes between Hook and Wendy that just about skeeved me out of my chair with their sexual overtones. In particular, the one where he's very close to her face for an extended period of time (not to mention his line about "you're my obsession now") creeped me out like few things ever have. Particularly as the narrator said that when Wendy first laid eyes on him, Wendy was immediately fascinated by Hook. OMG ACK. This is bringing to mind Freudian inerpretations of Little Red Riding Hood, and Little Red's whole thing with the wolf. NOT TO MENTION that Jason Isaacs played both Hook and Mr. Darling, and OMG ELECTRA COMPLEX. (Well, without the killing of the mother. Which, yes, I know, is half of it. Shhhh.)
At least Smee offered Wendy a cigar prior to all of the creepiest scenes, or I think I would've run screaming from my living room. Because in this movie, much as I would like it to be, a cigar is not really just a cigar at all. *shudder*
Ahem. This is what four years of a liberal arts education will do to you. I am so going to hell for this post.
That said, it wasn't bad in other areas. It got overly schmaltzy at the end, but that's to be expected. The art direction was fantastic; I loveloveloved the pirate ship sailing through the fog around Big Ben and other London landmarks. The sets and CGI were amazing. The girl playing Wendy was pretty good, although for some reason her face and hair scream "Modern! 21st century! Not in any way Edwardian!" at me. Maybe it was the excessive lipstick. The boy playing Pan wasn't bad, although it seemed painfully obvious that the lines had been written for a British kid, and sounded very strange in his American accent.
I liked that they kept some lines of dialogue and narration from the book, particularly the, "Oh, the cleverness of me!" line. The romance plotline notwithstanding, Pan was closer to the book than, say, the Disney version; he's much more the personification of childhood obnoxiousness here than in the cartoon. Hook was also good; "Well, split my infinitives," was inspired. *g*
[1] Or "everything about the text can be considered in some way sexual" analysis, which, correctly or not, is often associated with Freud.
WOW, that was Freudian. Wow. It's like shooting fish in a barrel when one applies Freudian analysis[1] to texts about puberty and growing up, so generally I try not to do it. (To those kinds of texts or anything, really, because usually someone doing that makes me want to scream, "It's just a sword, okay?!") AND YET, for various reasons, this version made it pretty much impossible not to.
Peter, to Wendy, on what he'll do if he finds she's turned into a wicked pirate: "I'll run you through"? Think about that for half a second. Think about it using phrases like "loss of innocence" and "puberty." Aaaaahhhhh. And Hook says to Peter, "You can't give her what she wants; you're incomplete!" and I'm over here going HOW DID YOU GET THIS PAST THE FILM BOARD??? And then they follow it up with Hook blathering on about how one day Peter will look in the nursery window to find that Peter himself has been replaced by a husband, when usually that conversation/narrative digression concentrates on how Wendy will be replaced by her children the next time he goes to the nursery, and there's just a whole different spin on things.
Even Wendy's white nightgown now seems suspcious.
(ETA: And how could I have forgotten the Darlings making a big production over how Wendy is becoming a woman with a hidden kiss at the corner of her mouth, and Peter is the one who takes that kiss? How much more obvious can you be?)
Not to mention there were two or three INCREDIBLY disturbing scenes between Hook and Wendy that just about skeeved me out of my chair with their sexual overtones. In particular, the one where he's very close to her face for an extended period of time (not to mention his line about "you're my obsession now") creeped me out like few things ever have. Particularly as the narrator said that when Wendy first laid eyes on him, Wendy was immediately fascinated by Hook. OMG ACK. This is bringing to mind Freudian inerpretations of Little Red Riding Hood, and Little Red's whole thing with the wolf. NOT TO MENTION that Jason Isaacs played both Hook and Mr. Darling, and OMG ELECTRA COMPLEX. (Well, without the killing of the mother. Which, yes, I know, is half of it. Shhhh.)
At least Smee offered Wendy a cigar prior to all of the creepiest scenes, or I think I would've run screaming from my living room. Because in this movie, much as I would like it to be, a cigar is not really just a cigar at all. *shudder*
Ahem. This is what four years of a liberal arts education will do to you. I am so going to hell for this post.
That said, it wasn't bad in other areas. It got overly schmaltzy at the end, but that's to be expected. The art direction was fantastic; I loveloveloved the pirate ship sailing through the fog around Big Ben and other London landmarks. The sets and CGI were amazing. The girl playing Wendy was pretty good, although for some reason her face and hair scream "Modern! 21st century! Not in any way Edwardian!" at me. Maybe it was the excessive lipstick. The boy playing Pan wasn't bad, although it seemed painfully obvious that the lines had been written for a British kid, and sounded very strange in his American accent.
I liked that they kept some lines of dialogue and narration from the book, particularly the, "Oh, the cleverness of me!" line. The romance plotline notwithstanding, Pan was closer to the book than, say, the Disney version; he's much more the personification of childhood obnoxiousness here than in the cartoon. Hook was also good; "Well, split my infinitives," was inspired. *g*
[1] Or "everything about the text can be considered in some way sexual" analysis, which, correctly or not, is often associated with Freud.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 12:32 am (UTC)I'm going to go back to chemistry now...
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 12:48 am (UTC)No shit. And this is why I don't want an MA in English, or a bunch of litcrit crap when I go to grad school. ENOUGH already. Ack.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 12:55 am (UTC)Although to be fair, had I not had four years of collegiate-level English, I still would've found those Hook/Wendy scenes incredibly squicky. I just wouldn't have had fancy terms for it.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 04:46 am (UTC)...
Okay fine, I distracted them with Harry Potter or something when we did the spring testing. I feel no remorse.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 05:09 am (UTC)Heh. Eeeeevil teacher. *g*
With the (massive) exception of the Hook squickiness, I thought it was pretty benign. I did like that they played up the Peter/Wendy ship, because part of me always did want to see Peter grow up already--because he really is an arrogant and obnoxious child--and them end up together. (So going to hell.) But there is the fact that both of them in this movie appear to be at the age where, if they haven't already had some sex ed, it's really time to get on that, so the romance they play up might not be exactly innocent, and...yeah, okay, there are parts of that which make me want to run screaming as well.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 06:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 05:48 am (UTC)Actually, seriously, is it just wrong or is it really bad wrong? There's a huge difference between "heh, that's wrong" and "WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" and I'm not quite sure which it is here.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 06:16 am (UTC)Well, it does have its good points...
Actually, seriously, is it just wrong or is it really bad wrong? There's a huge difference between "heh, that's wrong" and "WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" and I'm not quite sure which it is here.
The stuff with Peter and Wendy that you can either take the way it was intended (it's all about luuuuuurve) or the way we would (innuendo ahoy!) is more "heh, that's wrong." But there are also some scenes between Hook and Wendy that are INCREDIBLY squicky, in a bad way. They're set up with the lines about Wendy's "fascination" and the "You're my obsession now" (CREEPY), and then there are two scenes with lot of Hook caressing Wendy's face with his hand and his hook, touching her arms, talking to her in this really seductive voice, etc. etc. I think you have to see it to really appreciate how incredibly creepy and sexual it is.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 06:44 am (UTC)is a golden godplays both parts very well. And yeah. My little perverted heart was seeing all sorts of Wendy/Peter/Hook goodness.no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 04:32 pm (UTC)That's interesting. Sounds reasonable, too, since it's been done that way forever.
My little perverted heart was seeing all sorts of Wendy/Peter/Hook goodness.
*shudder*
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 04:36 pm (UTC)But this movie was more disturbing than most things, IMO.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 05:06 pm (UTC)And as for the spring cleaning, thank God it's not 1910 anymore and that there was Women's Lib in between.