Peter Pan Show Review
Peter
Pan was never one of my favorite childhood stories. With its erratic
plot lines and strange characters, it wasn’t an easy “story” to like in
the same way I enjoyed a good fairy tale. If I were asked today what the
story is about, I suppose I’d give the same answer everyone else does:
It’s about a boy who doesn’t want to grow up. But is that what it’s
really about? It seems to have been written by an ADD adult for an audience of like-minded hyperactive boys. But it’s a story
I always wanted to like because, well, I liked Tinkerbell, and as part
of a dying breed, she needed me. She needed me to believe in her, in
Peter, and in a crazy story that twists and turns in and out of nowhere
(aka Neverland).
Why couldn’t I like the story of Peter Pan?
Well, despite the swash-buckling adventure; a hook-handed pirate with a
fear of a hungry crocodile; a boy-hero who saves a girl from a
plank-walking plunge, another from a kidnapping, and yet another from a
poisoning and extinction, I couldn’t like Peter. I wanted to like him, but I wanted him to like Wendy, Tinkerbell and even Tiger Lily - in other words I wanted him to connect to me! How could he be loved by three different female characters and not notice - or even recognize it for
that matter? He couldn’t even comprehend the concept of a kiss until
Wendy planted one on him. As a little girl in love fairy tales - that was beyond me.
While we are supposed to blame the lack of
maternal love for these qualities, Peter is so frustratingly emotionally
detached that he doesn’t seem to long for a mother the way the Lost Boys
of Neverland do. While Peter saves Tiger Lily from Captain Hook’s
clutches, he does it because it is the honorable and brave thing to do.
He saves Tinkerbell out of desperation for something…companionship
perhaps…or just the fear of the extinction of fairies. And Wendy, poor
misguided Wendy! She goes along for an adventure before she is forced
to enter the grown-up world, even though she’s aware that she's wanted
(or needed) as mother-figure to soothe the maternally-deprived Lost
Boys who populate Peter's world. Turns out Neverland is a place where
boys can dream of forever - and girls get to watch at arms length.
While
I can now put into words why this story worked against my childhood
(and adult) sensibilities, it has not been as easy for me to explain why
generations of children remain enthralled - my six year old son
included. He was completely enamored by the performance we saw last
weekend at New York City’s New Victory Theater. If you’re familiar with
my previous children’s theater reviews, you will notice that I have a
huge affinity for the New Vic performances. I applaud their selection of
traveling shows and this one from Australia’s Belvoir Theatre is no
exception. It is understandable how this particular take on a classic
play came to life when you learn that this Sydney-based theater is
located inside an old tomato factory with a tiny stage in the corner.
Imagination is everything. Despite my mild disregard for this rather
nonsensical story, this troupe brings Peter Pan to life in a way that
would grab any child who has ever put on a play in his/her own bedroom.
I
know the image of Mary Martin or Sandy Duncan singing and swinging from
the rafters is playing in your mind right now, but this show is sweet
and cool, not hokey. It is perhaps closer to what J.M. Barrie’s
original Edwardian play was meant to be – only updated to represent how
we live now in the 21st Century. There are no strings attached here -
just implied flight, in the form of jumping from a chest of drawers or
bunk bed because, after all, that’s what a kid would do. Unlike a big
Broadway performance with fancy sets and orchestras, this show takes
place in a child’s bedroom. Any musical numbers are performed on a
child’s drum set and the Jolly Roger is hoisted over blanket-covered
furniture stacked to resemble something akin to a pirate ship.
In
this more modern take on the story, Peter, played by the rather dashing
Meyne Wyatt, does not have exaggerated points on his ears, or
curly-tipped shoes, and he doesn’t wear a Robin Hood-esque feathered
cap. This Peter looks more like a military recruit headed out for a
jog. He maintains the tough swagger and impish charm of Peter but
there’s nothing elf-like about him. While the children, Wendy, John and
Michael Darling and their stylish parents are portrayed in the way most
likely intended by the playwright, almost every actor doubles up their
roles throughout the show. Mr. Smee may appear as Mr. Smee one moment
and the next, with a change of his hat - poof - he’s a Lost Boy. Oddly
enough, Tinkerbell is primarily portrayed by one person but more often
she appears as just a flickering light. But despite her frequent lack of
physical portrayal, her presence and moodiness are evident throughout
the show.
For me, jaded adult that I am, my favorite character was
Captain Hook. Not because Hook is particularly interesting but because
of the actor, Charlie Garber, who portrayed him as a despondent and
under-employed Hamlet-wanna-be. He first appears in spotlight, center
aisle, toward the back of the orchestra section, holding a cup of tea in
his one good hand. When he speaks it’s with the air and accent of a
Shakespearean actor using old English prose that includes words like
“doth” and “ought.” He even delivers a monologue standing upon his faux
pirate ship when he is rudely interrupted by the bird call of his
nemesis. When he asks, “What is that sound?” My son shouted back,
“Peter Pan” to which the audience burst into laughter and applause. It
was not the first time Mr. Garber responded on stage to a child’s
reaction. He seemed to thrive on these moments, ad-libbing his way to
the next scene. Moments like these are testaments to any actor working
in children’s theater because they can rest assured that they’ve
captured their intended audience.
When my son called out the
response to Captain Hook, it was also the moment I realized just how
engaged my son was with this show. I had watched him out of the corner
of my eye throughout the 85 minute, no intermission performance and
relished in every belly laugh, look of awe, and vocal responses. But it
was perhaps his undiminished focus and indomitable belief in the
adventure before his eyes that made me think about my own emotional
detachment from the story line. While my mind wandered again and again,
my son’s never strayed. He liked Peter - and that's all that really
mattered.
Now I know the secret behind the undying fascination
with Peter Pan: It was written for children like my son who are not
unlike Peter Pan himself. It’s for children who long for adventures
that don’t need to make sense. Each twist takes you to a new thought
and a new place – a place that only children understand: where a kiss
from a girl might be gross; mothers are a necessity; a tough little
fairy has the purest of souls; bad guys get what they deserve in the
end; children can fly away from their parents and never grow up; and
Neverland is a wonderland as close as your bedroom door.
My usually fidgety, talkative,
easily-distracted,
son was glued to this rambling tale for a length of time my husband and
I don’t often get to see. His pure innocence, intense imagination,
love of adventure and a good story led to his unflinching concentration
last Sunday afternoon – and this was enough to have even me crying out
with utter conviction, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”
Peter Pan will continue at The New Victory Theater through Sunday,
October 13th. Tickets are available at the box office: 229 W. 42nd Street, in New York City and online.
Amy Wall Lerman is the Editor-in-Chief of the Motherhood Later ezine,
Baby Bloomer. Amy is an author and television news producer. She lives with her husband and son in West Orange, New Jersey.
Peter
Pan was never one of my favorite childhood stories. With its erratic
plot lines and strange characters, it wasn’t an easy “story” to like in
the same way I enjoyed a good fairy tale. If I were asked today what the
story is about, I suppose I’d give the same answer everyone else does:
It’s about a boy who doesn’t want to grow up. But is that what it’s
really about? It seems to have been written by an attention-deficited
adult for an audience of like-minded hyperactive boys. But it’s a story
I always wanted to like because, well, I liked Tinkerbell, and as part
of a dying breed, she needed me. She needed me to believe in her, in
Peter, and in a crazy story that twists and turns in and out of nowhere
(aka Neverland).
Why couldn’t I like the story of Peter Pan? Well, despite the
swash-buckling adventure; a hook-handed pirate with a fear of a hungry
crocodile; a boy-hero who saves a girl from a plank-walking plunge,
another from a kidnapping, and yet another from a poisoning and
extinction, I couldn’t like Peter. I couldn’t understand how he could be
loved by three different female characters, Tiger Lily, Tinkerbell, and
Wendy, and not respond to it, or even recognize it for that matter. He
couldn’t even comprehend the concept of a kiss until Wendy planted one
on him. While we are supposed to blame the lack of maternal love for
these qualities, Peter is so frustratingly emotionally detached that he
doesn’t even long for a mother the way the Lost Boys of Neverland do.
While Peter saves Tiger Lily from Captain Hook’s clutches, he does it
because it is the honorable and brave thing to do. He saves Tinkerbell
out of desperation for something…companionship perhaps…or just the fear
of the extinction of fairies. And Wendy, poor misguided Wendy! She goes
along for an adventure before she is forced to enter the grown-up
world, even though she’s aware that she’s wanted (or needed) as
mother-figure to soothe the maternally-deprived Lost Boys who populate
Peter’s world. Turns out Neverland is a place where boys can dream of
forever – and girls get to watch at arms length.
While I can now put into words why this story worked against my
childhood (and adult) sensibilities, it has not been as easy for me to
explain why generations of children remain enthralled – my six year old
son included. He was completely enamored by the performance we saw last
weekend at New York City’s New Victory Theater. If you’re familiar
with my previous children’s theater reviews, you will notice that I have
a huge affinity for the New Vic performances. I applaud their selection
of traveling shows and this one from Australia’s Belvoir Theatre is no
exception. It is understandable how this particular take on a classic
play came to life when you learn that this Sydney-based theater is
located inside an old tomato factory with a tiny stage in the corner.
Imagination is everything. Despite my mild disregard for this rather
nonsensical story, this troupe brings Peter Pan to life in a way that
would grab any child who has ever put on a play in his/her own bedroom.
I know the image of Mary Martin or Sandy Duncan singing and swinging
from the rafters is playing in your mind right now, but this show is
sweet and cool, not hokey. It is perhaps closer to what J.M. Barrie’s
original Edwardian play was meant to be – only updated to represent how
we live now in the 21st Century. There are no strings attached here –
just implied flight, in the form of jumping from a chest of drawers or
bunk bed because, after all, that’s what a kid would do. Unlike a big
Broadway performance with fancy sets and orchestras, this show takes
place in a child’s bedroom. Any musical numbers are performed on a
child’s drum set and the Jolly Roger is hoisted over blanket-covered
furniture stacked to resemble something akin to a pirate ship.
In this more modern take on the story, Peter, played by the rather
dashing Meyne Wyatt, does not have exaggerated points on his ears, or
curly-tipped shoes, and he doesn’t wear a Robin Hood-esque feathered
cap. This Peter looks more like a military recruit headed out for a
jog. He maintains the tough swagger and impish charm of Peter but
there’s nothing elf-like about him. While the children, Wendy, John and
Michael Darling and their stylish parents are portrayed in the way most
likely intended by the playwright, almost every actor doubles up their
roles throughout the show. Mr. Smee may appear as Mr. Smee one moment
and the next, with a change of his hat – poof – he’s a Lost Boy. Oddly
enough, Tinkerbell is primarily portrayed by one person but more often
she appears as just a flickering light. But despite her frequent lack of
physical portrayal, her presence and moodiness are evident throughout
the show.
For me, jaded adult that I am, my favorite character was Captain
Hook. Not because Hook is particularly interesting but because of the
actor, Charlie Garber, who portrayed him as a despondent and
under-employed Hamlet-wanna-be. He first appears in spotlight, center
aisle, toward the back of the orchestra section, holding a cup of tea in
his one good hand. When he speaks it’s with the air and accent of a
Shakespearean actor using old English prose that includes words like
“doth” and “ought.” He even delivers a monologue standing upon his faux
pirate ship when he is rudely interrupted by the bird call of his
nemesis. When he asks, “What is that sound?” My son shouted back,
“Peter Pan” to which the audience burst into laughter and applause. It
was not the first time Mr. Garber responded on stage to a child’s
reaction. He seemed to thrive on these moments, ad-libbing his way to
the next scene. Moments like these are testaments to any actor working
in children’s theater because they can rest assured that they’ve
captured their intended audience.
When my son called out the response to Captain Hook, it was also the
moment I realized just how engaged my son was with this show. I had
watched him out of the corner of my eye throughout the 85 minute, no
intermission performance and relished in every belly laugh, look of awe,
and vocal responses. But it was perhaps his undiminished focus and
indomitable belief in the adventure before his eyes that made me think
about my own emotional detachment from the story line. While my mind
wandered again and again, my son’s never strayed. He liked Peter – and
that’s all that really mattered.
Now I know the secret behind the undying fascination with Peter Pan:
It was written for children like my son who are not unlike Peter Pan
himself. It’s for children who long for adventures that don’t need to
make sense. Each twist takes you to a new thought and a new place – a
place that only children understand: where a kiss from a girl might be
gross; mothers are a necessity; a tough little fairy has the purest of
souls; bad guys get what they deserve in the end; children can fly away
from their parents and never grow up; and Neverland is a wonderland as
close as your bedroom door.
My usually fidgety, talkative,
easily-distracted,
son was glued to this rambling tale for a length of time my husband and
I don’t often get to see. His pure innocence, intense imagination,
love of adventure and a good story led to his unflinching concentration
last Sunday afternoon – and this was enough to have even me crying out
with utter conviction, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”
Peter Pan will continue at The New Victory Theater through Sunday,
October 13th. Tickets are available at the box office: 229 W. 42nd Street, in New York City and online.
Amy Wall Lerman is the Editor-in-Chief of the Motherhood Later ezine,
Baby Bloomer. Amy is an author and television news producer. She lives with her husband and son in West Orange, New Jersey.
- See more at: http://motherhoodlater.com/?p=15020&preview=true#sthash.RZF0Oy9F.dpuf
Peter
Pan was never one of my favorite childhood stories. With its erratic
plot lines and strange characters, it wasn’t an easy “story” to like in
the same way I enjoyed a good fairy tale. If I were asked today what the
story is about, I suppose I’d give the same answer everyone else does:
It’s about a boy who doesn’t want to grow up. But is that what it’s
really about? It seems to have been written by an attention-deficited
adult for an audience of like-minded hyperactive boys. But it’s a story
I always wanted to like because, well, I liked Tinkerbell, and as part
of a dying breed, she needed me. She needed me to believe in her, in
Peter, and in a crazy story that twists and turns in and out of nowhere
(aka Neverland).
Why couldn’t I like the story of Peter Pan? Well, despite the
swash-buckling adventure; a hook-handed pirate with a fear of a hungry
crocodile; a boy-hero who saves a girl from a plank-walking plunge,
another from a kidnapping, and yet another from a poisoning and
extinction, I couldn’t like Peter. I couldn’t understand how he could be
loved by three different female characters, Tiger Lily, Tinkerbell, and
Wendy, and not respond to it, or even recognize it for that matter. He
couldn’t even comprehend the concept of a kiss until Wendy planted one
on him. While we are supposed to blame the lack of maternal love for
these qualities, Peter is so frustratingly emotionally detached that he
doesn’t even long for a mother the way the Lost Boys of Neverland do.
While Peter saves Tiger Lily from Captain Hook’s clutches, he does it
because it is the honorable and brave thing to do. He saves Tinkerbell
out of desperation for something…companionship perhaps…or just the fear
of the extinction of fairies. And Wendy, poor misguided Wendy! She goes
along for an adventure before she is forced to enter the grown-up
world, even though she’s aware that she’s wanted (or needed) as
mother-figure to soothe the maternally-deprived Lost Boys who populate
Peter’s world. Turns out Neverland is a place where boys can dream of
forever – and girls get to watch at arms length.
While I can now put into words why this story worked against my
childhood (and adult) sensibilities, it has not been as easy for me to
explain why generations of children remain enthralled – my six year old
son included. He was completely enamored by the performance we saw last
weekend at New York City’s New Victory Theater. If you’re familiar
with my previous children’s theater reviews, you will notice that I have
a huge affinity for the New Vic performances. I applaud their selection
of traveling shows and this one from Australia’s Belvoir Theatre is no
exception. It is understandable how this particular take on a classic
play came to life when you learn that this Sydney-based theater is
located inside an old tomato factory with a tiny stage in the corner.
Imagination is everything. Despite my mild disregard for this rather
nonsensical story, this troupe brings Peter Pan to life in a way that
would grab any child who has ever put on a play in his/her own bedroom.
I know the image of Mary Martin or Sandy Duncan singing and swinging
from the rafters is playing in your mind right now, but this show is
sweet and cool, not hokey. It is perhaps closer to what J.M. Barrie’s
original Edwardian play was meant to be – only updated to represent how
we live now in the 21st Century. There are no strings attached here –
just implied flight, in the form of jumping from a chest of drawers or
bunk bed because, after all, that’s what a kid would do. Unlike a big
Broadway performance with fancy sets and orchestras, this show takes
place in a child’s bedroom. Any musical numbers are performed on a
child’s drum set and the Jolly Roger is hoisted over blanket-covered
furniture stacked to resemble something akin to a pirate ship.
In this more modern take on the story, Peter, played by the rather
dashing Meyne Wyatt, does not have exaggerated points on his ears, or
curly-tipped shoes, and he doesn’t wear a Robin Hood-esque feathered
cap. This Peter looks more like a military recruit headed out for a
jog. He maintains the tough swagger and impish charm of Peter but
there’s nothing elf-like about him. While the children, Wendy, John and
Michael Darling and their stylish parents are portrayed in the way most
likely intended by the playwright, almost every actor doubles up their
roles throughout the show. Mr. Smee may appear as Mr. Smee one moment
and the next, with a change of his hat – poof – he’s a Lost Boy. Oddly
enough, Tinkerbell is primarily portrayed by one person but more often
she appears as just a flickering light. But despite her frequent lack of
physical portrayal, her presence and moodiness are evident throughout
the show.
For me, jaded adult that I am, my favorite character was Captain
Hook. Not because Hook is particularly interesting but because of the
actor, Charlie Garber, who portrayed him as a despondent and
under-employed Hamlet-wanna-be. He first appears in spotlight, center
aisle, toward the back of the orchestra section, holding a cup of tea in
his one good hand. When he speaks it’s with the air and accent of a
Shakespearean actor using old English prose that includes words like
“doth” and “ought.” He even delivers a monologue standing upon his faux
pirate ship when he is rudely interrupted by the bird call of his
nemesis. When he asks, “What is that sound?” My son shouted back,
“Peter Pan” to which the audience burst into laughter and applause. It
was not the first time Mr. Garber responded on stage to a child’s
reaction. He seemed to thrive on these moments, ad-libbing his way to
the next scene. Moments like these are testaments to any actor working
in children’s theater because they can rest assured that they’ve
captured their intended audience.
When my son called out the response to Captain Hook, it was also the
moment I realized just how engaged my son was with this show. I had
watched him out of the corner of my eye throughout the 85 minute, no
intermission performance and relished in every belly laugh, look of awe,
and vocal responses. But it was perhaps his undiminished focus and
indomitable belief in the adventure before his eyes that made me think
about my own emotional detachment from the story line. While my mind
wandered again and again, my son’s never strayed. He liked Peter – and
that’s all that really mattered.
Now I know the secret behind the undying fascination with Peter Pan:
It was written for children like my son who are not unlike Peter Pan
himself. It’s for children who long for adventures that don’t need to
make sense. Each twist takes you to a new thought and a new place – a
place that only children understand: where a kiss from a girl might be
gross; mothers are a necessity; a tough little fairy has the purest of
souls; bad guys get what they deserve in the end; children can fly away
from their parents and never grow up; and Neverland is a wonderland as
close as your bedroom door.
My usually fidgety, talkative,
easily-distracted,
son was glued to this rambling tale for a length of time my husband and
I don’t often get to see. His pure innocence, intense imagination,
love of adventure and a good story led to his unflinching concentration
last Sunday afternoon – and this was enough to have even me crying out
with utter conviction, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”
Peter Pan will continue at The New Victory Theater through Sunday,
October 13th. Tickets are available at the box office: 229 W. 42nd Street, in New York City and online.
Amy Wall Lerman is the Editor-in-Chief of the Motherhood Later ezine,
Baby Bloomer. Amy is an author and television news producer. She lives with her husband and son in West Orange, New Jersey.
- See more at: http://motherhoodlater.com/?p=15020&preview=true#sthash.RZF0Oy9F.dpuf
I Believe! Peter Pan Show Review
By Amy Wall Lerman
Peter Pan was never one of my favorite
childhood stories. With its erratic plot lines and strange characters,
it wasn’t an easy “story” to like in the same way I enjoyed a good fairy
tale. If I were asked today what the story is about, I suppose I’d give
the same answer everyone else does: It’s about a boy who doesn’t want
to grow up. But is that what it’s really about? It seems to have been
written by an attention-deficited adult for an audience of like-minded
hyperactive boys. But it’s a story I always wanted to like because,
well, I liked Tinkerbell, and as part of a dying breed, she needed me.
She needed me to believe in her, in Peter, and in a crazy story that
twists and turns in and out of nowhere (aka Neverland).
Why couldn’t I like the story of Peter Pan? Well, despite the
swash-buckling adventure; a hook-handed pirate with a fear of a hungry
crocodile; a boy-hero who saves a girl from a plank-walking plunge,
another from a kidnapping, and yet another from a poisoning and
extinction, I couldn’t like Peter. I couldn’t understand how he could be
loved by three different female characters, Tiger Lily, Tinkerbell, and
Wendy, and not respond to it, or even recognize it for that matter. He
couldn’t even comprehend the concept of a kiss until Wendy planted one
on him. While we are supposed to blame the lack of maternal love for
these qualities, Peter is so frustratingly emotionally detached that he
doesn’t even long for a mother the way the Lost Boys of Neverland do.
While Peter saves Tiger Lily from Captain Hook’s clutches, he does it
because it is the honorable and brave thing to do. He saves Tinkerbell
out of desperation for something…companionship perhaps…or just the fear
of the extinction of fairies. And Wendy, poor misguided Wendy! She goes
along for an adventure before she is forced to enter the grown-up
world, even though she’s aware that she’s wanted (or needed) as
mother-figure to soothe the maternally-deprived Lost Boys who populate
Peter’s world. Turns out Neverland is a place where boys can dream of
forever – and girls get to watch at arms length.
While I can now put into words why this story worked against my
childhood (and adult) sensibilities, it has not been as easy for me to
explain why generations of children remain enthralled – my six year old
son included. He was completely enamored by the performance we saw last
weekend at New York City’s New Victory Theater. If you’re familiar
with my previous children’s theater reviews, you will notice that I have
a huge affinity for the New Vic performances. I applaud their selection
of traveling shows and this one from Australia’s Belvoir Theatre is no
exception. It is understandable how this particular take on a classic
play came to life when you learn that this Sydney-based theater is
located inside an old tomato factory with a tiny stage in the corner.
Imagination is everything. Despite my mild disregard for this rather
nonsensical story, this troupe brings Peter Pan to life in a way that
would grab any child who has ever put on a play in his/her own bedroom.
I know the image of Mary Martin or Sandy Duncan singing and swinging
from the rafters is playing in your mind right now, but this show is
sweet and cool, not hokey. It is perhaps closer to what J.M. Barrie’s
original Edwardian play was meant to be – only updated to represent how
we live now in the 21st Century. There are no strings attached here –
just implied flight, in the form of jumping from a chest of drawers or
bunk bed because, after all, that’s what a kid would do. Unlike a big
Broadway performance with fancy sets and orchestras, this show takes
place in a child’s bedroom. Any musical numbers are performed on a
child’s drum set and the Jolly Roger is hoisted over blanket-covered
furniture stacked to resemble something akin to a pirate ship.
In this more modern take on the story, Peter, played by the rather
dashing Meyne Wyatt, does not have exaggerated points on his ears, or
curly-tipped shoes, and he doesn’t wear a Robin Hood-esque feathered
cap. This Peter looks more like a military recruit headed out for a
jog. He maintains the tough swagger and impish charm of Peter but
there’s nothing elf-like about him. While the children, Wendy, John and
Michael Darling and their stylish parents are portrayed in the way most
likely intended by the playwright, almost every actor doubles up their
roles throughout the show. Mr. Smee may appear as Mr. Smee one moment
and the next, with a change of his hat – poof – he’s a Lost Boy. Oddly
enough, Tinkerbell is primarily portrayed by one person but more often
she appears as just a flickering light. But despite her frequent lack of
physical portrayal, her presence and moodiness are evident throughout
the show.
For me, jaded adult that I am, my favorite character was Captain
Hook. Not because Hook is particularly interesting but because of the
actor, Charlie Garber, who portrayed him as a despondent and
under-employed Hamlet-wanna-be. He first appears in spotlight, center
aisle, toward the back of the orchestra section, holding a cup of tea in
his one good hand. When he speaks it’s with the air and accent of a
Shakespearean actor using old English prose that includes words like
“doth” and “ought.” He even delivers a monologue standing upon his faux
pirate ship when he is rudely interrupted by the bird call of his
nemesis. When he asks, “What is that sound?” My son shouted back,
“Peter Pan” to which the audience burst into laughter and applause. It
was not the first time Mr. Garber responded on stage to a child’s
reaction. He seemed to thrive on these moments, ad-libbing his way to
the next scene. Moments like these are testaments to any actor working
in children’s theater because they can rest assured that they’ve
captured their intended audience.
When my son called out the response to Captain Hook, it was also the
moment I realized just how engaged my son was with this show. I had
watched him out of the corner of my eye throughout the 85 minute, no
intermission performance and relished in every belly laugh, look of awe,
and vocal responses. But it was perhaps his undiminished focus and
indomitable belief in the adventure before his eyes that made me think
about my own emotional detachment from the story line. While my mind
wandered again and again, my son’s never strayed. He liked Peter – and
that’s all that really mattered.
Now I know the secret behind the undying fascination with Peter Pan:
It was written for children like my son who are not unlike Peter Pan
himself. It’s for children who long for adventures that don’t need to
make sense. Each twist takes you to a new thought and a new place – a
place that only children understand: where a kiss from a girl might be
gross; mothers are a necessity; a tough little fairy has the purest of
souls; bad guys get what they deserve in the end; children can fly away
from their parents and never grow up; and Neverland is a wonderland as
close as your bedroom door.
My usually fidgety, talkative,
easily-distracted,
son was glued to this rambling tale for a length of time my husband and
I don’t often get to see. His pure innocence, intense imagination,
love of adventure and a good story led to his unflinching concentration
last Sunday afternoon – and this was enough to have even me crying out
with utter conviction, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”
Peter Pan will continue at The New Victory Theater through Sunday,
October 13th. Tickets are available at the box office: 229 W. 42nd Street, in New York City and online.
Amy Wall Lerman is the Editor-in-Chief of the Motherhood Later ezine,
Baby Bloomer. Amy is an author and television news producer. She lives with her husband and son in West Orange, New Jersey.
- See more at: http://motherhoodlater.com/posts/i-believe-peter-pan-show-review/#sthash.2xDgqdVM.dpuf
I Believe! Peter Pan Show Review
By Amy Wall Lerman
Peter Pan was never one of my favorite
childhood stories. With its erratic plot lines and strange characters,
it wasn’t an easy “story” to like in the same way I enjoyed a good fairy
tale. If I were asked today what the story is about, I suppose I’d give
the same answer everyone else does: It’s about a boy who doesn’t want
to grow up. But is that what it’s really about? It seems to have been
written by an attention-deficited adult for an audience of like-minded
hyperactive boys. But it’s a story I always wanted to like because,
well, I liked Tinkerbell, and as part of a dying breed, she needed me.
She needed me to believe in her, in Peter, and in a crazy story that
twists and turns in and out of nowhere (aka Neverland).
Why couldn’t I like the story of Peter Pan? Well, despite the
swash-buckling adventure; a hook-handed pirate with a fear of a hungry
crocodile; a boy-hero who saves a girl from a plank-walking plunge,
another from a kidnapping, and yet another from a poisoning and
extinction, I couldn’t like Peter. I couldn’t understand how he could be
loved by three different female characters, Tiger Lily, Tinkerbell, and
Wendy, and not respond to it, or even recognize it for that matter. He
couldn’t even comprehend the concept of a kiss until Wendy planted one
on him. While we are supposed to blame the lack of maternal love for
these qualities, Peter is so frustratingly emotionally detached that he
doesn’t even long for a mother the way the Lost Boys of Neverland do.
While Peter saves Tiger Lily from Captain Hook’s clutches, he does it
because it is the honorable and brave thing to do. He saves Tinkerbell
out of desperation for something…companionship perhaps…or just the fear
of the extinction of fairies. And Wendy, poor misguided Wendy! She goes
along for an adventure before she is forced to enter the grown-up
world, even though she’s aware that she’s wanted (or needed) as
mother-figure to soothe the maternally-deprived Lost Boys who populate
Peter’s world. Turns out Neverland is a place where boys can dream of
forever – and girls get to watch at arms length.
While I can now put into words why this story worked against my
childhood (and adult) sensibilities, it has not been as easy for me to
explain why generations of children remain enthralled – my six year old
son included. He was completely enamored by the performance we saw last
weekend at New York City’s New Victory Theater. If you’re familiar
with my previous children’s theater reviews, you will notice that I have
a huge affinity for the New Vic performances. I applaud their selection
of traveling shows and this one from Australia’s Belvoir Theatre is no
exception. It is understandable how this particular take on a classic
play came to life when you learn that this Sydney-based theater is
located inside an old tomato factory with a tiny stage in the corner.
Imagination is everything. Despite my mild disregard for this rather
nonsensical story, this troupe brings Peter Pan to life in a way that
would grab any child who has ever put on a play in his/her own bedroom.
I know the image of Mary Martin or Sandy Duncan singing and swinging
from the rafters is playing in your mind right now, but this show is
sweet and cool, not hokey. It is perhaps closer to what J.M. Barrie’s
original Edwardian play was meant to be – only updated to represent how
we live now in the 21st Century. There are no strings attached here –
just implied flight, in the form of jumping from a chest of drawers or
bunk bed because, after all, that’s what a kid would do. Unlike a big
Broadway performance with fancy sets and orchestras, this show takes
place in a child’s bedroom. Any musical numbers are performed on a
child’s drum set and the Jolly Roger is hoisted over blanket-covered
furniture stacked to resemble something akin to a pirate ship.
In this more modern take on the story, Peter, played by the rather
dashing Meyne Wyatt, does not have exaggerated points on his ears, or
curly-tipped shoes, and he doesn’t wear a Robin Hood-esque feathered
cap. This Peter looks more like a military recruit headed out for a
jog. He maintains the tough swagger and impish charm of Peter but
there’s nothing elf-like about him. While the children, Wendy, John and
Michael Darling and their stylish parents are portrayed in the way most
likely intended by the playwright, almost every actor doubles up their
roles throughout the show. Mr. Smee may appear as Mr. Smee one moment
and the next, with a change of his hat – poof – he’s a Lost Boy. Oddly
enough, Tinkerbell is primarily portrayed by one person but more often
she appears as just a flickering light. But despite her frequent lack of
physical portrayal, her presence and moodiness are evident throughout
the show.
For me, jaded adult that I am, my favorite character was Captain
Hook. Not because Hook is particularly interesting but because of the
actor, Charlie Garber, who portrayed him as a despondent and
under-employed Hamlet-wanna-be. He first appears in spotlight, center
aisle, toward the back of the orchestra section, holding a cup of tea in
his one good hand. When he speaks it’s with the air and accent of a
Shakespearean actor using old English prose that includes words like
“doth” and “ought.” He even delivers a monologue standing upon his faux
pirate ship when he is rudely interrupted by the bird call of his
nemesis. When he asks, “What is that sound?” My son shouted back,
“Peter Pan” to which the audience burst into laughter and applause. It
was not the first time Mr. Garber responded on stage to a child’s
reaction. He seemed to thrive on these moments, ad-libbing his way to
the next scene. Moments like these are testaments to any actor working
in children’s theater because they can rest assured that they’ve
captured their intended audience.
When my son called out the response to Captain Hook, it was also the
moment I realized just how engaged my son was with this show. I had
watched him out of the corner of my eye throughout the 85 minute, no
intermission performance and relished in every belly laugh, look of awe,
and vocal responses. But it was perhaps his undiminished focus and
indomitable belief in the adventure before his eyes that made me think
about my own emotional detachment from the story line. While my mind
wandered again and again, my son’s never strayed. He liked Peter – and
that’s all that really mattered.
Now I know the secret behind the undying fascination with Peter Pan:
It was written for children like my son who are not unlike Peter Pan
himself. It’s for children who long for adventures that don’t need to
make sense. Each twist takes you to a new thought and a new place – a
place that only children understand: where a kiss from a girl might be
gross; mothers are a necessity; a tough little fairy has the purest of
souls; bad guys get what they deserve in the end; children can fly away
from their parents and never grow up; and Neverland is a wonderland as
close as your bedroom door.
My usually fidgety, talkative,
easily-distracted,
son was glued to this rambling tale for a length of time my husband and
I don’t often get to see. His pure innocence, intense imagination,
love of adventure and a good story led to his unflinching concentration
last Sunday afternoon – and this was enough to have even me crying out
with utter conviction, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”
Peter Pan will continue at The New Victory Theater through Sunday,
October 13th. Tickets are available at the box office: 229 W. 42nd Street, in New York City and online.
Amy Wall Lerman is the Editor-in-Chief of the Motherhood Later ezine,
Baby Bloomer. Amy is an author and television news producer. She lives with her husband and son in West Orange, New Jersey.
- See more at: http://motherhoodlater.com/posts/i-believe-peter-pan-show-review/#sthash.2xDgqdVM.dpuf
