Peter Pan: Constructions of Childhood and Adulthood - Case Study Example

TMA 03 Option 2: Peter Pan Constructions of childhood and adulthood, boyhood and girlhood, inevitably change over the years. A book like J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan has been a pioneering text in establishing these notions. But the way they have been interpreted and absorbed by the readers have changed in many dramatic and subtle ways. Comparing the 1904 play text with the recent 2003 film adaptation may prove a rewarding exercise in studying some of these changes. I shall begin by trying to elaborate on these constructions in the original text, and later compare them on the same counts with the movie. Peter Pan; or the Boy who Wouldn’t Grow Up, when first staged in 1904, was received with almost unanimous enthusiasm. The critics though appreciative were ‘a little cautious and puzzled’ (Watson, 2009, p. 143); and not surprisingly so. Peter Pan was no ordinary children’s tale. With its queer mixture of childlike fantasy and very adult dark humour, even the first, spectacular viewing of the play must have hinted at the layers of subliminal messages it contained. Peter Pan evidently deserved further penetration. The Peter Pan myth, as indeed it grew to become, has been interpreted with various perspectives. The Spectacle used in the play, the psychological character of Peter and Wendy’s relationship, the biographical link to Barrie’s own experiences with the Llewellyn Davies boys – have all been scrutinised and commented upon. But the most prominent observation the play seems to make, and Barrie through it, is on the divide separating children and grown-ups. What does Peter Pan say about childhood and adulthood? Or to divide it further, on girlhood and boyhood? Does this commentary hold ground a hundred years after its inception? In what ways have its interpretations changed? Children are known (and often rebuked) for asking too many questions: what better way to begin such an exploration than to try and answer these? Barrie’s treatment of adult males in his play might be a good place to begin. Neither of the two significant men characters, Mr. Darling and Captain Hook, is portrayed charitably. Mr. Darling has the trappings of a characteristic patriarchal head, but that is all. He holds no real authority, either at the workplace ‘where he sits on a stool all day, as fixed as a postage stamp’ (Barrie, 2008 [1904], Act I) or at home; as is evident in the scene about the medicine between him and Michael in Act I. Without being too simplistic, one can sum up Mr. Darling as a fussy man, too anxious about social propriety and not very popular with his own children. Mrs. Darling seems to be the only person sympathetic to his failings, a point to be taken up in the next section. Captain Hook is slightly more attractive, if only by virtue of being Peter Pan’s arch enemy. But he has a lot more in common with Mr. Darling than just owning a thesaurus (ibid., Act I and IV). Like Mr. Darling’s dealing with Nana, Hook is unfair in his fights: He breaks ‘laws of Indian warfare’ and is also not above stealthily attacking an unarmed boy (ibid., Act IV). Hook’s speeches and mannerism are also a little too grandiloquent, like Mr. Darling’s, and both are satirized by Barrie. For instance, Hook’s first description in Act I include: ‘In dress he apes the dandiacal associated with Charles II’ and ‘This courtliness impresses even his victims on the high seas, who note that he always says Sorry when prodding them along the flank.’ However, Barrie’s most brutal satire is reserved for Mr. Darling who at the end of the play is determined to be a dog in an attempt to make up for his earlier mistake. He is described again as ‘the kind of man who whatever he does contritely he must do to excess; otherwise he soon abandons doing it’ (ibid., Act V, Scene 2). The two men as representations of male adulthood or even fatherhood fail to arouse unanimous admiration or respect. They are clearly not meant to be infallible. What about women? It is through Mrs. Darling, and later through Wendy, that one can most easily study Barrie’s construction of ‘motherhood.’ Mrs. Darling is unceasingly sympathetic to everyone around her. She is an efficient wife, mother and homemaker: a fact which makes Michael remark, ‘Mother, I’m glad of you’ in Act I. But for all her perfection, Mrs. Darling is strictly domestic. Barrie does not in any way pre-empt the New Woman, a figure that grew increasingly popular with Victorian fiction, often marked by her career. Wendy replicates her mother’s behaviour with the Lost Boys. Most of her time is spent darning their socks, telling them stories and taking their ‘pretend meals’ and boundless energy bravely, one might say ‘manfully’. The quiet resignation with which she submits to the role of being their mother is best exemplified in this exchange in Act II: OMNES: That doesnt matter. What we need is just a nice motherly person. WENDY: Oh dear, I feel that is just exactly what I am. OMNES: It is, it is, we saw it at once. WENDY: Very well then, I will do my best. Barrie’s depiction of the mother then is essentially a gentle-hearted, consoling, almost martyr-like woman. It is interesting to note here how often Wendy is referred to as ‘The Wendy’ in Neverland – she seems to have become the very concept of motherhood embodied, once the task lands itself upon her young shoulders. The girl child’s readiness to assume motherhood is also a significant presence in the subtext of Peter Pan. Contrasting opinions on girls can be noted in two instances. In the opening nursery scene where Wendy and John are pretending to be Mr. and Mrs. Darling, Michael repeatedly derides the feminine gender, altogether. When Wendy declares she does not care about the child’s sex, he says: ‘That is just the difference between gentlemen and ladies’ (ibid., Act I); he also expresses his pleasure at having a boy child and disappointment at having a girl. Wendy, for her part, clearly disagrees and protests. In fact, Peter wins Wendy over by expressing the opposite sentiment – ‘one girl is worth more than twenty boys’ he tells her (ibid., Act I). Although one suspects, he is being more cunning than honest. It is clear however, that even though the boy of the family (John) may consider girls to be inferior, the Lost Boys take them to be a rarer, finer breed. JOHN: (feeling that there must be some mistake here) For Wendy? Why, she is only a girl. CURLY: That is why we are her servants. (Ibid., Act II) And finally, let us look at representations of ‘boyhood’ in the text. In the reason that manhood cannot be considered the inevitable result of boyhood in Peter Pan, lies the very essence of the story. Peter Pan is because he refuses to grow up; an interesting contrast to the girl-woman relationship mentioned above. This may also explain the disagreeable characterization of the men. Peter Hollindale notes that Barrie himself never entirely matured, sexually or physically (Hollindale, 2008, p. 153). The idea of not growing up therefore was not completely alien to the author. Boys in Neverland are also characterized by their boisterousness and inability to take care of themselves. The word ‘obstreperous’ is used twice to describe the boys’ behaviour: In Michael’s opening words and when Wendy agrees to be mother to the Lost Boys (Barrie, 2008 [1904], Act I and Act II). ‘But he does so need a mother’ can be said of each of them. But they are also chivalrous in their own way. Instances include the building of a house around Wendy as it was not ‘respectful’ to touch her; Peter risking his own life to save Wendy on the Marooner’s Rock and so on. Now that our footing is surer, we can proceed to comparing how the 2003 movie adheres to or changes these constructions. One of the first noticeable differences, one that Peter Hollindale praises in his essay, is the relationship between Wendy and Peter, which is distinctly more sexual. The 21st century pre-teen need no longer veil his or her attraction to the opposite sex, and the director, P. J. Hogan, incorporates in his movie, this change in socially-sanctioned relationships. Wendy does not want to be just Peter’s mother and Peter too is more troubled by what he feels for Wendy. His anxious ‘It is only pretend, isnt it?’ is more urgent in the latter version. The conflict is one that all adolescents face. Wendy is comfortable with the change, but Peter who denies the very existence of anything beyond childhood, obviously finds it more confusing. Hook finalises the fact when he declares that Peter does in fact care about ‘his Wendy’ and uses her to trap Peter. None of Barrie’s characters are so vocal in their certainty about his feelings for her. Wendy’s ‘readiness’ for womanhood, that we spoke about in the 1904 text, is absent at the beginning of the movie. The scene where Aunt Millicent appraises Wendy as a ‘woman’ is one that the children find amusing. Wendy is horrified to hear her Aunt suggest that she now spend less time with the boys, and have her own room. Her willingness to become a woman is brought on by her attraction to Peter Pan, something that is not highlighted quite so forcefully in the play. The girl child in this version is also more assertive. Not only does Wendy carry out duels with her brothers and Peter, she even joins Captain Hook’s crew for a while as ‘Red-Handed Jill’, something that none of her male companions could do. The idea of the mother remains more or less the same, except that in the film Mrs. Darling’s value in Mr. Darling’s office relations too is shown. A slight but interesting change is also seen in Liza the maid being replaced by Aunt Millicent. In the end when she adopts Slightly, her jubilation at having a son is made more significant, and poignant, by the audience’s realization that she probably would have been unable to have one of her own. Let us now revisit Mr. Darling and Captain Hook or the notion of ‘manhood’. It is quite significant that the same actor, Jason Isaacs, plays both these characters. The link between the two is made clearer. However, P. J. Hogan does away with some of the ridicule of the father. The scene of the medicine, and the final transformation into the dog, are both absent in the movie. To recall the ending of the 1953 Disney adaptation, one that acts as an interesting watershed between these two versions, Mr. Darling was re-instated as the head of the household. The movie ends with him being surrounded lovingly by his family (DVD 1, No. 12), something that the 2003 movie also maintains. Barrie’s distaste for Mr. Darling is no longer relevant in the newer versions. Hogan’s Mr. Darling is also priggish and fastidious, but shown in a more generous light; best exemplified in Mrs. Darling’s speech to her children about her ‘brave’ father before leaving for the party. Captain Hook’s relationship with Peter Pan is as significant as Wendy’s. Hook’s guile and all-round ‘villainy’ is heightened in the film. He judges quite accurately that Peter is perhaps in love with Wendy without knowing it. Hook is also allowed to fly in the movie, though not for long. His demise is brought on by the rather tragic repetition of ‘Old. Alone. Done For’ which is in striking contrast to the other verbal affirmation in the film ‘I do believe in Fairies. I do, I do.’ The children’s repeated incantations that cause Tinker Bell to get better and Hook to die, were perhaps the only way the Belief of children, that Barrie attributed so much power to, could be adapted to film. Returning to Hook’s relationship with Peter in the movie, one does not see much difference from the play; except perhaps the Old vs. Young dichotomy, which is given much more significance. Boyhood as we have mentioned, is rendered more complicated as the new Peter Pan is more aware of his attraction and Wendy is more forthcoming about hers. John is no longer the chauvinist of the 1904 text. In fact he joins his brother in listening to and watching Wendy act out stories about pirates. The unkemptness of the boys and their need for a mother are, unavoidably, retained. In conclusion, one may say that comparisons between the 1904 text and the 2003 film reveal that childhood has grown slightly ‘older’; adulthood is slightly less distasteful; and girls and boys are no longer seen as distinct as they used to be. One might not agree completely with Hollindale’s assertion that Hogan’s movie is ‘closer to Barrie than Barrie’s own play’ (Hollindale, 2009, p. 160) but it is true that the movie does indeed admirably incorporate several significant changes in social constructs of ‘boy – girl’ and ‘child – adult’ without changing the essence of the story. (2, 169 words) References: Barrie, J. M., (2008 [1904]) Peter Pan and Other Plays. Oxford, Oxford English Drama. Hollindale, Peter (2008 [2005]) ‘A Hundred Years of Peter Pan’, in Maybin, J & Watson, N J (eds) (2009) Children’s Literature: Approaches and Territories, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. ? Maybin, J & Watson, N J (eds) (2009) Children’s Literature: Approaches and Territories, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Watson, Nicola J (2008) ‘J. M. Barrie, Peter Pan (1904) in Maybin, J & Watson, N J (eds) (2009) Children’s Literature: Approaches and Territories, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 141- Read More