Peter Pan (1953)

Having not seen Peter Pan (1953) in several years, it was pretty cool seeing it again. It was among my childhood favorites, and the years have not changed that. That's not to say that I didn't notice new things this time around. For instance, I had forgotten the extent of Peter's conceit. It's not until the tender moment with Tink in the tree (a moment that makes me cry every time) that Peter's shell of bravado is cracked. For the most part, I found him a much less desirable person to spend a day with than I had previously thought. Still, his aerial acrobatics and cockiness provide entertainment where Wendy tries to hold back the fun with her practical wisdom.

Another thing that stood out to me as an adult was the portrayal of the "red men."  Never as a child did I think for an instant that the Native Americans in Peter Pan were a reflection of real native peoples.  I honestly don't think any man, woman, or child could make that mistake; for one thing, they are distorted almost beyond recognition.  The cartoons are misshapen, and two of them in particular--one being the chief, himself--are ugly, with horrid, gravelly bass voices. Their movements are also very cartoony, their combined word choice and sign language stereotypical to the max, and of course the song, "What Makes the Red Man Red?" is decades out of fashion if you're a follower of PC trends.  Tiger Lily is the only "humanized" one, and she makes for an awesome character despite her small role.

BUT in the movie's defense I will say this: as I see it, the inhabitants of Neverland are not meant to be real people. They are intended to be the creations of young turn-of-the-century children's imaginations come to life, and for THAT reason and that reason alone I am able to accept this portrayal. I know that no tribe of Native Americans was ever like that. You know that no tribe of Native Americans was ever like that. But did little English boys and girls in the early 1900s? Probably not. I know there will be people who disagree on this matter, but I've tried to explain my opinion as best I can.

Moving on...

This is a movie of slapstick humor. Mr. Smee and Captain Hook are a great comic duo.  The Captain himself is quite (unintentionally) comical for a villain.  He pops in and out of the crocodile's mouth like a jack-in-the-box and he even engages in a bit of Looney Tunes-style physics.  Overall, he is among the most hapless Disney villains, being foiled by Peter nine times out of ten and having a phobia of ticking clocks so strong that his mustache actually twitches in time.

Once again we get our bitchy characters, this time in the form of the jealous mermaids. Not super important. Nor are the Lost Boys, really. They're just a mob of boys in weird animal suits. Which reminds me... what's the deal with Nana?  A dog (with eyebrows) that acts as a nanny? I'd ask Mr. Barrie, but unfortunately he's dead. A few other things that I never really got: the "I'm a codfish" joke, how the seagull gets its butt shaved without noticing, and (until this time) Mr. Darling's need for cuff links and his weird shirt front thing.

What else...... oh yeah, the music!  The orchestral theme to Peter Pan is one that I have always been able to recall at will just as most people know the Star Wars or James Bond themes by heart. Of course there's the iconic "You Can Fly!" and "Following the Leader," and the orchestral "Never Smile at a Crocodile" and the pirates seem to like singing... the other songs are more forgettable.

I think that about covers it.  I enjoyed Peter Pan as a child and I still enjoy it today.