NBC's Peter Pan Live Review!

   I have mixed feelings about the ABC Live Musicals. (Please take note, I have not seen its Sound of Music). On one hand, they are getting musicals back into mainstream culture, sparkling an interest in musicals into the next generation, and giving families something fun to watch on television together. But on the other hand, from what I have heard about from the Sound of Music live…They can be pretty overblown copies that add “cool” millennial crap.
  Enter Peter Pan Live.
 

  Though I was extremely skeptical at first about it,  it is surprisingly better than I thought. It has its problems, oh yes it does, but there is charm and entertainment, as well as actual effort. There is a pretty decent cast with all of the right acting, singing, and dancing chops. Leave all Heterosexuality you had at the door and enjoy it.
  Allison Williams presents Peter rather than becomes him. I never believed she was Pan, but she had the right look and movements, and her singing voice is surprisingly beautiful and the one moment I believed her was Tinkbell’s almost death. Wendy was also quite “stagey” believable rather than screen believable. If this had been done onstage, it would be considered a better performance, but this is on a screen instead. Depite this, her overdone dreaminess was oddly suitable and good night, her singing, as warbly as it can be, is beautiful. Tiger Lily, though a small character, is also very talented with her dancing and acting (and played by an actual Native American, with people of color playing her Indian tribe, and a Native American cultural expert among the crew to boot!). Celia Keenan-Bolger was a beautiful Mrs. Darling and had one of the most beautiful singing voices I have heard in a long, long time. Christian Borle made a pretty good Mr.Darling/Smee as well (what Peter Pan has Smee so young and muscular?!)
   The ensemble cast is very charming. Though it is extremely noticeable that half of the lost boys are Newsies in both their choreography and lline delivery, it somewhat fits. Yes, you can see that they are far past the age of little boyhood, but just something about them is funny and sweet. They act very much like little boys, and you can leave it up to your own interpretation what it says about young adult men singing about not wanting to grow up and wanting a mother while stroking phallic looking trees.
   

  The dancing is incredible. Since Neverland is a paradise of youth, the choreography grabs this chance and uses all sorts of athletic and acrobatic kicks and flips celebrating that youth and energy. The pirates are hilarious. Every time I see them on screen (onstage?) they crack me up. Alright, time to be honest, I was not a huge fan of Cristopher Walken as Captain Hook. Looking at this performance, not keeping Walken’s persona in Hollywood as the awkward, funny alien man in mind, he was not into it. I guess part of the humor is that he is not into it, but doesn’t really care what you think of him. But, Captain Hook should be a really over-the-top, comic villain. There was so much he could do with it, and although his dancing was right on the money, his weird deliveries and blank face just did not seem right, especially in an ensemble full of over-the-top pirates. I am sorry, I understand that he is considered one of the most “badass” men around, but, watching this one show, I just don’t get it. However, I did enjoy him throughout the last 40 minutes of the show. He was at his least awkard and showed some actual investment in his character. In fact, though the climax drags, it is still a fun climax (props to involving Tiger Lily and Wendy in the fighting too!)
    Neverland itself is unique. Although most interpretations emphasize it as an island, this one makes it look bright, colorful, and downright surreal to emphasize it as a magical place. I don’t think I have ever seen a Neverland look quite like it, with bright pinks and blues. It made Neverland more magical and childlike than other versions, and it works. It is supposed to be this magical, wonderful place where you never grow up or have to face the many pressures and responsibilities of adulthood, and this looks like what it should be rather than some hot, dirty island. 
 

 
   The songs are okay by themselves, but here are well performed. Though there are a few that are just right. There are your more childlike, up tempo songs that are fun and playful, “I’m Flying”, “I Won’t Grow up” and “Wendy.” But what was really done well in this production were the slower, beautiful ballads. Those being “Neverland”, and “Distant Melody”. They were soft, powerful in their own way, and with beautiful melodies, gorgeous singing, and the right amount of emotion, my ears wept happy tears of joy. My only problem with “Distant Melody” is that, although sung exquisitely, it makes less sense for Wendy to sing it as opposed to Peter, since it is made clear she can still remember her home. The whole subplot of the children forgetting about home could have been explained a lot more, but this chance was thrown away.
    Despite this, the writing was highly suitable as an adaption for the televised production. The songs fit right when they needed to, and it added the right balance of fun adventure and quiet wonder, even with the plays original dialogue, which ranges from stiff and awkward to memorable and strangely poetic. The ending of this version, is at first incredibly dark. Most versions end with the boys being adopted and Wendy looking out the window with the promise of Peters return. However, in this version it is expanded. It faces the  reality of growing up, and that once one is grown up, though they will always keep the memory, legends, and wonder of Neverland they can never return. Though, a new generation will be born, and that generation will experience the wonder and adventure until they grow up, and get to visit Neverland and have adventures all over again. 
     Despite the many flaws of this production, the natural charm of the original tale is everywhere, and told with actual effort. As long as people still love the story of Peter Pan, it will be treasured generation after generation. This telling, though it may be temporary and fade with a new movie or book adaption, will be no exception.
    

Oliver! (1968) Film Review

   People of the internet, welcome to Dickensworld!
    Dickensworld is a magical, fascinating place. You will find yourself in England, especially in London, from the period of 1820-1865. Be sure to take note that all the poor people are poor because they have visible rags, dirt all over their face, are super skinny, and have big, puppy dog eyes, cementing every Conservative’s idea of what a poor person looks like. This social commentary will be almost everywhere. It’s filled with interesting characters weather they are pure, sweet angels, eccentrics, or Lucifer incarnate. Oh, and keep an eye out on that one old guy, he is probably your long lost grandfather/dad/uncle/brother/cousin/whatever.
    Dickens is a goldmine for entertainment. So naturally, his works have been adapted into various forms. As for Musical Theatre adaptations, the most famous and done one is Oliver, and this Film adaptation of that show is very well known, and won several Academy Awards, including Best Picture (!). It is also the strongest Musical Theatre piece out of the very small handful, though Oliver! still has its issues.
 

    Let’s begin with the performances. Though the characters are not especially complex, and the performances can be a little theatrical at times (I’m looking at you, Nancy, Dodger, and especialy Bumble), they are for the most part, quite believable and enjoyable. The kids especially seem like actual kids. It would be easy for Oliver to be played off as the Tiny Tim innocent, but he manages to play it like an actual kid and not a complete goody two-shoes angel. In fact, Mark Lester even adds a pinch of brave, almost stupid spunk to the role. His Oliver is just a nice kid who has had many bad things happen to him and just wants not only survival, but happiness. However, the singing dub sounds too pure, too sweet, and too different from the actual Oliver. According to IMDB, Mark Lester was tone deaf so they had someone else do it, the music arranger’s daughter! But they didn't manage to get someone who could sing it with a more believable sound, or even a boy. As a result, the voice is incredibly distracting from the performance.
    The best performer is definitely Bill Sykes. Again, he is a simple character and it would be easy to go really over the top with his character, but Oliver Reed’s performance is more quiet, and menacing. The Director made the wise choice of cutting his song out, so as a result, he remains more mysterious, making him less connected to the audience, and therefore, more threatening. Though some of his lines are said in a strange way (“you avaricious.old.skeleton.”), he manages to pull off such a level of power with his minimalist body movement and delivery that it will make you gasp out loud when Oliver braves up to hit him right in the face. In fact, you think it’s a miracle he does not strangle Oliver and just intends to spank him! As for Fagin, it can be hard to play this character. Since he is a Jewish person (in fact, the original book refers to him as “The Jew” way more than “Fagin”) and it can be easy (especially with some of the musical choices surrounding him) to make him an uncomfortable stereotype. But Ron Moody makes Fagin likable and they even give him a few more rounded characteristics, a sense of humor, an entertaining physicality, and a constant internal conflict so, in song of course, he can justify his own actions. They make him a likable and important character. He is less of a “villain” and more of a comic supporting character whose worst crime is some thievery and mischief and may just so happen to be Jewish.
    The film is aware that it is a film and takes advantage of it. The size and scale is huge. London is huge. You will be amazed at the films scope. It is aware not only of the musical, but of the original book and makes the needed cuts and extra bits necessary. So we see they trail, but no over complicated sub plots or dopey eyed, perfect ingénues. This makes sense considering that London at this period was the biggest city in the world, and that our hopeful protagonist makes his way there to be plunged into this ocean of pure life and stand in awe of the amount of life in this historically large city. The Camera choices were all quite adequate to the needs of each scene as well. Though it wasn't as good or groundbreaking as it was in other film musicals like Cabaret, it is pretty darn good. It scoop away to show the big dance numbers, it cuts to birds flying to get a sense of Oliver’s thoughts when he sings about being a bird in flight, it zooms in on some detail we have to catch, and so forth. The Director also chooses not to prettify the story in its look or content, and this is a dark story with many dark elements, especially in the second act. In fact, the dark moments are so dark they overpower the more lighthearted moments of the second act. But you can’t make this story too light either, because then that would actually be pretty insulting to the story’s intent. Though it is a classic musical, like Fiddler and West Side Story there is a much appreciated edge.
 

    The dancing is of course, fun to watch, though nothing too groundbreaking, using acrobatic kicks for the young pickpockets; making their thievery a kind of dance during “You've Got to pick a Pocket”, and having them be a pretend carriage during “I’d do Anything.” The production numbers has people on the street run around and do big, grand, sweeping motions. But the music- the music is as catchy as heck. It can range from diddles (“Reviewing the Situation”), to folkish ballads and dances (“Who Will Buy” and “Oom-pah-pah”), to big ensemble numbers (“Consider Yourself”). But though the music and lyrics are childish at points (I’m looking at you, “Oliver”, but at least you introduce our protagonist), it will be in your head forever. But unlike some other catchy songs out there, you won’t mind at all. However, its second most famous song, “As Long as He Needs Me”, is pretty disturbing in context. It is a good song, and it shows off the belt of Shani Wallace’s Nancy very well, but it basically a ballad glorifying staying in an abusive relationship as something brave, noble, and romantic. Maybe if they placed it earlier and not right after Bill Sykes physically slaps Nancy into doing something for him, it would be less uncomfortable, especially if you know how it ends (I won’t spoil this, but here’s a hint: not well. Please don’t show this musical to your eight year old).
 

    There are a good amount of holes in the film, too. Although it adapts well into the format of film, it does not take the advantage to expand or give any more needed information. So as a result, Nancy and Bill’s relationship is one sided. It is the typical one where the female says “Oh, I will love you and follow you to the ends of the world!” and they guy just goes “Whatever.” Also, Nancy is under the “Bring Him Home” syndrome in that she is oddly devoted to Oliver after barely even talking to him. Does he remind her of a relative or a friend? Is she just an insanely caring person? If so, then why isn't she as devoted to the other pickpockets? Additionally, the ending, after one suspenseful climax, is pretty rushed, and, not to spoil anything, there are some predictable Dickenesque tropes in here as well.
    Oliver! is a turkey. There are parts of it that are overcooked, skimpy, too light or even a little too dark, but there are some juicy, enjoyable bites to eat too. It is an interesting, exciting story (which is why it is still being read, staged, and adapted to this day), the characters are memorable and the performances are enjoyable and believable, it is faithful to both the musical and the original book, the dancing is fun, the music is memorable, and though it is a classic, there is a much appreciated darker side. If that is what you like in a film or musical, go check it out and see if for yourself.