This Year's NBC Musical...- Page 5

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:19pm

The reason for a traditional female Peter goes back to the original James M. Barrie play in London. Barrie couldn't get any producers interested in the play until he approached one who had an aspiring actress for a girlfriend. He agreed to produce the play only if she starred as Peter. The show received mediocre reviews in London and had an equally mediocre run.

Barrie wouldn't give up. He came to the USA and Maude Adams became interested in it only after making several suggestions, among them using a spot of light to represent Tinkerbell (Adams was fascinated by stage lighting) and breaking down the 4th wall so that Peter could talk to the children in the audience. She also had some simple flying added as Peter and the Darling children flew out the window.

Maude Adams and Peter Pan became very successful and she toured in the show many times.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:23pm

If it's a male for Peter, then it would be fun to have a woman Hook. Bette Midler would be my choice. Could be fun.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:25pm

PETER PAN IS A WOMAN!

Maybe johhny weir can do it.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:32pm

Kristin Chenoweth is pretty much perfect for it. She even has the hair.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:33pm

Wrong.
The reason a female was originally chosen is because in 1904 English laws didn't allow minors onstage after 9pm, and moving the curtain time sooner would make it very inconvienent for the high-society theatre patrons buying tickets. Casting a female was out of necessity and nothing else. Children were allowed onstage for British pantomimes which were played earlier in the evening. Barrie wanted his play to be done as an adult play.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:54pm

I've read a couple of times on this board misinformation about the origins of PETER PAN and that Barrie always 'intended' the role to be played by a boy, etc. To set the record straight, that is simply not true.

Perhaps people are confusing Barrie's relationship with Michael Llewyn Davies - the inspiration for Peter Pan as he first briefly appears in a novel that predates the play called THE LITTLE WHITE BIRD with the idea that Barrie actually wanted a boy to play the role on stage, but its not so.

Barrie wrote the play specifically for American actress Maude Adams who had become a Broadway star in 1897 with the adaptation of his novel THE LITTLE MINISTER. It was the decision of Charles Frohamn (who produced the original production of PETER PAN in both London and New York) to premiere the show in London first, which meant that British actress Nina Boucicault became the first Peter Pan. For the record, Dollypop, Frohamn produced THE LITTLE MINISTER and all of Barrie's works and agreed to produce PETER PAN before even reading it. Barrie never 'shopped' the property to other producers.

But make no doubt about it, the play was written for Maude Adams, and the correspondence that exists between she and Barrie stemming back to early 1904 and Barrie's earliest ideas for the play as he was crafting it for her have been published in many sources.

Adams never made a film, but despite retiring from the stage in 1916 had been very keen to star in a film version of PETER PAN and invested huge amounts of her personal money into the development of lighting and early color film techniques, which when she failed to obtain a patent on them, were promptly stolen by GE Electric.

Barrie DID briefly mention in 1921 at the time of penning an unused screenplay of PETER PAN that he loved the idea of Charlie Chaplin playing Peter on film - but by 1924 when the film was actually made he reverted to insisting the role be played by a woman.

In short -- Barrie never wrote or expressed interest for the play to be performed with a boy in the title role. It was simply a convention of the time that all boys roles on stage were played by women and that was what was in his head when he wrote the play specifically as a star vehicle for Maude Adams. Even when they were child roles played by actual children - and there were many children acting on stage in 1900 in London -- boys roles such as Little Lord Fauntleroy (a hugely popular stage play in the late 19th century) were always taken by females. Barrie never would have thought twice about it.

Ironically, in the first draft of PETER PAN, Captain Hook was a woman. Not a lie.



Updated On: 1/19/14 at 08:54 PM

[justoldbill]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:56pm

Kristin Chenoweth in close-up? Smee, perhaps....

Updated On: 1/19/14 at 08:56 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 8:57pm

First of all, you lifted that word-for-word from some person's response in a Yahoo Answers forum: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070621162958AAb6z7d

That's embarrassing and illegal enough. But beyond that, the REAL answer has nothing to do with labor laws. It all has to do with the kernel of inspiration from what's known as the "principal boy" in traditional pantomime theatre. I would encourage you to locate a copy of the Midsummer Magazine profile from 2000 that explains in greater detail (can't find it online).

ETA: my post was to South Fl Updated On: 1/19/14 at 08:57 PM

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:15pm

Liza, THE SOUND OF MUSIC LIVE was as popular as it was because of the wide appeal of its star and the fact that THE SOUND OF MUSIC is almost universally known in America.

PETER PAN (at least this version) is nowhere near that popular to "Middle Americans." They'll also likely have trouble finding a male star with the same wide appeal that is willing to play Peter Pan.

Updated On: 1/19/14 at 09:15 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:19pm

Smee? Just shut up, she's amazing.


Updated On: 1/19/14 at 09:19 PM

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:23pm

Now that it's been announced I think I can share some info...

It was going to be Rodger and Hammerstein's "Cinderella" but....when they couldn't get the schedule to work for Mary J Blige to play the Fairy Godmother they had to move on.

Updated On: 1/19/14 at 09:23 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:29pm

"PETER PAN (at least this version) is nowhere near that popular to "Middle Americans." They'll also likely have trouble finding a male star with the same wide appeal that is willing to play Peter Pan. "

I could not disagree more on every point made here. Time will tell, I guess. Numbers don't lie.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:33pm

I think everyone is second guessing the popularity of the property. Many more people are familiar with this staging then you'd think. Like Sound of Music, this is another staple production that gets done in every middle America theatre. Not to mention how popular the source material is. I'm more interested to see if they will recreate Jerome Robbins iconic staging or if they'll go the more modern route. I wouldn't be surprised if Cathy Rigby served as a co-executive producer.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:39pm

I am a regular visitor to the Maude Adams House here on Long Island. I stayed there overnight only a few weeks ago and based my comments in this thread on some of the information I have gained by thumbing through books that are in the library there. At this point I couldn't tell you what information I got from which book, but they are the source of my post.

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:49pm

I never said it wasn't popular, just that it isn't as popular as the phenomenally popular SOUND OF MUSIC. I suppose it is true that the familiarity with Peter Pan in general, as opposed to this particular musical version, may actually bring in a lot of ratings.

I guess I am a little biased, not being very fond of the property personally. There were other far less likely things I would have been more excited about.

[degrassifan]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 9:52pm

It was going to be Rodger and Hammerstein's "Cinderella" but....when they couldn't get the schedule to work for Mary J Blige to play the Fairy Godmother they had to move on.

WHATTT?!?! That would have been perfect! Maybe it'll work out next year, depending if Peter Pan is successful.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think this version of Peter Pan is well-known among the younger generation. When Peter Pan is mentioned, I think most people would think about the Disney movie first. This is the same population that had no idea Sound of Music was a play before a movie, and that show is one of the most performed musicals in schools and community theaters. I don't even think most people know Peter Pan was actually a play before it became a Disney film. I remember an instance when classmates were shocked to find out Disney's The Little Mermaid was based on a fairy tale.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:08pm

"Peter Pan" as a story and a character is very well known by Middle America ... mostly because of the Disney movie and various storybook adaptations. And quite a few do know it from the many Cathy Rigby tours, and if they're old enough, even from the Mary Martin telecasts. And also from the recent live action film, and even from "Hook."

But most people who know Peter Pan, don't know it from the original play or the stage musical adaptation. They would be stunned to see a woman in the role, and they also don't know any of the songs. There's no blockbuster film version of it to orient them, and none of the songs became standards, with the possible exception of "I Won't Grow Up," which has been used as a commercial jingle several times in the past.

So they base their familiarity on the character and the basic story. That will get them to tune in. And they know it's "good and fun for children."

But the producers are smart in not casting a grown woman as Peter. Middle America today (meaning the 35-year-olds with kids) would freak out and very likely turn it off. Casting a young man (early teenager) who is popular with the tweens would be the best answer.

Also, they have got to do something about the portrayal of the Indians and the horrific song Uga-Wug. NBC will be raked across the coals otherwise from angry viewers ... and rightfully so, I might add.

I love the old Mickey & Judy movies, but if you tried to stage one today, you would have to cut their minstrel numbers. Period. They won't work. The same is true for the cartoon/stereotypical Indians in Peter Pan. They need an overhauling.

And I hope they find a way to make the flying look cool on live TV, and not like a group of puppets, swinging back and forth inside a black box with stars stuck on it.

EDIT: And I guarantee you a good chunk of viewers are going to wonder why "You Can Fly" and "The Second Star to the Right," etc., aren't in the telecast.

Updated On: 1/19/14 at 10:08 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:20pm

Besty, I have to imagine that "Uga Wug" is a song that could go on the chopping block. That's one song I could never stomach.. Not because it's politically incorrect, but just because it felt so pointless to me. Though I understand it fleshes out Tiger Lily and better familiarizes us with the Indians. Still, the song could be easily replaced with a brief book scene.

[justincharacter]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:27pm

I wonder if NBC offered Captain Hook to Richard Sherman yet...

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:28pm

They could even keep the dance section of it. But the lyrics either have to be cut or changed. And so do a lot of the Indian scenes, dialog, and dialect.

They don't have to make it "authentic" like Dances With Wolves, but they can't make it a red-skinned minstrel show, either.

I wish them luck with that.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:32pm

I almost didn't get what you meant, justincharacter, but then I realized it was a sports reference. There's a more prominant Richard Sherman around these parts, y'know. :)

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:33pm

I thought Patti Columbo's authentic interpretation of Ugga Wug was spot on. But I could see it easily cut for the broadcast. I wonder if they'll do mysterious lady or marooners rock?

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:39pm

You know who might be good is Daniel Huttlestone, soon to play Jack in Into the Woods. They would both be out around the same time ... but I don't think Daniel is a big enough name to get people to tune in.

The only way that would work is if Hook is a huge TV draw all by himself.

Updated On: 1/19/14 at 10:39 PM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 10:47pm

You mean Hugh Jackman.

[Jingjo2]

Posted: 1/19/14 at 11:45pm

Can't wait to see all ya'll faces when they announce Justin Bieber will be playing Peter Pan....