Page: 1

Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004 --

CapnHook Profile PhotoCapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
Broadway Legend
joined:5/12/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/12/03
I am interested in hearing your thoughts about Cathy playing Pan once more for the 100th Anniversary tour.

Do you think the show will make it to Broadway? Should it?
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
Updated On: 7/20/03 at 01:28 PM
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
I am sick of Rigby in the role. I want someone new. She is good as Peter Pan -- but ...it's just over kill. Not to mention how it is always a low budget show when she does it.
squiggy
Swing
joined:7/20/03
Swing
joined:
7/20/03
Is Seussical done?
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
the tour ends this year and a non-equity company goes out after.
BrdwyThtr Profile PhotoBrdwyThtr Profile Photo
BrdwyThtr
Broadway Legend
joined:5/14/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/14/03
Peter Pan does not need to go to Broadway. It was just there in '99.
CapnHook Profile PhotoCapnHook Profile Photo
CapnHook
Broadway Legend
joined:5/12/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/12/03
A SEUSSICAL tour is still going on, but not with Cathy. Her Seuss adventure ended a few weeks or so ago. The tour was 2000% better than the Broadway production, they really cleaned it up!.. and then some!

CATS, RENT, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, etc. have all been on Broadway longer than PETER PAN's last run. To say it was "just on Broadway" isn't right. The show might of lasted the past few years. But it didn't.

My thinking is that this will be Cathy Rigby's final production of PETER PAN. The tour is to celebrate the 100th Anniversary, and if she were to bring it to Broadway, it would also commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Mary Martin production. I think having Cathy do it is a good choice, she masters the role, and she is the best flier. Getting someone new risks losing the magic. However, someone new is not too far away.

Now I understand she has played the role off and on the past decade, and I can understand why you would think this is "overkill." I still thinks she deserves to do it again. If she leaves, she needs to go out with a SHABANG!
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
BillyLawlor Profile PhotoBillyLawlor Profile Photo
BillyLawlor
Broadway Legend
joined:5/15/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/15/03
I don't want it to go to Broadway. It was just there. It was a good show, and had a good run. Let's leave it at that. I think the tour is unneeded, too.
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
She doesn't "deserve" to play it at all.
BwayTheatre11
Broadway Legend
joined:6/25/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/25/03
I never did like Peter Pan. It always had scared me! Don't ask me why!
CCM '10!
BrdwyThtr Profile PhotoBrdwyThtr Profile Photo
BrdwyThtr
Broadway Legend
joined:5/14/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/14/03
I saw her in the tour. Very good performance. I don't think she needs to do it again.
SueleenGay Profile PhotoSueleenGay Profile Photo
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend
joined:6/9/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/9/03
Did Clay Aiken turn it down?
PEACE.
luluhed Profile Photoluluhed Profile Photo
luluhed
Featured Actor
joined:5/15/03
Featured Actor
joined:
5/15/03
I love the idea of Clay playing Peter, good suggestion!
FrontRow
Stand-by
joined:5/16/03
Stand-by
joined:
5/16/03
Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#12
Posted: 7/21/03 at 10:12pm
I think it's damn well time a young man played Peter, not a middle-aged woman!!!

Clay from AI, not a bad idea, but I'm sure there are -- and always have been -- plenty of guys in the current Bway musical talent pool who could do the part.

I don't even find Mary Martin convincing when I've watched the old TV version. I don't know who decided this part should be played by a female, and why everyone's stuck with it all these years, but the most ridiculous thing is that females are always so freaking old. He's the boy who won't grow up, darnit!!


(Sorry, but this is something that's bugged me for a while)
BrdwyThtr Profile PhotoBrdwyThtr Profile Photo
BrdwyThtr
Broadway Legend
joined:5/14/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/14/03
re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#13
Posted: 7/21/03 at 10:14pm
I never got that it was a woman either. You can TELL it's a woman. At least make it believable!
PJ
Broadway Legend
joined:5/15/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/15/03
re: re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#14
Posted: 7/21/03 at 10:33pm
When I was little I never let myself believe it was a woman. I always told myself it was just a man who happened to be pretty, lol.
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
re: re: re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#15
Posted: 7/21/03 at 11:01pm
Peter was originaly played by a woman for two reasons ::

1.) At that time, labour laws said that kids could not appear onstage after 9 PM and as many of the principals are kids in the show, all kids were played by small women.

2.) Peter Pan conforms to many traditions of British Pantomime, including having a 'good fairy/godmother' character (Tinkerbell), a 'dame' (a female character played by a male -- Nana the dog), and the pricipal boy being played by a woman dressed in a traditional style of clothes for that character type -- a pair of tights/ close fitting pants and a loose fitting blouse belted at the waist that even though the character was male left no doubt that the performer was a female (Peter Pan).

Those traditions just carried over. it was until the 1980s at the Royal National Thetare that it started to become more common for Peter to be played by a male in major productions. The last four major major productions of Peter Pan in the West End/London have starred men.
FrontRow
Stand-by
joined:5/16/03
Stand-by
joined:
5/16/03
Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#16
Posted: 7/22/03 at 2:20pm
Is this fact or just your surmising?

As for (1), that doesn't address why Peter Pan couldn't be played by a young man.
As for (2), the musical was created by Americans, I doubt they were trying to mimic "British pantomime."

I think it was just a dumb idea the first time, but since Mary Martin is so beloved nobody challenged it in the future. Good for the West End...but has there ever been a major U.S./Bway production starring a male?

And again...the female part is only half of it. Why are the women who get cast so old?
SueleenGay Profile PhotoSueleenGay Profile Photo
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend
joined:6/9/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/9/03
re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#17
Posted: 7/22/03 at 2:26pm
As I posted on another thread, I saw B. D. Wong do it a few years back. He toured with it.
PEACE.
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
re: re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#18
Posted: 7/22/03 at 3:16pm
That is fact.

Yes, it COULD have been played by a man, but at the time, the practice was for women to play the children's roles -- whether the role was male or female.

The reason it was carried over to the musical was because that was the role had always been played AND it was adapted spefically for Mary Martin -- It was her idea and her husband produced it.

The only major U.S. productions starring men have been films -- the Disney animated feature, 'Hook' starring Robin Williams, and the feature film comin out at Christmas this year staring Jeremy Sumpter.

It is cast with an older female because that was what Mary martin was -- a woman in her late fourties - early fifties. Future productions just stuck with that example.

I have seen it played by both men and women and I have played the title role myself in both the play and musical. I have always felt that it plays better with a male.
Phantom05 Profile PhotoPhantom05 Profile Photo
Phantom05
Broadway Star
joined:5/14/03
Broadway Star
joined:
5/14/03
re: re: re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#19
Posted: 7/22/03 at 3:27pm
I don't think Peter Pan should return to Broadway for at least another ten years! It is one of those musicals, that when you see it to much, it gets boring really fast!!! I have always enjoyed the show, but I think it needs to wait a while. As far a Rigby is concerned, I don't have a problem, but as far as the comment about Clay Aiken playing PP, HEEEEEEEEELL NOOOOOOOO!!!!! He needs a better role than that!

Phantom05
------- "We Drink Your Blood And Then We Eat Your Soul, Nothings Gonna Stop Us Let The Bad Times Roll" -------"Past The Point Of No Return, No Backward Glances, Abandon Thought And Let The Dream Begin"
broadwayguy2
Broadway Legend
joined:5/18/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
5/18/03
re: re: re: re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#20
Posted: 7/22/03 at 3:30pm
My problem is that A.) the show needs to be reworked to play closer to the play. The musical had too much camp and fluff and B.) Rigby just kept bringing it back and bringing it back again and again for those damn limited runs. Why couldn't she have just had one open ended run like any other NORMAL show????
lensman55 Profile Photolensman55 Profile Photo
lensman55
Featured Actor
joined:7/15/03
Featured Actor
joined:
7/15/03
re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#21
Posted: 7/22/03 at 7:12pm
>I don't even find Mary Martin convincing when I've watched the >old TV version. I don't know who decided this part should be >played by a female, and why everyone's stuck with it all these >years, but the most ridiculous thing is that females are >always so freaking old. He's the boy who won't grow up, >darnit!!

I didn't buy Mary in the role even when I was a kid watching it on TV... I never saw Cathy do it, but I did see Sandy Dunkin on Broadway twice. I thought she was great!
"Now and then life hits you on the back of the head with a sock full of wet porridge. How you handle that is up to you." - Tim Rice
lensman55 Profile Photolensman55 Profile Photo
lensman55
Featured Actor
joined:7/15/03
Featured Actor
joined:
7/15/03
re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#22
Posted: 7/22/03 at 7:24pm
>I think it was just a dumb idea the first time, but since Mary >Martin is so beloved nobody challenged it in the future. Good >for the West End...but has there ever been a major U.S./Bway >production starring a male?

Actually, our local Equity theatre group (Trinity Square Repertory Company) did a version with a male Peter Pan. Of course, they also used Circe Solie (sp?) variation on the flying, everybody was hanging from big thick ropes.
"Now and then life hits you on the back of the head with a sock full of wet porridge. How you handle that is up to you." - Tim Rice
luluhed Profile Photoluluhed Profile Photo
luluhed
Featured Actor
joined:5/15/03
Featured Actor
joined:
5/15/03
re: re: Peter Pan Starts Sept 2004#23
Posted: 7/22/03 at 9:10pm
Come to think of it, when I was a child, and saw Mary Martin in the role, I thought nothing of it. Now, when I think back to her performance, as talented as she was, it doesn' work for me in retrospect. It probably doesn't matter now, though! I never saw Sandy Duncan in the role, but I vote for a guy next time!