He is the loveliest god, who dissolves
the old and brings in the new, who intoxicates, sending people out of their
conscious minds with his enthusiasm, only to hang over them while they recover
those faculties, to await their acknowledgement. The puer aeternus is therefore
not just what is new and to come, but the very process itself by means of which
the present transforms itself into something fresh – the non-mature, the
chrysalis and imago itself, all within the same whole.
Hey guys, this is a response to Jen's post, as I agree a lot about Disney's iterations becoming sort of the standard when it comes to the properties and stories they adapt at least in the American consciousness.
In the case of myself concerning Peter Pan; I was brought up with the 1960 taped Mary Martin musical version and had seen the play I think both musical and original a few times as a child - alongside the Disney version on tape so the fact Peter was played by a woman was not unexpected to me at all. I knew this as a fact. I knew this because my mom was such a fan of the play and books and the Disney film and she passed that knowledge onto me. I think British people, people in the UK don't bat an eye at Peter Pan being played by a woman as it is such a popular play there more than it is here particularly as it is often a Christmas pantomime which we in America don't really have. People go see Babes in Toyland or The Nutcracker in December and that's about it. Also theater as general entertainment in America is not as fruitful, cheap or as popular per se as it is in the UK (could be wrong that seems to be my observation). Anyone prove otherwise?
Disney's influence and the power of their merchandising HAS warped many people's perspectives. Many people don't know The Little Mermaid traditionally has a downer, bittersweet and sort of religious ending and that Disney's version is actually abnormal with it's happy ending. The movie is actually pretty faithful care for Ursula's scheming/evilness whereas the original sea witch was not particularly bad, her magic just often had a very serious price and had some sort of counterbalance of suffering or sacrifice to work. Disney plunged her into full fledged villainy instead and allowed the Little Mermaid her happy ending...which while nice sort of misses...the point...of the original fairytale...but anyway, Little Mermaid aside there is probably no other better example of Disney's iterations via their merchandising and just overall presence becoming "standard" in the American public consciousness than their blonde, blue dressed merchandise version of Cinderella. Pretty ubiquitous. Now why do I say merchandise version and not just Cinderella? Well; she's not really supposed to be blonde, nor is her dress blue, we are only meant to think so and the perpetuation of that has caused some very interesting reactions, for instance:
During the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade last year they had a segment from the Rodgers and Hammerstein's musical Cinderella, also from the 50s and of course not related to Disney at all, played out by the new revival cast and their Cinderella was played by a brunette actress. You know how many people following the segment went to Twitter, Facebook and tumblr to complain about her not being blonde after that? A lot.
Uh...who said Cinderella had to be blonde? Oh...Disney dolls and merchandise. Okay. Only she's not even blonde in the movies. Disney has you fooled via the power of their merchandising, and it's really impressive that more people aren't arguing otherwise. Okay this is where one might need to get some popcorn and buckle your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride through rant town:
I complain about this perpetually since Cinderella's hair in the original movie is strawberry blonde at its possible lightest and just plain ginger-orange brown otherwise, a titian "burnt orange" (actress Amy Adams' preferred hair color or Judy Garland in Meet Me In St. Louis comes to mind) and anyone who watches the movie where they haven't digitally paintcanned her Cinderella blonder in can see that. It was a very popular hair color in the 40's and 50's and between her dove-grey/silver gown, blue eyes, the hair and her black choker; the look is very specific and very 1950's in terms of aesthetics and color palette. Very intentional. And as a lover of design their refusal to portray her correctly consistently is a bit disappointing.
Disney has since they started putting out DVDs, to alter Cinderella's hair digitally to be closer to their merchandise. I think there is some descrpency, I think the top video is perhaps the most accurate on Youtube, there were other older versions on there ripped from VHS and others where it was even more orange but they have seemed to have been deleted. This is probably the darkest and most authentic on there, possibly even VHS? Noticeably deeper, and redder and blends with the rest of the tones of the room's color palette.
The new Diamond Edition from I guess last year is noticeably very brightened and much, much blonder, still sort of carroty-ginger but, noticeably altered. Much too bright and looks painted over and out of place in the hues of the rest of the scene. However it is still shades and shades away from the blonde of merchandise.
Luckily during her transformation scene on this version it has her hair still looking rather correct:
Despite probably some brightening her hair is indeed....not blonde. The lighting in this
scene probably makes it hard to change it without looking too obvious. Still...generally...not really blonde.
Meanwhile all their merchandise since forever features this color palette not to mention their new redesign:
Bit of a discrepancy huh. That is canary YELLOW.
Oh, while btw the third Cinderella sequel actually had her hair the correct color too; one of the many strangely higher quality elements to the film, which as a Disney direct to DVD franchise milking movies go, and the awful premise, was actually not terribly bad and was at the least excellently animated and voiced.
Okay, so you may be asking Max why are you talking about Cinderella's hair so much? This blog is about Doctor Who. And Peter Pan. You obviously really care about color palettes. And Cinderella. Okay. We get it. Please. Well, yes I do, and yes I do, but it is important because seeing American's reactions to the brunette Hammerstein Cinderella at the parade indicates that the platinum blonde Cinderella of Disney's merchandise has become so ubiquitous that it dictates people's expectations of what she should look like PERIOD, even when that assumption it isn't even correct from that version's original source! It's purely merchandise and media influenced. It also seems to suggest that people think Disney must somehow control all versions of the character. That's pretty dangerous to be able to convince people that much, not to insult the intelligence of those that were puzzled but it speaks loads on the effect merchandise and media fed images can have on people. Look at all the fan art from sometimes self professed rabid Disney fans: most still perpetuate the very blonde hair and blue dress look for Cinderella too, which makes me wonder if most of these fan artists doing "Disney princess" themed pictures and sets and products are only going by the general public conscious image of what Disney Cinderella "should" look like or have they actually even sat down to watch the film recently or in the case of many have they even seen it at all. Perhaps it's just involuntary. God help us when Princess Anna joins the line later this year or next; as she's also blonde.
It is also very telling or rather sad that Disney then as a company has the gall to then go digitally (and poorly at that) edit her hair to match the perpetuation of said merchandise instead of going the other way around respecting the original aesthetic. That love of "blondness" and the possible exclusion of many girls who may dislike Cinderella solely because they THINK she is blonde and thus is...not like them, is a whole other rant not particularly related to either Doctor Who OR Peter Pan, so I'll refrain from continuing there! (If anyone has thoughts about that, leave comments, I'd love to hear your thoughts).
Disney with Peter has surely done the same thing as they have done with Cinderella; perpetuate a certain image and their image of Peter and Wendy too has become ingrained in the American consciousness. Baby blue nighties and nightgowns and matching hair ribbon are instantly Wendy Darling.This is probably mainly due to the massive amount of tie-ins and products they had for their version of Peter Pan. I've seen vintage old stock Peter-Pan kid's room WALLPAPER from the 50's for sale online. Just like Cinderella is seen as blonde, most see Peter as the red haired, elf eared teenage boy in green tights when he originally was never indicated to have a particular hair color or those pointed elf ears, and his costume was originally "skeleton leaves" either sewed together or stuck together with tree sap and possibly vines. A complete wild child of the woods. Disney's more restrained version has become rather standard influence in his depiction on covers, fanart, and general illustrations of the character all over the world ever since its debut even if not related to Disney at all. Disney's iterations of Peter and Wendy are the first things you see a on a Google image search for 'Peter Pan'. Pages upon pages.
This is a bit problematic as originally Peter was said to have all his baby teeth which puts him much younger than the 16ish teenager that Disney portrayed their version. Which in a way makes their Peter a bit creepier due to his age and the addition of blatant underlying sexuality that comes with that age, when he really shouldn't be much older than 5-7 years old. It's very telling that in the 50's they wanted a more "masculine" Peter, a "non sissy" who while firmly a young man is still rather boyish and non-receptive and indifferent to girls in general despite the female interest overwhelmingly pining after him ranging from the mermaids to Tinkerbell, Wendy and Tiger Lily. Instead of naivety and the flattery of Barrie's Peter; Disney's is all "manly" indifference and toying with Wendy thinking it would be entertaining to have her around. That indifference and yet also selfish indulgence in the attention all these girls give him nonetheless seems to make him all the more attractive due to his fickleness and non-use of that supposed sexuality that causes such jealousy. The romance aspect has been emphasized more and more in iterations since the Disney version to my knowledge especially in the most recent 2003's (wow ten years later sheesh don't tell me I was fourteen...that was five years ago...wait no that five years ago was five years ago oh god whyyyyyy) live action Peter Pan which goes as far as to have their teenage Peter, again played by a boy, floating prostrate above Wendy's bed at night with rather obvious curiosity and tension. This is a sight Wendy replicates in a drawing that causes her teacher a considerable stir due to it's abstract resemblance to sex. While obviously played for laughs it still is a bit odd....Thanks a lot Disney, you're ultimately to blame for this I think. Thanks...a lot.
Eleven's Peter Pan is surely more parallel or born from this Disney version; there's a reason Amy's advance on him resembles Wendy attempt to kiss Peter in the Disney version. His boyishness and awkwardness seems to not interfere at all in all sorts of women liking him....a bit too much...
So yes, I agree with Jen's assertion in Disney's sort of power over American audiences in how they portray things and how the AMERICAN version of Peter Pan through Disney HAS dictated quite a bit about how we perceive him.
I sort of wanted to elaborate further using the "Cinderella must be blonde" argument since it has instilled a particular version in people's heads. Bit obnoxious isn't it? Don't you feel a little used?
We've been writing an awful lot about Amy and Eleven and Rory and River...but we haven't been giving good old Peter his dues here on the blog.
You look about 9
And you look about 14...
After spending my entire day pouring over the new Diamond Edition of Disney's Peter Pan, I've got more than just a thought or two on the Boy Who Won't Grow Up.
Don't Tell Me It's Not Canon
Okay. I know what some of you are thinking...DISNEY'S Peter Pan? Don't you mean BARRIE'S Peter Pan? Well, yes and no, and here's why. Barrie's Peter is the original Peter; there's no denying which came first. HOWEVER we're living in a world now where Disney's Peter has become so universally recognized that you'll hardly meet a person who knew the tale before the animated film entered their life. This was actually brought to my attention by my Dad, who was sitting and watching Disney's Peter Pan with commentary with me. The film makers were talking about how, when Disney came to the story, it was a unique tale to adapt, because it had already been adapted so many times before. There was the play Peter Pan, the books Peter in Kensington Gardens and Peter and Wendy, the silent film and most recently (before the animation), the live action movie that brought Tinkerbell out of the flashlight and into the limelight, depicting her as a real person for the first time ever. Disney's audience would already be well-acquainted with the tales of Peter Pan, and perhaps most importantly, they knew him to be played as a girl.
Look how FRIENDLY the croc suddenly is!
"Interesting" my Dad said. "Now, it's basically the opposite...I mean, when Cathy Rigby played Peter in the 80s, it was like blasphemy to me!" (I'm paraphrasing here, but he did, in fact, use the word blasphemy). That tradition lives on today, as people will almost always be introduced to DISNEY'S Peter before any others, and the age for that introduction is getting younger and younger with the creation of "Jake and the Neverland Pirates" and the "Pixie Hollow" franchise. Disney has almost entirely created a monopoly on Peter Pan in the popular imagination. At the very least, they have inarguably monopolized Peter in the American imagination. Sometimes, perhaps because Peter and the Lost Boys were all played with American accents in the Disney film, even I forget that the tale is originally from a Scottish author, and steeped in British culture and history. That, of course, is factually incorrect, but culturally important, and this is where things come full circle. Because Disney's version of Peter Pan has become so well-known, he is now nearly as American as he is British (or Scottish, however you care to argue it) at this point. This is part of why the American audience latched on to Doctor Who with such a steely grip once Amy became Wendy and Eleven became Peter. THIS is why it took nearly 50 years for our country to fully embrace the series in the same mainstream way that England has embraced it in that same time span, and it's why it's fair to say that we connect to the story because it's part of our cultural history. Walt Disney made sure of that in 1953 by starting the first ever merchandising frenzy connected with an animated film (Second Star to the Right). Peter and his friends were on ads for everything from televisions to kid's shoes; and today you can get t-shirts, mugs, stuffed animals, notebooks, pretty much anything that you can imagine with your favorite character(s) from the movie on them. In short, we as Americans have embraced Peter so fully that, at this point, he's got dual citizenship. When we write about Peter in America, this is what we are talking about. The movie was released here sixty years ago to the day--that means almost three generations worth of little American tykes (and maybe even a Brit or two) have grown up knowing Walt's Peter before any other version of the classic "Eternal Child". Those three generations include a certain television show writer, born in 1961--well after Disney's version had exploded in popularity, both here and across the pond.
