BroadwayGuy2’s Guide To A Revitalized ‘Peter Pan’ on Broadway

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 1:59am

Much has been said of Cathy Rigby’s impending, and long overdue, farewell tour as Peter Pan, but the future of the boy who would not grow up on Broadway, is, as with any show, uncertain beyond this. Broadway has not seen a production of Barrie’s original tale since Jean Arthur took to the air in 1953, nor has it seen an opened run of popular musical since Sandy Duncan donned a harness at the Lunt-Fontanne in 1979. For the past twenty years, American theatergoers have known only one Peter Pan - Cathy Rigby, a woman who gave us a decidedly athletic Peter displayed in two delightful, but extremely downsized revivals in four limited runs with one decade that were, literally, nothing more than transplanted regional theatre stagings. With this tour, she is adding another to her roster of “Peter Pan Lite” productions.
Now that Rigby has decided to grace the theatre public by giving up the fairy dust, there is finally a chance to resound a belief in fairies and give a transformation and new lease on life to a century old perpetual child. Here now is BroadwayGu2’s views on bringing the glory back to “Peter Pan“.

~ The starting point for any show is the script. While most of the dialogue in the Broadway musical is direct from Barrie’s pen, much of the ‘grit’ and raw edge has been stripped away and almost Disneyfied to turn the tale into almost a children’s theatre piece -- something that it is not, even though we have been trained to believe that it is. The first step on the road to a new ‘Peter’ is reinstating the grit and darker tones that make Barrie’s story an adult tale that children can enjoy. For me, having read and seen numerous versions of the tale for the theatre, the definitive script for “Peter Pan” is the Royal Shakespeare Company of John Caird and Trevor Nunn. Caird and Nunn built their script from Barrie’s constantly changing drafts of the play, the manuscript of the novel, and Barrie’s scriptment for an unproduced silent film, bringing out a solid, rounded interpretation of Barrie’s world and adding in a Barriesque narrator to weave together the story through Barrie’s brilliant language. Nearly every review for the last London production of the Caird/Nunn ‘Peter Pan” praised it as such and commented that with the addition of the classic Broadway score, we would have the definitive stage version of the Barrie tale.
Bring in a gifted book writer and integrate the score with the Caird/Nunn script, perhaps making a subtle, but powerful, change in the gender of the narrator, with the Adult Wendy spinning her tale of childhood adventure for the audience.

~ The next crucial point is in casting and the performances of the actors. Actors in “Peter Pan” too often fall into the trap of playing their roles in broad, “Children’s theatre” strokes, robbing the tale of some of the emotional impact that could be wrought if the actors approached as if it were any other piece of “adult” work, playing with each nuance and bringing out the many layers of Barrie’s piece.
Any production of “Peter Pan” can truly fly or fall on the shoulders of it’s Peter. The role of Peter was taken by a woman for two reasons -- it was the convention of British pantomime, and it was illegal for children to appear onstage after 9pm in 1904 London. That practice was carried over, and soon became convention for the role for almost 80 years. The past five productions of “Peter Pan” in London, home to Peter’s greatest fans and harshest critics, have featured males in the title role, and these stagings have received praise for much having a male Peter adds to the piece. Transposing and rearranging the music of the musical to fit a male voice is not a difficult thing to do, and after a century of the same thing, it is high time that something new be brought to the role for American audiences. Perhaps as actor such as Vince Rimoldi (http://www.vincerimoldi.comhttp://www.vincerimoldi.com>http://www.vincerimoldi.com) could prove to be just what is needed here.

A major pitfall that many performers who take on ‘Peter’ fall into is painting him as a musical comedy hero, when, in fact, Peter is much more of a tragic figure, and the story could be well served by playing him as such. Yes, Peter gets “what he wants”, but not growing up, but in reality, Peter is defeated and he loses. He has lost everything and everyone and is fated to being isolated and alone for all time. Peter loses the only two things to ever find their way into his heart -- his mother, and Wendy.

~ The other elements that were sorely lacking in Cathy Rigby’s stagings were the sets, costumes, and special effects, which fell victim to a pitifully tragic budget under the hand of McCoy-Rigby. I have said before that no amount of spectacle can take up for a lack of a good script, but when the script is there and solid, sets, costumes, and effects can be used to enhance and take the production to a whole new level.
One of the critical elements in any “Pan” production is the flying. The last two revivals were built specifically to tour. By producing and designing a sit down, open ended run where the flying designer does not have to worry about squeezing into a bevy of different houses, the production is opened up to the opportunity of creating absolutely stunning flying sequences in the show and making it even more of an integrated element than just several well spaced out “wow” sequences. Peter, after all, is more at home in the air than on the ground.
Most people identify Peter with the image of his green tights -- a convention of traditional British pantomime. The tights are an element that I feel should be banished from any production of “Peter Pan”. No child who runs away, kills pirates and Indians and defies any authority would voluntarily cavort about in hunter green, or any color, tights. It detracts from the character in all honesty.
The Jim Henson company has a long history of creating creature effects for films of all styles and has also taken on some high profile theatre projects, including creating a bevy of beasts of “Dr. Doolittle” in the West End and creating the animals of Never Land, and Never Land itself, in the ill conceived “PAN: a New Musical” in Australia. Nana the dog has always been poorly executed by designers and the crocodile is laughable at best. Bringing in a company such as the Henson creature shop to create Nana and the crocodile could prove to the productions advantage with a believable Nana and a Crocodile that could truly make Captain Hook shiver in his boots.
Also, when the score for “Peter Pan” was penned, there was a stock “Broadway” sound that all shows and all songs on Broadway seemed to adhere to, unlike today where one can hear a wide variety of musical stylings in any theatre. When “Kiss Me, Kate” returned to Broadway, it won awards for it’s orchestrations, which took that stock sound and retooled it, updating it using modern sensibilities so that the sounds of the sounds reflected the worlds of the show and the personas of the characters who sing them. Rigby’s production, to a certain extent, brought that to “Peter Pan” by reinvigorating the Indian numbers to have a more “true” Native American sound and less of a stereotyped construction. This process should be continued and expanded on to include all of the songs in the show.

These are but a few of my points, I could talk for days on the subject, but I won’t. I shall just resign myself to this statement and any replies that I may be called upon to post.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 2:23am

I like this very much. But, I don't think any of us will find what we are looking for in the upcoming Cathy Rigby tour. While I agree that the show should be darkened and several elements from the book are still missing despite the many, many updates that have been made with the Rigby production, making so many changes all at once may not be the best idea either. I don't see how a dark brooding book could fit in with the score for the show as it stands, but again, how cool would it be to have all the orchestrations updated and fit in with a more apropriate book. Perhaps even that song that was cut and replaced by "Distant Melody" could be used. Maybe even "It's What You Believe In" which was also cut. I know the Rigby tour will be making, again, more changes, but I don't think they will be to this magnitude. We'll have to wait and see...

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 2:27am

the show has been gradually darkened each time.. this merely takes it further.
the Rigby tour will not be what I personally am looking for.
extreme darking worked wonderfully for Cabaret. the orchestrations are a HUGE part of determing teh mood of a song. The sound of a trumet is VERY different from the sound of a flute, after all.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 2:32am

good ideas..keep it up!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 2:34am

Thanks Tuttle. This was teh first show I saw in a huge theatre and I REALLY long to see a truly first class staging of this show.

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 7:31am

What a spectacular message! Everything in that message hits the nail right on the head. Mail that to Mcoy-Rigby.

[FinnFanatic]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 8:21am

Have you ever looked into the production by Stiles and Drewe? I don't know too much about it, but I was looking around their website and there are some great pictures and you can even listen to some sound clips. I'm not sure if this is more towards the kind of production you are getting at. The pictures look a bit like the show is darker than the Rigby version. Peter is also dressed in red, which is quite different from the norm. It looks as though he is still wearing the green tights, but they are not the focus of the costume, they are more of an undergarment. I personally love his costumes in this version. I haven't gotten the chance to listen to much of the music, but I am a big fan of some of Stiles and Drewe's other shows ("Honk", "Just So", "Soho"). Here is the link to their website.
Stiles and Drewe -- Click the Peter Pan Link!

[zoran912]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 1:16pm

Vince Rimoldi is gorgeous.

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 1:35pm

The one question I have is why use the existing score if you'd like to change the sound. Why not have a new score written which could reflect the tone your looking for instead of trying to shoehorn the existing songs into this concept?

Although I'm all for experimenting, I'm also for honoring writers intentions. The Cabaret revival wasn't all that much 'darker' than the original (we are talking about the fall of Weimar and the rise of the Nazis). Even Carousel was surprisingly hailes as a revelation...even though it's about a morally ambiguous hero who beats his wife, kills himself and then botches up his shot at redemption. The music in both of these shows have and always will reflect the darker edges of these stories. I'm not sure the music to Peter Pan could hold up to such treatment (just listen to Betty Buckley's bizarre NEVER, NEVER LAND...it just doesn't sound 'right').

I hope I don't sound like I'm raining on your parade. I'm just saying take it further. If you're gonna do it (and from the passion and knowledge in your post, YOU should be the one to realize this...even if it's years away), go all the way and create something entirely new.

Brava, BG2.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 3:57pm

I realize exactly what you mean..
yes, I AM familiar with the Stiles-Drewe version as well as the "PCR" musical version.
The thing is, the original script for the musical is very similar to the orignal play, only edited down... and stagged as Disney-fare by teh creative team. So, it isn't THAT drastic at all really.. much like the revivals of Cabaret and Carousel, both of which I loved. And once again, it isn'ta matter of a drastic change in sound... just taking advantage of what we have today and differenting between the different 'groups' in teh show.. which is really a hallmark of any good orchestrator.

I personally think it a travesty that what is being hailed as the "100th Aniv. Production" (100 for the play, 50 for the musical)will be nothing more than what can be seen at any regional theatre available.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 4:40pm

THANK YOU FOR THIS TOPIC, BROADWAYGUY2. You and I have discussed PETER PAN in the past, and I generally agree with you.


I do not think it is fair to bash Cathy Rigby's productions (which you lightly did). The show right now is good, and although it may be annoying that it has continued with the same actress for 12 years, it is now over.

I think this tour (possibly Broadway bound (without Rigby?)) is a PERFECT way to end the current era of the Peter Pan musical; and for a new one to begin.

This tour celebrates the 100th Anniversary of the play, PETER PAN< OR THE BOY WHO WOULDN'T GROW UP, and it celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the Comden/Green/Charlap/Leigh/Styne musical that Mary Martin began in 1954.

If you think about it, Rigby has been "Pan" just as long at Martin. Martin's PETER PAN was broadcast annually on television. Finally in 1973, when Mia Farrow was to give a fresh new tale on PAN, it failed, got a poor rating, and was never seen again.

But now alas, this is the final time Rigby shall take flight as Pan. I say we enjoy it, one last time.

NOW FOR THE BIG QUESTION:

What does the future hold for the PETER PAN musical? Will the Comden/Green/Leigh/Charlap/Styne EVER come to Broadway again? I'm sure it will continue to be performed in regional theatres and school productions, but professionally, when will be the next time we see the show, IF EVER AGAIN?

There are many other different musical adaptations, including the Stiles & Drewe, Piers-Chater Robinson, and Caird incarnations. Will one of these get picked up here in the States, or shall a new musical adaptation take form, such as the one playing in Chicago soon?

By the way, there is also another reason why "Peter Pan" has always been played by a woman... Barrie wanted it that way. (He also wanted the same ACTRESS who played Mrs. Darling to play "Captain Hook." The original title of the play was PETER PAN, OR THE BOY WHO HATED MOTHERS.)


As for what I would personally like:

1) Yes, I believe it is time to see a boy in the role. I don't think a young boy would be able to make audiences believe it is serious. The actor must be at least 16.

2) Must be darker, of course.

3) Paul Schoeffler offered a villainious Captain Hook, but lost the comical genius of Cyril Ritchard. George Rose was a nice 'in between.' Hook needs to be SCARY, and yet comical. The audience must fear and pity him at the same time. It is very important for the audience to feel sorry for Hook, and yet be glad that he is dead.

4) We need a new score. As much as I love the songs that Comden & Green have written, they are just too darn happy. "I've Gotta Crow," "Wendy," "Ugh-A-Wug," etc. are too much fun. We need a score that offers us a chance to feel sorry for Peter, fear Hook (and yet love him), be saddened for Mr. and Mrs. Darling, feel the adventure of the island, the mystery of the island, etc. Stiles & Drewe's "There's Always Tomorrow," "Never Die," and "When I Kill Peter Pan" are all TERRIFFIC pieces.

5) Wendy's part in the current musical is to help the audience feel sorry for Peter. This needs to be corrected. The story is really about Wendy's encounter with Peter Pan, her part should be equal.

6) There should be no song when the children are flying to Neverland, or are learning to fly. This only takes away from the WOW that is happening on stage.

7) Act I in the nursery needs to be shortened. Provide the background information for the Darlings, have Wendy sew on Peter's shadow, have Peter entice Wendy & the boys to come to Neverland, and then just GO ALREADY.

Agreed, the Crocodile needs to make the audience piss their pants.

9) Peter Pan (and/or Wendy) needs a song at the end of the show that makes the audience cry. This song should take place right before Peter takes Jane to Neverland.

10) The show should not be one that parents take their children to go see. It should be one that adults go see on their own. The story is for them, not children (although children do and have enjoyed it for 100 years).

Perhaps, Broadwayguy2, you and I should pen together a script and lyrics?

Again, we don't know what the future holds for PETER PAN. But it is to my belief that Broadway shall never again see Comden/Green/Styne/Leigh/Charlap's PETER PAN.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 4:45pm

I agree with you.... but I think the svore is TOO identifiable. It would be like taking a new musical version of The Wizard of Oz to Broadway.

It's not a light BASHING of Rigby.. I DO think she has gone into overkill and her productions are good and fine, but for Broadway, it needs to be MORE.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/2/04 at 4:59pm

Agreed, and agreed. But that is MY dream production.