FORTY YEARS in the role of Peter Pan and Cathy Rigby never bothered to learn the basics...

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 5:24am

Cathy Rigby as Peter was my first experience in live theatre. I will always remember it and be glad for it. I will always admire the physical prowess she had in the role. As I grew, I also started to see that Rigby honestly has no deep love for the show or the role other than to drive her bank account higher. This became more apparent over the years and she continued to drag the same regional theatre production around the country for 15 years. A well done regional staging, yes. State of the art, as she has always maintained it was, no. It was not near state of the art when she first launched it in the mid-1990s and it is less so now. I get that it is a business but what drives me beyond batty is Ms. Rigby's constant claim thats he adores the show, the role, the history and has such respect. No, my dear, you do not and obviously never did.

I wandered across this article about Rigby's farewell:

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/01/18/35680/former-gymnast-cathy-rigby-end-her-four-decade-sta/

An excerpt-
"Rigby doesn’t know who will play the role of Peter Pan after she retires.
“It could be anybody,” the actress said. “It’s just traditionally when (Playwright) Sir James Barrie wrote this, he put a girl in the role and I think that tradition has just held for so many years and it gives kind of an androgynous feel to it.”
Boy or girl, Rigby said the next actor to play Peter Pan must be able to take risks and have a childlike and fearless quality."

Actually... no. That is not what Barrie wanted. In fact, Barrie wanted a BOY to play the role. Child laws did not allow that, so he wanted a man of age to play Peter and the producers overruled, choosing to cast a woman, as traditionally done to cover a child's part. The tradition caught because the show was a success.. it then devolved into sugared pantomime because a "trouser role" is a panto tradition and that was far and away NOT what Barrie wanted. Sorry Rigby, try again. Let someone else have the rights already.

*off soapbox*

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 7:39am

I think she meant: that when the FIRST person was cast was a woman, THAT'S how the tradition began.

Sheesh....talk about Negative Nelly and blowing things out of proportion.

Who cares why she did it? She has brought joy to MILLIONS of children and adults.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 9:39am

Sheesh. You're the kind of person who refuses to clap to keep Tinkerbell alive, aren't you?

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 9:44am

How DARE she go into theatre to make a profit.

What was she thinking???

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 10:06am

Hasn't Rigby said she was retiring from playing the role multiple times in the past, only to come back around with yet another farewell tour?

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 10:33am

So she's just like Carol Channing and Cher.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 10:41am

Sheesh. You're the kind of person who refuses to clap to keep Tinkerbell alive, aren't you?

This makes me sad, because no one should go without clapping to keep poor Tink alive.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 11:49am

Broadway guy, did someone not sign your play bill at the stagedoor?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 2:15pm

She's not going to give the rights to someone else either. If she is truly finished with the role this time around, the next time we see her name above the title it will be "Cathy Rigby Presents Peter Pan."

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 2:22pm

JM Barrie was very explicit that he wanted a red laser beam to play Tinker Bell, but Rigby didn't know the first thing about it.

Posted: 11/9/13 at 2:38pm

Do I believe in fairies? I know HUNDREDS of them!

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 3:31pm

OK, I have to come clean, especially since I've been holding onto this since I saw Peter Pan in 1979 with Sandy Duncan. I didn't clap for Tinkerbell because I wanted to see what would happen!!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 3:34pm

I've always wanted to see a production of the show done so badly that nobody claps.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 3:46pm

^Did the audience clap in that failed production on youtube?

[ivandixon2]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 8:21pm

Rigby and her husband do not control any of the rights to Peter Pan. They license it just like anybody else from Samuel French. In the past, when they were proposing new national tours, they would prevent anyone in any major market from licensing the original musical version. I ran into this in 2011 when I actually had rented the Rigby set from its owners ZFX Flying. We had to do our own adaptation of the public domain Barrie classic. I believe McCoy/Rigby bought their set back from ZFX for their most recent tours.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 8:39pm

Actually, they do control the rights. Rigby / Mccoy owns the first class production rights.
Samuel French licenses stock and professional rights, which is entirely different.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 9:19pm

So let's say Patti LuPone want to play Peter, with Mandy Patinkin as Hook. Cathy Rigby would have to the give the "OK" or possibly produce it?

I mean, the Styne, Comden and Green, Leigh, Charlap and Robbins estates don't own their own intellectual property? I can't see Betty 'n' Adolph, and Jule (who were around when Rigby first staring "flyin'") saying, "Okay, here's the rights to our show for all future first class stagings." I DOUBLY cannot see Jerry Robbins doing that, either.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 10:32pm

The authors still OWN the rights in that they get royalties. Ribgy / McCoy have purchased the "option" on those rights. Meaning that no one else can produce a first class production of the musical without purchasing that option from Rigby/MCoy or until Rigby/Mccoy allows that "option" to expire.

Updated On: 11/10/13 at 10:32 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 11/9/13 at 11:09pm

Ah, I see. That makes more sense. Much more sense than a Patti/Mandy PETER PAN even.

[jemjeb2]

Posted: 11/10/13 at 2:03am

I wish the show would be staged for once with an age appropriate male (how old is Peter Pan anyway? no smartass answers please - I mean his age when he stopped growing older) That could be an interesting production.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/10/13 at 2:23am

^The problem with that is the same as it has ever been. Instead of paying one actress to play the leading role the producers would have to pay three or four boys to alternate in the role and continually recast as each boy gets too tall or his voice changes. (Pretty much what Billy Elliot does.) It's not impossible it's just more expensive. You try finding a producer willing to spend more money than they have to.

[jemjeb2]

Posted: 11/10/13 at 2:32am

OK - you're right. How about a young looking guy who could SEEM age spproriate? That would still be cool.

[bobs3]

Posted: 11/10/13 at 3:41am

Peter Pan is sung by an alto. By the time a young male actor turned age 18 his voice would probably have deepened.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/10/13 at 4:36am

1. Rigby was speaking to incarnations of Peter, not just the Robbins Broadway adaption.
2. The Broadway score has been very successfully transposed for differing vocal ranges AND has been successfully performed by performed by adult male performers, including several seasons ago by Francis Jue at the MUNY.

[missthemountains]

Posted: 11/10/13 at 11:47am

I directed a non musical production of Peter Pan a few years ago and had a male play the role and quite frankly have always found it strange that older women always played the role of a young boy. I have seen a production where there was a male Peter who tackled the score excellently. There's no reason why a young adult male (I'm talking ages 18-20) in the high tenor range could play Peter. He'd be old enough not to have to worry about equity, I just think the reason why it's never been done is because it could be mildly uncomfortable to watch if the actor playing Peter is either too flamboyant/too manly looking.