[quote]Sorry Mia is lovely but Sandy Duncan was just trilling.
As long as you stayed where her good eye could see you.
I saw Mary Martin on TV in 1958 (in black and white) and then again in 1960 when it was taped (in color), and of course in several more repeats. I saw Sandy Duncan and Cathy Rigby live. I almost went to a touring company starring Mary Lou Retton, but it got such awful reviews that I didn't want to spend the money!
Mia is too wimpy and delicate to play Peter Pan. He's the leader of a gang of boys, he's got to be at least a little more butch than this. The shirtless dancers backing up Paula Kelly as Princess Tiger Lilly are practically the only thing here worth watching.
R6, I've seen that clip before and I love it! I like to pretend that Ashley Simpson is playing Peter because the actress playing Peter does a stupid dance while waiting.
Yes! I saw Sandy on Broadway. Too bad she never got to do a version for TV. That was the plan but it never happened.
I've seen Sandy Duncan, Lisa Whelchel and two actors (BD Wong and Francis Jue) play the role in the musical.
Rigby was here this summer in her farewell is this the 6th? tour but I passed on seeing it.
Mary Martin and Sandy Duncan were the ones to beat.
I wonder why this tradition of Pter played by a woman was established? I know Maud Adams was the original stage Peter but why??
Probably because they needed a prominent name to headline the cast and be a tentpole for the production, and women are better at playing boys whose voices haven't broken than men are.
I saw Sandy Duncan and I remember her being fantastic. Her entire performance is on youtube, in about a dozen parts. Some of it is in black and white with a shaky camera, but it's all there.
Ick. To all of them. After seeing P.J. Hogan's Peter Pan I can't stand any other version. Jason Issacs as Captain Hook/Mr. Darling is stupendous.
But why wasn't Peter played originally by a teenage boy (not a man or woman)?
In Shakespeare's Elizabethan theater teenage boy actors were all the rage.
Because Broadway didn't have any teenage boy actors who were big enough names to fill the seats. Elizabethan theatergoers weren't quite so concerned about celebrity as 20th (and 21st) century Americans are.
[quote]I wonder why this tradition of Pter(sic) played by a woman was established?
Because Peter can't have one.
If Peter was played by a guy on Broadway the ammount of sizemeat speculation threads would cause Datalounge to explode.
OK, now you've all answered my question.
But do you think Peter could now be played by a teenage boy, or at least a young man? There are certainly plenty of big name stars to fit the bill. There is no reason the role has to be played as fey. In reality, Peter is anything but effeminate.
How about Jonathan Groff. Or, is he too heavy?
David Burka s Peter and NPH as Hook.
British actor Ben Whishaw might be good in a non musical version but he isn't a name over here.
Some women who could have done Peter Pan justice:
Paula Kelly would have been great if they wanted to do a black version
R15, I think the tradition has been too well established. The music and especially the lyrics are much better suited to a woman's voice. And Peter is pubescent.
Can you name a pubescent actor with a huge enough career to attract lots of ticketgoers, who can sing terrifically and dance well, and who will not age out of the part within six months?
However, they made a film version of the book (not the musical) a few years ago that was nothing short of amazing, and they used a boy, Jeremy Sumpter, who was perfect in the role. It's the one R14 mentioned.
Shit, you'd think by now I'd know how to post a link properly. Sorry about that.
Daniel Radcliffe IS Peter Pan!
He's played magical boys and done Broadway musicals.
PLUS he's still young enough and remains small in stature.
Quick, call the Nederlanders!
"But do you think Peter could now be played by a teenage boy, or at least a young man?"
Peter Pan represents a fear of puberty and adulthood (the author of the story was seriously wierd), and is absolutely pre-pubescent. A small, flat-chested woman looks more like a little boy than a small adult male does, at least at a distance.
And it's very risky to cast an actual little boy. First, there are actors equity restrictions on how many hours he can work, then there's the risk his voice will break on you. That happened during the recent film version of the story, the Peter grew about a foot during production.
I apologize for the word I chose which was deemed a "childish epithet" by DL. But the word is not any form of slang and can be found in all legitmate dictionaries.
Looking up the word in my Merriam-Webster Dictionary now, I see it defined as: "marked by qualities more typical of women than men."
Nevertheless, I am quite honestly not bigoted and will remember to be more sensitive in my phrasing in the future.
r19 aka r15 genuinely surprised!
try to cry out in the heat of the moment possessed by a fury that burns from inside