BWW Reviews: Playhouse Has a Right to 'Crow' About PETER PAN

Having witnessed the stultifying, bloated NBC production of PETER PAN LIVE (what were the "powers that be" thinking would hold a child's attention span for three hours, however padded with yet more Peter Pan plugs from Walmart?), I was reluctant to attend Playhouse on the Square's annual production of the James Barrie children's classic. I am probably one of the handful of reviewers to recall the 1955 NBC production (and later one as well) with the legendary pairing of Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard (whose fruity, overly ripe "Captain Hook" would make Johnny Depp's "Jack Sparrow" seem more like a white collar executive). As an IPad-free child inured to black and white fare, it hardly mattered that Mary Martin was, to put it politely, mature; that the production values were clunky; that the wires and "Tinker" herself were glaringly apparent. In short, I was captivated. Yet, Martin possessed the kind of spunk and spontaneity that made us children believe (not to mention that she had the kind of singing voice that made her a legendary Broadway performer, as evidenced by SOUTH PACIFIC and SOUND OF MUSIC). She could make a child want to fly. Allison Williams, last evening's "Peter," lacked that optimistic boyishness (though she had the tomboyish Hilary Swank look "nailed") and, despite having a pleasant enough voice, often seemed out of breath; but Chrisopher Walken, whom I like and who I initially thought would be inspired casting, seemed to have wandered in from a cocktail party hosted by zombies. His dancing made that of the Monster in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN seem as nimble as that of Fred Astaire. Despite the wonderful lyrics by Carolyn Leigh, Betty Comden and Adolph Green, and despite the "ear candy" musical score by Mark Charlalp and Jule Stein, those long, middle stretches in Neverland made me wonder if it would Neverend.

Happily, that was not the case on this rainy Friday night in Memphis. With the talented Jordan Nichols as Director and Choreographer, this enchanting production ran just over an hour and a half (and that included an Intermission). The imaginative set design by Joe Ragey was perfectly in keeping with the spirit of the play (unlike the garish Neverland of the NBC production, whose gaudy colors looked like a nightmarish explosion in a children's toy store); and the costumes by PatRice Trower were equally colorful and inventive. Best of all, though, was the cast. A friend who had seen Carly Crawford's "Peter" and Bill Andrews' "Captain Hook" was effusive in his praise; however, they are alternating the roles with Morgan Howard and David Foster, whom I had the pleasure to see (and hear) tonight. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, Ms. Howard was previously in REEFER MADNESS; in a sense, she was as "high" in that play as she flies in this. She is always a dependable, versatile performer, and the joy and enthusiasm with which she invests this role are infectious. After seeing Christopher Walken's moribund take on "Captain Hook," I was delighted by the sharp, intentionally "hammy" interpretation of Mr. Foster. (I remember his equally brilliant pirate several years back in PIRATES OF PENZANCE.) There's something about his intonations and delivery that remind me of the Tim Curry character in the film version of THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. As "Wendy," Julia Masotti is vocally gifted and is a fine match for "Peter"; and, in fact, everyone else in the cast is obviously having a good time and communicating that to the audience.

The more I see PETER PAN, though, the more I become somewhat uncomfortable. There are aspects of the original story that can be disturbing - if you let them be. For example, in the Darling household, "Father" reminds me of "Mr. Banks" in MARY POPPINS (without the latter's character transformation); he is clearly "man of the house," and dear, fretful "Mrs. Darling" has to "keep her place." That doesn't sit as well with me today as it did in the 1950's. I also wonder . . . couldn't someone write a work in which becoming an adult is something to look forward to, not to dread like taking a spoonful of codliver oil. Growing up in PETER PAN is a stiff, starched "duty" - ugh! Who wouldn't want to remain a child? However, PETER PAN is PETER PAN; it is not something by Eugene O'Neill, and why should I bring "Debbie Downer" to the party? The children in the audience enjoyed it; and, I have a feeling, the older set did as well. After all, don't we all, individually and collectively, treasure the innocence and the desire to soar - and explore - that we had as children. (On a personal note, is there a law that states that a female has to play "Peter"? As a child, I was somewhat confused by the gender confusion. Ah, for a baggage-free Justin Bieber type to be hoisted on those wires!) Through January 4.

To post a comment, you must register and login.