PETER PAN and Passion

[flyingskull]

Right, am definitely back from my travels, succeeded in creating tourist packages which I like a lot and sent my associates with clients to enjoy them as well. But that's a tale for another time because I'm still REELING from seeing Peter Pan directed by P. J. Hogan. Am going to rave and rant about it, so be warned.

But first I must explain a thing. Yes, baeraad, I play the 'Cripple Mister Onion' game that is life with my cards right close to me chest so I don't say things about me unless I feel they are necessary to understand what I'm going to rant and/or rave about. This is necessary. I hate going to a cinema, actually I never go. I can't jump up and down and scream there; I can't smoke or drink there; I can't - I know I could, but that's just not me - weep me eyes out there: in brief, I can't be ME in a cinema and I so want to do all of the above not to mention stop seeing something that's boring without disturbing a lot of people. So I always see films ages after they're out in cinemas.

Mummy - who never agrees with me on films, but who always knows when some film may be interesting for me - gave me this Peter Pan and WOW!

WOW!

The sheer intensity of it floored me. I mean, apart from the fact that it happens to BE Barrie's Peter Pan and not Disney ot any other eejit's view of the thing. It's a fucking tragedy! You feel youth slipping away from you and you bloody well know it's never ever ever coming back. It's a very funny feeling because I'm thirty, not eighty, but the point is not getting old, the point is losing the richness and wondewrfulness of childhood.

Which made me suddenly understand, right in the middle of pausing the film to sob like a Niagara, that that is what Howl's Moving Castle is all about. Howl is actually a Peter Pan who can't keep his grip on childhood and Sophie is a very laid back Wendy. The difference being that DWJ is accepting and understanding of the whole 'growing up' business and Barrie wasn't.

It hit me lots because I've ALWAYS been Wendy, in a sense, the Wendy in this film, mind you, not some mindless Disney clone. I remember, when dada read the book AND the play to me, identifying totally with Wendy because, by some miracle, Barrie caught a real female view of things ignoring his contemporary cliché. I was also Peter, but then I think all children who read or hear the story are Peter: he's not called Pan in vain, no siree.

Another odd thing about this film - to me, of course, this is really personal in a sense - is that I watched all the 'deleted scenes/alternative end/behind the scenes' drivel and - apart from Fergie fucking commentary which I ignored - they gave depth and even more intensity/passion to the whole. I don't want to know how tricks work, generally, I work enough tricks on my clients every day to really care about the mechanics of things, but this 'additional thingies' thing in this DVD somehow works so well it makes you want to re-watch the film over and over again. Which I did. AND wept at the same scenes because they are so BLOODY INTENSE you have to react some way.

I am NOT a weeper. Well, alright, I'm not generally a weeper, but I was gulping and sniffing throughout the sodding thing!

On a side note, I'd never known that Jason Isaacs could be so very wonderfully eatable while playing a stiff-backed and repressed bank clerk. Hat off to a GREAT actor, I mean Hook is easy to act, but Mr Darling? WOW! Also I've reserved Jeremy Sumpter for the year 2017. He's MINE! DO YOU HEAR?

MINE!!!

And now I feel like the slimiest paedo, but... GAAAAH! He'll become one of the sexiest man ever! Alright, not proud of that, but why lie to friends?

I suppose one of the factors is that I've finally read DWJ's Deep Secret which earns another WOW on the wow scale of books. How could have I missed such a terribly intense novel? I was tense a violin string from first word to the last. Lovely. Which brings me to confess I love passion/intensity more than anything else in books, films, comics, whatever. It doesn't have to be art, but it sure as death must strive to be.

I also finished Game of Thrones and I liked it a lot - bar the really useless prologue - but, though real glad I've read it; though I've ordered the other ones by Martin because I really like his style; it's not passionate. It's not intense one whit. Beautiful interesting chronicle - there are people in there, not all of them but enough of them - but... but... BUT...

You see, Daniel, m'luv, I'm a bit like Keats in that he wanted to see something he could get passionate about when looking at paintings. I want to read something I can get passionate about when I read books, and politics - though utterly fascinating to me - is not a thing I can get passionate about. I don't have a religious mind, you see? Politics, sports, religions are not things I can get passionate about. I love to analyse them, to study them at times, but... coldly, if you wish: an intellectual excercise. OTOH, I get extremely het up and passionate about science and people so put what I'm writing down to a quirk of mine. DWJ, Pterry, Hill, Rankin (both), Gaiman, Chaucer, Shakespeare Austen, Fielding... lots of others actually, are/were all passionate/intense authors, not all the time, of course, I mean human being can't sustain that level of intenstity all their life, but enough time that you can feel their fury while reading. I want that. I want to feel the fury like a dangerous undercurrent to the apparent text, the anger, the passion, the intensity. Which is why I liked Martin a lot, but was never impassioned about his world - a thousand points for worldbuilding, though, influences or not - and could stop reading and start again two days later with no feeling of losing contact with something vital and alive.

To end this really long and pointless rant. Do see P. J. Hogan's Peter Pan. It's a life changing/enhancing experience.

ETA to edit - too late alas! - and add Lj cut. SORRY!

Comments

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

This reply is quite late and I am deeply ashamed. ^_^; Life (read: school) is a little crazy right now.

I play the 'Cripple Mister Onion' game that is life with my cards right close to me chest so I don't say things about me unless I feel they are necessary to understand what I'm going to rant and/or rave about.

That is of course entirely your perogative. :) I admit that I regret it, though. It puts a definite limit to how close I can ever get to you.

Ahhhhhh, but things are as they are, no? =]

I hate going to a cinema

I kind of like it, but then, I can be me quite well in a cinema. Being me often means sitting on my ass and staring blankly in front of me, and that's the kind of behaviour that's approved of in a cinema. =]

the point is not getting old, the point is losing the richness and wondewrfulness of childhood.

Hrm. Mostly what I remember about being a child is never understanding anything and always being ordered around. ^_^;

Then again, it might be that I don't miss being a child because I'm still a child - just one who gets to stay up as long as he likes and doesn't have to eat his vedgetables if he doesn't want to. ;)

I don't want to know how tricks work

Again I must admit myself different. :) I always want to know what the author meant for the plot to be like, how the characters are supposed to work, and just generally how it all fits together.

That I am a little sorry about, actually. I get a little wistful for the days when I could just appreciate a story for what it was. These days, I've just thought so much about why stories affect me that they really don't affect me very much anymore. I just approve or disapprove of technique. =]

Also I've reserved Jeremy Sumpter for the year 2017.

*laughs* That being when he comes of legal age, I take it? Well, we're just going to have to make sure he doesn't get snatched up by some floozy before then. =]

Which brings me to confess I love passion/intensity more than anything else in books, films, comics, whatever.

Ahhh... yeah, Martin falls a little short, in that case. :) There's pathos in there, but it's not really intense, no. You're not swept along, you're invited to read along at a leisurely pace and admire the scenery along the way. =]

I'm starting to realise (much too my embarrassment) that I don't trust passion in books. I mean, Pratchett is very passionate, but he's smart, so he's allowed. He's passionate about smart things - nothing wrong with that. =] A lot of the time, though, being passionate translates into "everyone has to like what I like! Everyone who doesn't is evil!" ^_^;

And guess who doesn't usually like what these passionate pinheads like? Me, that's who! ^_^;;;

No, I like books that are carefully assembled, first and foremost. :) I like feeling that everything that happens happens for a purpose, that everything's thought out and everything's clear and sensible and thought through.

Not that I'm implying you don't like that sort of thing, but by your own admission, you want passion first. I want intellect first - though I think we can both agree that the best kind of books (like Pratchett's) has both. :)

Which Fielding, by the way? I can find references to no less than three authors by that name, and I think I've read two of them. =]

Do see P. J. Hogan's Peter Pan.

I will endevour to do so. :)

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Hi luv, be as late as you wish, please! I'm a sleazy late replier, possibly one of the tardiest in the history of the netz!

Well... ahem. I have a horrid sinking feeling this is going to sound indecently female =/= male, if not outright demented, but to me closeness is not necessarily so much info as frequent moments of meeting of the minds. So I feel you are a friend even though I know diddly-squat about your everyday life and pursuit. I'm finding out a lot about how you think and react though, and the discovery process is much too enthralling for me to prefer infodump. If I make meself clear.

I don't want to know how special effects work in a film, I should have written, I now realise. It was a very specialised kind of Not-Want-To-Know thing. OF COURSE I want, nay, I NEED to know how things work: I'm not addicted to science and lit crit for nothing. I meant I could care less about the mechanics of special effects in films, but this time the short docus were actually so joyous - prolly acuz of the children and a lovely self-ironic Issacs - that they completed instead of diminishing the film and boring the living hell out of me. Same thing happened with the '80s 'how I made Star Wars' docu. But it never happens with anything else. Yes, I'm weird, how is that a surprise? :P

mean, Pratchett is very passionate, but he's smart, so he's allowed. He's passionate about smart things - nothing wrong with that

AH, but THAT is exactly what I mean by 'intense' and 'passionate'. Being an arrogant scrote doesn't compute for me. Jane Austen was screaming that you had no need of looking for horror castles if you wanted to experience real horror: you just had to be born female and not immensely rich. I really like Martin and I love carefully and intelligently assembled books and, as I said, one can't sustain that kind of intensity all the time, so intelligent, humane, careful books are very very welcome. But the difference, to me, is the same difference between... let's say Botticelli's Primavera and Bryan Talbot's World's End huge panels. I can appreciate both, but my heart is given to Botticelli because he does ART. And ART is what I want most, not entertainment. Though I love entertainment to get me down from the heights. And yes, to me Pterry is ART.

Very personal thing, much more personal than saying everyday things, luv.

I don't think you can have art, passion or intensity without a huge intellect. Am not religious in any shape or form. All that drivel about 'follow your heart'. I follow my mind and am perfectly able to think with all of my bodily functions which means neurons, glands and electromagnetic fields. Sorry I didn't express myself very well while ranting and raving.

And please forgive me this because I mean no disrespect AT ALL, but are you sure you aren't a tiny bit scared of chaos? I say this because you said:

No, I like books that are carefully assembled, first and foremost. :) I like feeling that everything that happens happens for a purpose, that everything's thought out and everything's clear and sensible and thought through.

And while I agree with you that fiction is a conforting thing exactly because it lies about reality in that everything in it should happen for a purpose; and while I sure am one for escapist - in the above sense - literature; I think that books should hurt every now and then. Not in the Paolini/Rowling sense of being drivel and amking you so angry you want to KILL!KILL!KILL! the author, but in the sense of brutally making you face your own humanity in all its... GAH words fail me, perhaps vunerability, perhaps imperfection, but also and at the same time potential. We, the living, are a lot like Schroedinger's cat, after all. We haven't the slightest idea if we'll turn out alive or dead, decent or scrotes etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, quite long, rambling and possibly pointless. :-D

Oh, and... HENRY Fielding. Wrote Tom Jones and other novels, several plays and invented the Perlice. Seriously, he created the Bow Street Runners! Lived in the XVIII century.

Oh, yeah, forgot

[flyingskull.livejournal.com]

Also, oh... All the authors I cited are/were Brits, but there are lots more of all nationalities.

NOW tell me if you know Asmund Fraegdegjevar! From what Lumsk say on the CD leaflet, it's a hell of a fucking WOW story. Where are the good Fantasy writers when you need them?

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

I consider you a friend too, obviously. :)

Hmm. The thing is, I tend to understand the best by studying examples. I do get plenty of chances to see how you think - but what does it all mean, in practice? I have only a very limited idea, because "in practice" is all about how you deal with everyday life. Now, I have some idea about how you deal with everyday life, because you do let things slip... ;) but all in all, I'm relying on guesswork.

We're back to science and technology again, I guess. You want things abstract, and I want to know the implications. =]

Still, if abstract discussion is all you desire from me, then I will deliver, and be happy to! :D I like to think that I accept people on their own terms. :)

I don't want to know how special effects work in a film, I should have written, I now realise.

Ohhhhhhh. Yes, I should of course have realised that you'd not be averse to finding out literary tricks, since that's what we've spent so much time discussing, for heaven's sake. I'm sorry, school has made me stupid. ^_^;

And here I agree with you. :) I don't really care about special effects. I mean, I'm sure it's very clever and all, but who cares? It's the story I care about, and I'll happily edit my memories of bad special effects into memories of good special effects. =]

are you sure you aren't a tiny bit scared of chaos?

Scared of chaos? Let's put it like this - the only thing that's more scary than uncertainty is the certainty of something awful. =]

But in this context, I'd say it's more like I detest not being able to understand. Something I can't wrap my mind around deeply annoys me. And in fiction, there are no excuses for creating a world which can not be understood, or at least theorised about.

And while I agree with you that fiction is a conforting thing exactly because it lies about reality in that everything in it should happen for a purpose; and while I sure am one for escapist - in the above sense - literature

You misunderstand. :) It's not comfort. It's just clarity. Everything happens for a reason in real life, too - it's just that we so often never find out what the reason was, because we don't get the whole picture. What's great about fiction is that you can isolate an event, explore exactly why and how it happened and what its implications were.

in the sense of brutally making you face your own humanity in all its... GAH words fail me, perhaps vunerability, perhaps imperfection, but also and at the same time potential. We, the living, are a lot like Schroedinger's cat, after all. We haven't the slightest idea if we'll turn out alive or dead, decent or scrotes etc. etc. etc.

I don't think that's in contradiction to wanting books to be well-ordered, though. :) Just because things happen for a reason it doesn't mean they're under anyone's control. I mean, I agree with you, I like books where the characters are small and struggling to survive and remain true to themselves in an unfeeling universe, I just want the unfeeling universe to operate on some kind of rules. Think of it as the difference between determinism and fatalism. =]

I'm really not sure we're disagreeing about anything very much, since all the authors you take up as examples of passionate writers, I consider to write like I prefer them to... though I also don't consider them very passionate. Which is actually the thing that does confuse me - while I admit that Martin is not terribly passionate, how is he less passionate than Hill and Rankin and so forth?

HENRY Fielding

Ahhhh. So not one of the two I've read, both of which kinda sucked, then. :D