From the IMDB:
Full Version: Finding Neverland
| QUOTE |
| Also, Dustin Hoffman's role (as an American theater impresario) in the picture should be a hoot. He worked in a "morphine-induced haze" after slicing half a finger off on his first day of shooting. |
FWIW, I believe that should be FINDING Neverland.
This film is coming out right around the same time as Huckabees and Meet the Fokkers. Maybe we can tell in what order the films (or scenes!) were shot by checking his hand.
This film is coming out right around the same time as Huckabees and Meet the Fokkers. Maybe we can tell in what order the films (or scenes!) were shot by checking his hand.
Peter:
| QUOTE |
| FWIW, I believe that should be FINDING Neverland. |
Duly noted.
| QUOTE |
| This film is coming out right around the same time as Huckabees and Meet the Fokkers. Maybe we can tell in what order the films (or scenes!) were shot by checking his hand. |
I guess...
I just wonder what he was doing in Finding Neverland playing an "American theater impresario" that would result in him slicing off part of his finger. Or was the finger slicing an extracurricular activity?
| QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Oct 25 2004, 08:24 AM) |
| Maybe we can tell in what order the films (or scenes!) were shot by checking his hand. |
Yeah but they can fix that with digital effects can't they... ?
Saw it at one of the many previews showings around here last weekend. I look forward to Steven's thoughts since he's a Pan fan.
One slightly disconcerting observation. There were a few places in the films where there was a bit of a ghost flutter around the shoulders of people in light color clothing. I don't know if it was a projection problem or a problem in the print. For me it was a bit distracting.
One slightly disconcerting observation. There were a few places in the films where there was a bit of a ghost flutter around the shoulders of people in light color clothing. I don't know if it was a projection problem or a problem in the print. For me it was a bit distracting.
A couple other thoughts. Depp's brogue struck me more as Irish that Scottish (not that I'm a brogue expert).
And the film is rated PG. Nothing in it to justify it being higher, but I really see it more appealing to adults than to kids.
And the film is rated PG. Nothing in it to justify it being higher, but I really see it more appealing to adults than to kids.
Ooooh... seems I can add posts again... goodie!
This was an odd film. Perhaps because the subject has always been a little hazy, and I suppose I know more about it than the average viewer because I did some research on Peter Pan at uni. There's been endless amounts of debate about Barrie's relationship with the Lewellyn-Davies children (largely due to peter's suicide in later life, and the drowning of one of the other brothers which may have been a suicide) and I have to say I was gratified to see it put all the speculation to one side and be flippant about keeping a historical record. Made the film much more watchable and gave it more substance than if it was just about a specific relationship.
As for the PG. I did wonder about that. There were a few children at the screening I went to which surprised me (partly because I arrived late and didn't see them until leaving). It's not a children's film but equally it isn't a film that can't be watched by them. Some subtleties may elude children, but equally as the film demonstrates by retelling the opening night of Peter Pan some subtleties may elude adults and speak to children.
As for Depp's performance. He fitted the character perfectly. He embodies the theme of eternal youth (honestly, will he always be so painfully good looking?) and he underplayed Barrie in such a way that made into the best kind of hero - a softly spoken one.
This was an odd film. Perhaps because the subject has always been a little hazy, and I suppose I know more about it than the average viewer because I did some research on Peter Pan at uni. There's been endless amounts of debate about Barrie's relationship with the Lewellyn-Davies children (largely due to peter's suicide in later life, and the drowning of one of the other brothers which may have been a suicide) and I have to say I was gratified to see it put all the speculation to one side and be flippant about keeping a historical record. Made the film much more watchable and gave it more substance than if it was just about a specific relationship.
As for the PG. I did wonder about that. There were a few children at the screening I went to which surprised me (partly because I arrived late and didn't see them until leaving). It's not a children's film but equally it isn't a film that can't be watched by them. Some subtleties may elude children, but equally as the film demonstrates by retelling the opening night of Peter Pan some subtleties may elude adults and speak to children.
As for Depp's performance. He fitted the character perfectly. He embodies the theme of eternal youth (honestly, will he always be so painfully good looking?) and he underplayed Barrie in such a way that made into the best kind of hero - a softly spoken one.
Gigi, what about the relationship between Barrie and Mrs. Llewelyn Davies; was it as platonic as in the film?
Everyone seems to agree on that point, yes it was.
What is different, and would clarify this point greatly in the film, is that Mr Llewellyn Davies was alive when Barrie first met the family. He disapproved of the friendship quite strongly, that is until he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and then asked Barrie to look after his family when he died. Mrs Llewellyn Davies died a few years later. All in all, it's a pretty tragic family story. I didn't mention that a third brother died during the war. Poor Barrie seemed to be doomed to have anyone close to him die.
What is different, and would clarify this point greatly in the film, is that Mr Llewellyn Davies was alive when Barrie first met the family. He disapproved of the friendship quite strongly, that is until he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and then asked Barrie to look after his family when he died. Mrs Llewellyn Davies died a few years later. All in all, it's a pretty tragic family story. I didn't mention that a third brother died during the war. Poor Barrie seemed to be doomed to have anyone close to him die.
Darrel Manson wrote:
: Depp's brogue struck me more as Irish that Scottish . . .
Same here.
I caught it with the fiancée tonight, and we both liked it. It was especially striking to see this so soon after The Polar Express -- both films address the need to "believe" in the imaginary, but whereas The Polar Express is saccharine and mechanical and condescending (and contributes to the desacralization of a Christian holdiay, to boot), Finding Neverland works on a subtler emotional level and is grounded in real human brokenness (deaths in the family, failing relationships) -- and its basic theme, that we must never give in to reductionism (Depp has a nice little spiel about the dangers of the word "just"), is compatible with just about any matrix of meaning. (Provided, of course, that one does not believe that the film expects us to literally believe in fairies, etc.)
Oh, and it was interesting to see how Dustin Hoffman managed to hide his finger in all but a couple of shots -- stretching his arm behind a seat, holding his hand inside his jacket as he went for a walk down the street, stuff like that.
: Depp's brogue struck me more as Irish that Scottish . . .
Same here.
I caught it with the fiancée tonight, and we both liked it. It was especially striking to see this so soon after The Polar Express -- both films address the need to "believe" in the imaginary, but whereas The Polar Express is saccharine and mechanical and condescending (and contributes to the desacralization of a Christian holdiay, to boot), Finding Neverland works on a subtler emotional level and is grounded in real human brokenness (deaths in the family, failing relationships) -- and its basic theme, that we must never give in to reductionism (Depp has a nice little spiel about the dangers of the word "just"), is compatible with just about any matrix of meaning. (Provided, of course, that one does not believe that the film expects us to literally believe in fairies, etc.)
Oh, and it was interesting to see how Dustin Hoffman managed to hide his finger in all but a couple of shots -- stretching his arm behind a seat, holding his hand inside his jacket as he went for a walk down the street, stuff like that.
From J. Robert Parks' review of Finding Neverland, at Looking Closer Journal.
QUOTE
One of the great things about Finding Neverland is how it moves from the realistic to the magical. One moment, everyone's playing Cowboys and Indians in the back yard, and the next moment director Marc Forster (Monster's Ball) seamlessly places us in a gorgeous, artificial set. Forster does the same thing as we see Barrie writing Peter Pan from his experiences with the Davies boys. In a spectacularly gorgeous scene, a bedtime moment where the boys are jumping on their beds turns into the genesis of Peter Pan flying through the air. The movie relies on the old chestnut that writers find all their material from their own lives, but Forster and writers Allan Knee and David Magee use the device so naturally that it rings true.
The writing in Finding Neverland is sharp and witty, as you'd expect from a movie based on a play. In one scene, as Peter Davies has finally come out of his shell and written his own work, he remarks, "It's a little bit of silliness," and Barrie quickly responds, "I should hope so." It helps enormously that Johnny Depp is the essence of charm. Imagine combining his Buster Keaton impersonation from Benny & Joon with his sashaying performance in Pirates of the Caribbean. And his tender scenes with Kate Winslet, who's always fine as an alluring free spirit, are marvelous. The boys are perfectly played, and Julie Christie has a small role as the mean, old mother. Only an unnecessary coda breaks the spell. It's as if Forster wanted to bring us back from Neverland, lest we never leave the theater.
The writing in Finding Neverland is sharp and witty, as you'd expect from a movie based on a play. In one scene, as Peter Davies has finally come out of his shell and written his own work, he remarks, "It's a little bit of silliness," and Barrie quickly responds, "I should hope so." It helps enormously that Johnny Depp is the essence of charm. Imagine combining his Buster Keaton impersonation from Benny & Joon with his sashaying performance in Pirates of the Caribbean. And his tender scenes with Kate Winslet, who's always fine as an alluring free spirit, are marvelous. The boys are perfectly played, and Julie Christie has a small role as the mean, old mother. Only an unnecessary coda breaks the spell. It's as if Forster wanted to bring us back from Neverland, lest we never leave the theater.
QUOTE(SDG @ Nov 12 2004, 10:02 AM)
I wonder if there is a a sense where familiarity with Barrie and Peter Pan leads you to be a bit more critical of this film. I think we know that if there is a biblical film, I will likely by hypercritical of it. Do you think that without your background in Pan that you would be a bit more tolerant?
Absolutely a possibility, Darrel. Quite likely in fact. I don't know but I would need more viewings to try to separate out my reactions as a Peter Pan fan from my responses to the film in itself, if indeed I could do such a thing.
That said, the outside reviews that resonate the most for me are the ones that find the film, to ring a change on a line from Pan, "an awfully small adventure."
That said, the outside reviews that resonate the most for me are the ones that find the film, to ring a change on a line from Pan, "an awfully small adventure."
This review from The New Yorker makes some interesting points, I thought.
Maybe this post also belongs in LITERATURE?
Maybe this post also belongs in LITERATURE?
Wow. That's a good article.
On another forum, where another Barrie fan and I were expressing our lukewarmness about the film, a third participant asked me the same question Darrel did above, prompting a slightly more in-depth response this time around:[indent]While I freely admit that my fondness for Barrie is a factor in my apathy regarding this film, I don't believe it's the case that I'm just bound and determined to dislike any attempt to capture the man.
After all, I'm ten times the C. S. Lewis nut that I am a Barrie aficionado, and I liked Shadowlands just fine. And Thomas More is both my favorite saint and the subject of one of my favorite films, A Man for All Seasons.
But then -- and this is the key, I think -- in writing A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt (who also wrote Lawrence of Arabia and The Mission) was at pains to preserve the quality of More's voice, partly by using excerpts from the man's own writing, and, in Bolt's own words, "for the rest [seeking] to match with these as best I could so that the theft should not be too obvious.”
Bolt succeeded, and the dialogue in A Man for All Seasons sparkles with More's own wit, intelligence, and conviction. That's precisely what didn't happen with Finding Neverland. There was no effort, at least not that I could detect, to capture Barrie's voice, or the flavor and texture of his imaginative world.
That's why I began my review with an extended quotation from Peter Pan, and then pointed out that the Barrie of the film never says anything half as sparkling as that.[/indent]That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
After all, I'm ten times the C. S. Lewis nut that I am a Barrie aficionado, and I liked Shadowlands just fine. And Thomas More is both my favorite saint and the subject of one of my favorite films, A Man for All Seasons.
But then -- and this is the key, I think -- in writing A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt (who also wrote Lawrence of Arabia and The Mission) was at pains to preserve the quality of More's voice, partly by using excerpts from the man's own writing, and, in Bolt's own words, "for the rest [seeking] to match with these as best I could so that the theft should not be too obvious.”
Bolt succeeded, and the dialogue in A Man for All Seasons sparkles with More's own wit, intelligence, and conviction. That's precisely what didn't happen with Finding Neverland. There was no effort, at least not that I could detect, to capture Barrie's voice, or the flavor and texture of his imaginative world.
That's why I began my review with an extended quotation from Peter Pan, and then pointed out that the Barrie of the film never says anything half as sparkling as that.[/indent]That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Do you think it's winning Best Picture from the National Board of Review means it has a good shot at winning the Oscar? Frankly, I'm shocked at that result. The NBR often has a screwy top ten list, but this is really unexpected.
QUOTE(Jeffrey Overstreet @ Dec 1 2004, 07:52 PM)
Do you think it's winning Best Picture from the National Board of Review means it has a good shot at winning the Oscar? Frankly, I'm shocked at that result. The NBR often has a screwy top ten list, but this is really unexpected.
[right][snapback]50095[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]50095[/snapback][/right]
It will probably get a nomination, but the NBR isn't that great at predicting Oscar winners. Of that past ten NBR winners, only American Beauty went on to get the Oscar, and two (Quills and Gods and Monsters) weren't even nominated.
2003 - Mystic River
2002 - The Hours
2001 - Moulin Rouge
2000 - Quills
1999 - American Beauty
1998 - Gods and Monsters
1997 - L.A. Confidential
1996 - Shine
1995 - Sense and Sensibility
1994 - Pulp Fiction
I wish I could agree. I'm hard up for "year's finest" films.
Peter Pan's dark side
Curiously, given our culture's morbid fascination with pedophilia, a current biopic of Barrie, Neverland, takes a normalized view of its subject. In life, Barrie looked nothing like virile Johnny Depp. Barely five feet tall, with a gnome-like high forehead and curling mustaches, he was something of a Pan-like "betwixt and between." As one biographer said: "He was old but not grown up." He was almost certainly a homosexual, the likely reason for his marriage's failure. Nobody today would believe that Barrie's all-consuming adoration of his muses, the Lewellyn Davies boys, was normal or benign, however sexually circumscribed his behaviour with them.
Barbara Kay, National Post, December 22
Curiously, given our culture's morbid fascination with pedophilia, a current biopic of Barrie, Neverland, takes a normalized view of its subject. In life, Barrie looked nothing like virile Johnny Depp. Barely five feet tall, with a gnome-like high forehead and curling mustaches, he was something of a Pan-like "betwixt and between." As one biographer said: "He was old but not grown up." He was almost certainly a homosexual, the likely reason for his marriage's failure. Nobody today would believe that Barrie's all-consuming adoration of his muses, the Lewellyn Davies boys, was normal or benign, however sexually circumscribed his behaviour with them.
Barbara Kay, National Post, December 22
The charge that Barrie was "almost certainly homosexual" is not, I believe, supported by the evidence. The word "asexual" is widely used to characterize him, and this may well approximate the truth. In the words of director Marc Forster:[indent]Barrie had this child within him... There's this debate going on which you may be aware of: was he a pedophile or was he not a pedophile? All the historians say he wasn't and the kids he adopted say he wasn't and I asked the granddaughter and she said he wasn't.
Everyone says he was asexual and he had a very asexual relationship with his first wife.[/indent]So that's one thing I actually appreciate about this film. If only it had managed to capture something of the true whimsy of Barrie's imagination.
Everyone says he was asexual and he had a very asexual relationship with his first wife.[/indent]So that's one thing I actually appreciate about this film. If only it had managed to capture something of the true whimsy of Barrie's imagination.
Saw this one after Christmas and enjoyed it, although I'm not sure I'd consider it best picture material. Loved some of the imaginary flourishes, like Barrie imagining the boys flying out of their windows Pan-style, and Winslet's introduction to "Neverland."
Depp is always a pleasure to watch; I can't recall a role he's done that wasn't convincing. Never been a Winslet fan, but after seeing this and Eternal Sunshine a few weeks ago, she's moved up several notches in my book.
It struck me that two former headliners, Dustin Hoffman and Julie Christie, faded into the scenery in roles that could have been played by anyone else. Hoffman isn't working very hard these days, is he?
Overall, it'll be the kind of movie I'll have to think real hard about to remember in a few years.
Depp is always a pleasure to watch; I can't recall a role he's done that wasn't convincing. Never been a Winslet fan, but after seeing this and Eternal Sunshine a few weeks ago, she's moved up several notches in my book.
It struck me that two former headliners, Dustin Hoffman and Julie Christie, faded into the scenery in roles that could have been played by anyone else. Hoffman isn't working very hard these days, is he?
Overall, it'll be the kind of movie I'll have to think real hard about to remember in a few years.
Mark wrote:
: Hoffman isn't working very hard these days, is he?
Hard, maybe not. Often, yes, what with Finding Neverland, I Heart Huckabees, Meet the Fockers, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (okay, so it's only a cameo) and the upcoming Racing Stripes. Five movies in three or four months? That's just one movie shy of Jude Law's six (and one better than Don Cheadle's four). (And then there is Ben Stiller, who appeared in at least six movies over the course of 2005 -- but that spans the entire year.)
: Hoffman isn't working very hard these days, is he?
Hard, maybe not. Often, yes, what with Finding Neverland, I Heart Huckabees, Meet the Fockers, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (okay, so it's only a cameo) and the upcoming Racing Stripes. Five movies in three or four months? That's just one movie shy of Jude Law's six (and one better than Don Cheadle's four). (And then there is Ben Stiller, who appeared in at least six movies over the course of 2005 -- but that spans the entire year.)
Saw this last night, but whilst I didn't think I was in the mood I loved it. If at som point I have to reconsider my top 10 list for 2004 this will be one of the films that challenges it (the other being Motorcycle diaries - both were seen after I published my list, so, y'know)
Intersting points from SDG on the lack of Barrie's imagination. I wonder though whether you're being a little too literal with it though? What I mean is that Barrie's imagination seems to be demonstrated far more through the way the film is made, things like the background when he opens his bedroom door, and the way the film switches from the "real world" to the imagined one. I can see the point that his fantasies with the children were rather ordinary in some ways, but at the same time we don't have much of a record of those times (as far as I'm aware - but would be interested to actually know). It would seem to be fairly likely at least that a writer would be able to create more fantastical situations given time to sit and think and plan and re-write than off the cuff as his relationship with the LLewelyn-Davies boys was, and in some ways most of the Neverland wonder works because he creates a construct where these things become believeable. Taking isolated aspects of it wouldn't work either because it lacked that context, or because those ideas on their own might be dull. E.g imagine a game with a lost shadow without the back story of Peter Pan to back it up. Just a thought. That said I did feel the final revelation of Neverland to Winslet's character wasn't that enticing to be honest - far too crowded!
The film was alot funnier than I expected. Hoffman and Depp were both perfect in this respect. Depp's delivery of the line "Because in fact, being a dog, you haven't any proper digits, have you?" is made more wonderous by trying to quote it, because on the page / screen it's just not that funny. (FWIW I noticed Hoffman's bandaged finger at one point)
And man can those children act
Intersting points from SDG on the lack of Barrie's imagination. I wonder though whether you're being a little too literal with it though? What I mean is that Barrie's imagination seems to be demonstrated far more through the way the film is made, things like the background when he opens his bedroom door, and the way the film switches from the "real world" to the imagined one. I can see the point that his fantasies with the children were rather ordinary in some ways, but at the same time we don't have much of a record of those times (as far as I'm aware - but would be interested to actually know). It would seem to be fairly likely at least that a writer would be able to create more fantastical situations given time to sit and think and plan and re-write than off the cuff as his relationship with the LLewelyn-Davies boys was, and in some ways most of the Neverland wonder works because he creates a construct where these things become believeable. Taking isolated aspects of it wouldn't work either because it lacked that context, or because those ideas on their own might be dull. E.g imagine a game with a lost shadow without the back story of Peter Pan to back it up. Just a thought. That said I did feel the final revelation of Neverland to Winslet's character wasn't that enticing to be honest - far too crowded!
The film was alot funnier than I expected. Hoffman and Depp were both perfect in this respect. Depp's delivery of the line "Because in fact, being a dog, you haven't any proper digits, have you?" is made more wonderous by trying to quote it, because on the page / screen it's just not that funny. (FWIW I noticed Hoffman's bandaged finger at one point)
And man can those children act
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.