Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Peter Pan, Queer Icon
The Atlantic ^ | December 4, 2014 | Shannon Keating

Posted on 12/04/2014 9:32:33 AM PST by C19fan

Since Peter Pan’s first adventures to Neverland in 1904, by way of the Duke of York’s Theatre in London, his story has been retold in countless variations on stage, page, and screen. More recent versions, including tonight's Peter Pan Live! on NBC, have been rewritten in attempts to unburden the text of its disturbing racial stereotypes.

Peter himself has also been reincarnated many times over. Where his Edwardian roots cast him as an impish child, still with all his baby teeth, contemporary storytellers envision a prepubescent boy physically and emotionally tottering on the edge of teenagedom—that stepping stone to adulthood he both disdains and disavows. Peter has been Disney-fied and Universal-ized; with technological advancement he has gained access to an increasingly resplendent Neverland.

One of the few things that hasn’t changed in more than a hundred years: On stage, Peter is almost always played by a woman.

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: homos; pan; peter; peterpan; queer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: C19fan
On stage, Peter is almost always played by a woman.

I saw Mary Martin (Larry Hagman's mom) play Peter Pan on TV back in the early 60's. Even as a small child I wondered why they would do that. He's supposed to be a boy! It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now..........................

21 posted on 12/04/2014 10:39:06 AM PST by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donna

They also use a woman because they do have a big bulge in their tights...so I’ve read.


22 posted on 12/04/2014 10:46:51 AM PST by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I don’t think that they should use a woman to play Peter Pan. It’s confusing to children.


23 posted on 12/04/2014 10:49:15 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Peterless Pans...oh, never mind!


24 posted on 12/04/2014 10:49:49 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Only someone completely ignorant of history (or anything else outside her silly non-degree in a non-subject) could be this ignorant.

The grand old tradition of British theatre, particularly "the pantos" (children's Christmas pantomime, which had its roots in the Italian commedia del'arte) has always had cross-dressing principals. The man dressed up as a comic woman (the "Dame" who is always good, or the "Ugly Sister" who is a villain) originated with the great clown Grimaldi, whose tumbling and acrobatic skills were unmatched (plus none of the actresses of sufficient skill to handle the work wanted to play an old and ugly woman!)

- And the "Principal Boy" was always played by a woman. On the one hand it was a plum role, on stage almost all the time, and on the other a boy old enough to handle the demands of the acting would be at risk of having his voice change any moment.

So it's tradition, born mostly of practical concerns in a long-running show, nothing to do with sexuality. Sometimes I feel like C.S. Lewis in The Four Loves when confronted with this "Everybody in History is Gay" nonsense - "The implications would be, if nothing else, too comic. Hrothgar embracing Beowulf, Johnson embracing Boswell (a pretty flagrantly heterosexual couple) and all those hairy old toughs of centurions in Tacitus, clinging to one another and begging for last kisses when the legion was broken up… all pansies? If you can believe that you can believe anything."

25 posted on 12/04/2014 10:56:16 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

Years ago, after the story of the penis story broke, I found this VHS LITTLE MERMAID Disney box in a ditch. Yes, it is exactly as shown.


26 posted on 12/04/2014 10:57:02 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I survived I-35W through Fort Worth in Rush hour!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: donna

I read that it was because of work laws that forbade boys from acting if they were below a certain age, so they used girls of age who had no begun to mature yet.


27 posted on 12/04/2014 11:00:10 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I survived I-35W through Fort Worth in Rush hour!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cld51860

In the past 20 years or so, there have been slews of books by homo authors who read “gay subtexts” into EVERY imagineable old movie. Even things like the Universal monster movies, where the Frankenstein monster is supposed to be some kind of symbol of being a homosexual outcast! The insanity is endless. They have it encompassing everything.

And I even see it every time I venture over to the Internet Movie Database, where submitted old-movie reviews by dingbats will invariably refer to any character played by unglamourous or semi-homely character actresses like Aline MacMahon, Agnes Moorehead and such, as automatically indicative of a “lesbian subtext.” It’s just mind-bogglingly insane. I think this craziness is being circulated throughout academic/college circles, like a lot of other weird liberal-tinged historical revisionism, and young minds are buying it all up, and perpetuating it further, in their internet postings.


28 posted on 12/04/2014 11:01:03 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LeoMcNeil

***I haven’t heard of the Wizard of Oz movie being queer.***

WHAT! You don’t remember the Lion singing about being a “dandy lion”?
It is almost as if Jimmy Durante did not see a man who he declared to be “A Sunflower, swish, sister, swish!” (/the Phantom President)
or Peter Lorie placing the SIX INCH LONG handle of his cane against his mouth in THE MALTESE FALCON!


29 posted on 12/04/2014 11:04:08 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I survived I-35W through Fort Worth in Rush hour!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Can we clap and make the fairies go away? (Or at least back in the closet?)


30 posted on 12/04/2014 11:08:33 AM PST by Bob (Violence in islam? That's not a bug; it's a feature.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
Judy Garland may be a queer icon but I haven’t heard of the Wizard of Oz movie being queer. I have heard queers call themselves "friends of Dorothy" but I also have never heard it said the movie has gay themes.

Though that Cowardly Lion has given me pause on may occasions...


31 posted on 12/04/2014 11:13:09 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Gay men were drawn to tragic heroines and wanton vixens. For one thing, their roles usually included them controlling men via their sexuality.
Rather ironic since gay men lambaste straight men for being hen-pecked by their women.


32 posted on 12/04/2014 11:19:51 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you are not part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
On stage, Peter is almost always played by a woman.

That is because a boy of the right age would only have the part for a few months, maybe a year.

Finding children of that age who can carry that kind of role is not easy. Having to find two, (star and understudy) would be very very hard.

It is easier to find a small female who will not begin to grow a beard or have her voice change at an awkward time.

33 posted on 12/04/2014 11:23:08 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

Because of the Cosmic Battle...


34 posted on 12/04/2014 11:27:19 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

What are the racial stereotypes in Peter Pan? That is something I missed.


35 posted on 12/04/2014 11:29:47 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
Well . . . I suppose that the Indians are stereotyped.

But they're not real Indians, any more than the Pirates are real Pirates . . . or than the St. Bernard dog is a real nanny.

It's a fantasy . . . deal with it.

36 posted on 12/04/2014 11:34:55 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Reminds me of a friend whose sister-in-law was a detective...Dickless Tracy.


37 posted on 12/04/2014 11:38:41 AM PST by gnickgnack2 (QUESTION obama's AUTHORITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
Rocket J. Squirrel comes to mind.

Isn't Bart Simpson voiced by a female?

38 posted on 12/04/2014 11:50:28 AM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LeoMcNeil

http://www.themoneymasters.com/mm/the-wonderful-wizard-of-oz/


39 posted on 12/04/2014 12:07:01 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

And they say Jesus and his students were homosexual, too. They see the world only through homosexual-colored glasses.


40 posted on 12/04/2014 12:08:09 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson