Web Series Review: The New Adventures of Peter and Wendy

I don't think it's any secret, but in case you aren't already aware, I have an affinity for all things Peter Pan. I am a self-proclaimed J.M. Barrie junkie who wrote a biography on Barrie in 10th grade and thought that made me an expert. Imagine my excitement when I found out that there were folks making a web series adaptation of my darling book, entitled The New Adventures of Peter and Wendy. Cue the happy dancing!

Let me preface my review with this statement. I am all for the adaptation and even modernization of classic tales. The fact that there are people out there re-telling this hundred year old book is a testament to its classic lit status. Peter Pan contains universal themes and questions that deserve to be revisited. I'm not a purist. I'm not expecting a direct translation of the book to modern times. That being said, I have to admit... I'm a little disappointed in this web series. I know that there is an entire fandom out there just waiting to shoot this Wendy-bird down, but trust me, I have my reasons.

First, the age of the characters. When I first heard that there was going to be a modern take on Peter Pan set in a small town called Neverland, I figured the main characters would be college-aged. It's perfect, right? Standing on the brink of adulthood -- college and careers knocking on the door -- and Peter doesn't want to leave Neverland, but Wendy knows she has to in order to pursue her dreams and grow up. But in the web series, the main characters are in their late twenties. Not mid-twenties. Not early twenties. Late twenties. Paying bills. Working jobs. Living out of apartments. If the question of "growing up" is an issue at twenty-seven, then we have bigger problems than the immediate conflict in Peter and Wendy.

Of course, this detail reflects the extension of adolescence in our culture. However, Wendy at twenty-seven? Peter, practically a thirty year old man, still swearing to never grow up? For me, the ages detract from the conflict. Every time Peter starts to pull on my heartstrings (and he does, Kyle Walters is excellent in the role), my logical side kicks in. There are no excuses for anyone being this childish at this age. Goofiness and irresponsibility is problematic in someone approaching twenty, but seriously disconcerting in someone approaching thirty. If the characters' ages were dialed back a few years, I think I would be more disposed to believe the plot... and like the characters more. Instead I find myself disturbed by the immaturity of fully grown adults. Yes, adults. The childhood Peter is grasping at left years ago, hence why I am not a fan of this aspect of the series.

Secondly, I don't particularly care for TNAoP+W's more mature content*. I can tolerate it in small doses (think The Lizzie Bennet Diaries), but I think certain parts of the series were excessive. This is open for debate. I know not everyone has the same sensibilities I do and may beg to differ, but even if there are those who do not mind such elements, the fact is that by including mature content (not graphic, but mature), the series further distances itself from the original novel. Which brings me to my final conclusion: For whatever The New Adventure of Peter and Wendy's strengths, at the end of the day, it isn't Peter Pan. It's good. The acting is great. But it isn't based on the book. It's based on some of the concepts of and popular myths surrounding the book. The times where it deviates from the plot of the original aren't just minor changes, they change the heart of the story. When all is said and done, the "take away" from the web series differs from the book, which is inevitable when romance is at the forefront of the series.

I'm still thrilled that there is interest in this web show, though the jury is out on whether or not I can give it a stamp of approval. I disagreed with a lot of things in the series, which can sort of suck the fun out of it. If the indiegogo campaign goes well, I should have a season or two more to make up my mind.

So there you have it, my thoughts on The New Adventures of Peter and Wendy. If anyone else has seen it, I'd love to hear your take on it.

* "Mature content" in this series includes an instance of doing drugs, passionate kissing, drunkenness, co-habitation, etc.

Images: one, two, three

Movie Review: Austenland

Being the diehard Austenite that I am, I always have to detach a little from history when I watch an Austen themed movie or series. I had to let go big time when Emily, Ally and I rented Austenland on a relaxed Saturday night. Sometimes at school you can get uber serious and all you do is study and have deep conversation and so you need a light, carefree movie to "refresh your palate" or something like that. Instead of giving my metaphorical taste buds a rest, I ended up biting my literal tongue looking at all the grossly inaccurate, not-at-all Regency pastel decor of the Austenland manor, and I squeezed the life out of my pillow every time someone did something non-kosher. ("Why are you people allowed to sit on the same couch? Why haven't you changed for dinner? Where is all the muslin!?") However, unlike some other Jane Austen films which try and fail at being historical, Austenland is all about Jane Austen misconceptions -- an interesting concept to see on-screen.

I'm going to be honest here: This movie hit my limit in terms of appropriateness. It is not something I would recommend to just anyone. I hesitate to recommend it at all, but there was one redeeming quality that made me feel like it was worthwhile for me as an individual. Two words: Henry Nobley.

The basic plot of Austenland is as follows: Jane Hayes has been in love with Jane Austen (and Mr. Darcy) since she was a child. After a run-in with her really slimy ex-boyfriend, she decides to do something that only characters in chick flicks can do: spend her savings on the trip of a lifetime. Jane heads to Austenland, an insanely expensive resort where women go and pretend to be characters in Jane Austen's world -- complete with romance. Hired actors keep the guests' experience… "lively". Jane is staying with quite the cast of characters, be they paid actors or paying customers. Long story short, Jane finds herself falling for the groundskeeper, Martin, instead of the actor she thinks she's being set up with, the gallant, eye-rolling, utterly Darcy-like Henry Nobley. [SPOILER ALERT] There's tension, awkwardness, historical inaccuracies galore, and then, PLOT TWIST! Lame-o groundskeeper guy is an actor who has been assigned to woo Jane, whereas Nobley is a history professor who has been roped into playing a character by his aunt, who owns the place. Henry really is in love with Jane, and as they both are terrible actors, every moment they shared was real. He's in love, flies across the pond to profess his love (and have tea), and they agree to give it ago. Did I mention that when he's not wearing a cravat he's sporting a thoroughly handsome blazer/sweater/button-down combo that makes his eyes look super blue and gives him an air of educated -- I digress.

He drinks out of a tea cup for the pure nostalgia of it. Hawt shtuff.

The thing about Austenland is that it has nothing to do with the real world of Jane Austen at all. The rich patrons (unlike Jane) experience the highest luxury -- not exactly the experience of Austen's landed gentry. Moreover, Jane Austen did NOT (contrary to popular belief) write romances. The sensuous affairs of Austenland's residents resemble penny dreadfuls rather than classic literature. Austenland is like Mansfield Park in many ways, in terms of plot and themes. It looks good on the outside, but it's morally corrupt on the inside. This moral decadence leads in to what I don't like about this movie -- more on that later -- but now, for the movie's redeeming quality, Henry Nobley.

Besides the fact that JJ Feilds has the best facial expressions, Henry is more than just the "good guy" of the movie. Henry and Jane both love the Regency era on account of its social customs, which are all but non-existent today. The little gestures like standing when a woman entered the room or limiting physical touch to dancing were meant to protect love and promote respect. Perhaps Henry and Jane are a bit idealistic in this regard, thinking that Regency England was some sort of romanticized haven, but the fact they have ideals is extremely admirable. Meanwhile in Austenland, the hideous and over-sexualized modern culture mingles with Jane Austen stereotype to create a pink, frothy concoction Henry calls "grotesque". The prevalence of sexual sin at Austenland directly conflicts with Henry's values and belief in proper conduct. Hence the tension between Martin and Henry. Martin acts entitled to Jane's affections, and takes liberties when it comes to physical contact and playing with her emotions. Henry, meanwhile, is respectful in his touch and his conversation. Henry, in his plain and historically accurate costume, stands as a literal and figurative contrast to his counterparts. Also, he has the most endearing ears.

Dat chivalry, though.

Now unto all that I didn't like. Unlike Greek tragedy, in Austenland, all the not-so-nice stuff happens on-screen. There were a number of "scenes" that made me uncomfortable and I didn't appreciate most of the humor. I also find it disturbing how flippantly the movie deals with a case of attempted sexual assault. While the scene itself isn't graphic or overly disturbing, none of the characters seem to take the occurance seriously. It is implied that such a thing has happened before at Austenland and has been covered up on numerous occasions. Yet Jane reduces the incident to blackmail and threatens to make a case and sue the owner. The notion is dropped by the movie's end with minimal fanfare. The offender is seen free -- albeit unhappy -- in a scene during the credits. While all of this immorality played into the larger themes of the movie, I don't think I can justify the tactless way it was presented. The cases of immorality were not dealt with tastefully but rather treated as crude objects of humor. I wish I could wholeheartedly recommend this movie, but alas... I hesitate. Perhaps one could watch it with Clearplay... though I'm not certain there would be a whole lot left.

On a semi-related note…

My favorite Henry moment was after the play (for there is indeed a play, a la Mansfield Park) when he asked if he might reserve Jane's first two dances at the ball. This was the Regency equivalent of saving the last dance, and I very much appreciated the detail.

He calls people ninjas.

And no, I will not stopping adding Henry gifs to this post.

Images: one, two, three

"Failure is not an option."

Technically speaking, I guess I failed. I missed two days in a row for the 100 for 100 Challenge, and as they straddled two different weeks, so I'm out of the game. (You only have one grace week, which I used this past week while enjoying my sister's birthday celebrations.)

Does that mean I'm quitting? Heck no!

 In fact, just last night I wrote approximately 2 1/2 chapters of my novel in one sitting. How exciting is that!? All of the best scenes are coming up. I wish I had more hours in a day so that I could get them all on paper!

I'm planning to make a note on the 100 for 100 spreadsheet that I've technically lost the challenge, but I would like to continue writing alongside the other competitors. Something about being part of a program makes it a lot easier for me to keep up with my writing.

On another note...

I just blew through two historical fiction novels in three days! The first was Out of the Easy by Ruta Sepetys, and the second was Interrupted by Rachel Coker. I'm planning to write more expansive reviews for my account on Goodreads, which you can access by clicking the Goodreads pic on the right-hand sidebar. Until then, I'll give my blog friends a quick preview of what I thought of both!

 

Out of the Easy by Ruta Sepetys (Buy a copy here!)

Out of the Easy had my attention from the very first page. Warning, fellow readers: It's pretty mature content. There isn't anything overly explicit, but be aware, this book deals with prostitution. (Doesn't that make it sound so scandalous?) Sepetys does an amazing job of conveying the 1950's New Orleans setting. She has affirmed in me the need to thoroughly research your location if you want to give your reader the "feel" of the place. The main character, Josie, is likeable and totally worth cheering for. My only disappointment has to do with one of the characters. If anyone has read it, I would be happy to hear your thoughts. I couldn't put this book down and I will gladly sing its praises if anyone is interested.

Interrupted by Rachel Coker (Buy a copy here!)

Interrupted was good. However, I will be honest: It seemed more of a first draft than a completed novel. The pacing was sort of off, the characters not fully developed, etc. It's set in the early 1940's for the most part, but the setting has little bearing on the story. In fact, the details that pertain to World War II feel thrown in and out of place. Certain words were certainly not period appropriate, namely "creep" and "jerk". The Christian ending is kind of sudden. And people's mouths twitch... a lot. But I really think that Coker has talent (she published this at FIFTEEN, people) and I do pass some of the blame onto the editors who should have caught the historical errors. I plan to read her sophomore novel, Chasing Jupiter, in spite of Interrupted's shortcomings. Besides, Interrupted has, like, the most gorgeous trailer ever. 

I wasn't paid to read these books or comment upon them. This is just my way of passing along the literary treasures I have uncovered!