[ SECRET POST #2903 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2903 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07. [tb]


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 049 secrets from Secret Submission Post #415.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Not too big a fan that Peter Pan is almost always played by a woman, but I like slightly darker Peter Pan interpretations (which is why I loved The Child Thief - even though I'm not usually a fan of grimdark reimaginings of classic tales. It also had those gorgeous artworks).

So since I'm never going to be able to watch this production, I'm staying neutral on the matter.

[(Anonymous)]

I used to think it was really cool that Peter Pan was always played by a woman. Now I'm kind of over it. I think it would be more fun to have an actual boy flying around in tights and singing.

But I don't know if that could feasibly happen. I heard they use a woman to avoid voice changes with puberty and stuff, and I suppose the older the actor you can use, the easier it is to work with them.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought that this was the reason, but really, there are a) really ... uh... twinky actors around who could probably do this and there are a lot of talented younger actors who could probably work with the role. It just seems so strange that Peter Pan, a boy who is supposed to be an eternal child, is always played by a grown woman.

But I guess a big factor is also that it would have to be an at least moderately well known/successful actor to get more people to watch and suddenly, the number goes down for this type.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

That's true, but to be fair, there are loads of child shows these days. Matilda comes to mind, I think the actors aren't that old. I think the name Peter Pan would probably be enough to run the show, but then, I don't know that much about theater.

It does seem really weird when Peter Pan's existence is a young boy, that's so important to his character. I can get why it was easier in the past, but I think these days there are more younger actors who could pull it off? idk. I guess it is a huge role for a kid, though I think it's normal for child roles to have alternate actors every night so they don't have to work so much.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. I think it would be definitely doable and there are enough young actors who could pull it off. It's just so weird seeing mid-to-late 20s women play a young boy - their voices also never quite fit. It's like all those actors pushing 30s who play high school students on TV-shows and in movies all the time. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

[(Anonymous)]

If it's based in California, there's likely also Child Labor laws that would factor in as well.

[(Anonymous)]

They don't use a woman for practical reasons, they use it because the play Peter Pan comes from the pantomime tradition and panto always casts a woman as the male lead ("the principal boy") and a man as the older woman ("the dame"). It's about having actors in drag, not about avoiding the problems of puberty!

[(Anonymous)]

That's like saying no woman should ever perform in a Shakespeare play because in the Elizabethan theatre tradition all roles were played by men.

[(Anonymous)]

Hahaha. Were you around when this performance was first announced but there was no cast yet? People were losing their shit at the mere idea that Peter could be played by a boy because "Peter Pan is a woman's role!! You can't take that away, you misogynist!!"

[(Anonymous)]

Oh joy.

I would be tempted to say "this is why we can't have nice things" but not sure if it fits the occasion.

[(Anonymous)]

Whether Peter Pan is played by a boy or a girl or not seems too minimal to warrant that phrase.

[(Anonymous)]

True.

[(Anonymous)]

even though I'm not usually a fan of grimdark reimaginings of classic tales

Have you actually read Peter Pan? Peter has the innocence of childhood, but also has the complete callousness and amorality of a child who has never been taught right from wrong. Only children are allowed in Neverland, so when Lost Boys start growing up, Peter kills them.

[(Anonymous)]

I know but that's just a classic "fae child" morality. It's not what you would call grimdark.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but Peter Pan doesn't need grimdark, although I'm sure that someone's gone there. Barrie's Peter and Neverland are vaguely terrifying all on they're own if you just think about it for a while. Mrs. Darling is afraid of Peter. She's not wrong to be.