Film

Finding Neverland (2004)

Cynthia Fuchs

As James Barrie, the Scottish-born playwright most famous for imagining Peter Pan, Johnny Depp appears the consummately charismatic child-man.


Finding Neverland

Director: Marc Forster
Cast: Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Radha Mitchell, Freddie Highmore, Julie Christie, Dustin Hoffman
MPAA rating: PG
Studio: Miramax
First date: 2004
US Release Date: 2004-11-12 (Limited release)

Johnny Depp has long been caught between worlds. A thoughtful, near-frighteningly gifted artist in a conventionally gorgeous form, he's as compelling in pop fare (Nightmare on Elm Street, Pirates of the Caribbean) as in more adventurous, less seen films (Dead Man, Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas, From Hell, even the exceeding strange The Astronaut's Wife). He's one of People Magazine's Sexiest Man favorites, yet he can explain the trashing of hotel rooms to Letterman in a way that makes it seem a rational, if existential deed (from way back in the Kate Moss days: "Some hotel rooms just need to be trashed").

As he's recently started making movies that might appeal to children (having famously had two with Vanessa Paradis), Depp has revealed wondrous and sometimes startling new subtleties. Always a low-key player, even in the most outrageous of environments (think: Crybaby or Sleepy Hollow), he's also managed a sort of perpetual inventiveness in his work -- it's as if you see him anew each time out. And so it may not be surprising that, in Finding Neverland, a movie that teeters between excess sentiment and charming nuance, Depp has found yet another level.

As James M. Barrie, the Scottish-born playwright most famous for imagining Peter Pan, Depp appears the consummately charismatic child-man. His refusal to "grow up" upsets his proper wife Mary (Radha Mitchell), who has her eye on social advancement. As the film opens in "London, 1903," she has stopped appreciating his career, which has become more routine than splendid. (This even as it appears they once shared enthusiasm for the sheer drama of opening nights and homage paid to his celebrity, however small.) James' patient producer, Charles Frohman (Dustin Hoffman), ensures that each new play is mounted, each opening to moderate notice and running for a limited engagement, until James conjures another and the ritual commences again.

"Inspired by true events," and adapted by David Magee from Allan Knee's play The Man Who Was Peter Pan, the film layers its versions of realties, in the form of shared expeditions, to and away from "neverland." Focused on tensions between creation and commerce, the thrill of art, the emotional difficulties of daily engagements, it invites viewers to share in Barrie's supple imaginings, sometimes awkwardly, sometimes beautifully. Both sorts of transportations work, in their ways. James, for his part, remains enchanted and heartened by the possibilities of theater, though also fretful over mundane career demands. This much is suggested in his first appearance, backstage, not quite wanting to look at the audience or even what's on stage, mouthing the words along with the players, as he knows them so well, down to cadences and pauses. "They hate it," he worries, unable to put a finger on what isn't clicking and also unable to do something else.

Seeking inspiration or distraction, he finds both in the Llewellyn Davieses, a family of four boys (Jack [Joe Prospero], George [Nick Roud], Michael [Luke Spill], and Peter [Freddie Highmore]) and a single mother, Sylvia (Kate Winslet), he encounters in Kensington Gardens one sunny afternoon. In an effort to move the boys as he is so immediately moved by then, James engages the help of his enormous dog Porthos, to play a bear for a one-man play he puts on in the park (and eventually, to play the model for Nana, the dog who looks after Wendy and her brothers in Peter Pan). Sensitive Peter is especially difficult to console, as he still mourns the death of his father (in real life, Mr. Llewellyn Davies was alive during James' early relationship with the family, but it's easier and neater not to suggest competition). As James tries to win the boy over, indeed, to bring him back from the brink of adulthood-too-soon, he also finds in himself a previously untapped creativity and joy.

The film, directed by Marc Forster, works hard to convey these transformations, with scenes dissolving from fantasy to reality, stage play to child's play. As James conjures the story of Peter and the Lost Boys aboard the pirates' ship, the scene literalizes the dream and its construction at once, with antic artificial waves booming in the background, while Captain Hook looms over the children, demanding they claim their "pirate" names. When young Peter refuses, he does so out of his lingering sadness, his continued inability to imagine beyond his life's tragedy. Of course, James will rouse the boy from his sorrow and allow him to rejoin his own childhood, only temporarily abandoned. (And the tale here does not comport with historical records, one of which notes that the boy Peter was long troubled, by this and other relatives' deaths, disliked the play named for him, and eventually killed himself.)

While James is able to ignore (or at least reject) the world around him, in particular the gossip about his friendship with Sylvia, he also hopes he will win over her social-risk-averse mother, Mrs. Emma Du Maurier (Julie Christie). But he finds himself up against it when she begins ailing (indicated by that most worn out sign -- an ominous cough and her attempt to hide it with her dainty hand). As Sylvia's real-life body impinges on the whimsies that so buoy her boys' newly energized lives, she also turns enormously gallant but not tragic (Winslet, always brave, here matches Depp's unfussy, intelligent performance). If the movie does lay on the heart-rending, the performers hold back just enough to contain the just-about-to-bubble-over excess.

The film takes you where you might expect -- an ideal initial staging of Peter Pan (with Kelly MacDonald as Peter, complete with mechanical hoists and fair dust). For this opening night, James takes no chances, but rather invites his desired viewers, a group of young orphans in sore need of amazing entertainment. Their reactions incite the proper responses in the adults seated around them, and yes, the point is made that seeing as children see might be the most effective way back to wonder and delight. If only.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image