This document provides an in-depth analysis of J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan character and two film adaptations. It analyzes Peter Pan as both a rebel challenging social norms but also a tyrant who imposes his own social order. It discusses how the character explores themes of childhood, gender roles, and rejecting cultural expectations. It also analyzes Captain Hook as Peter Pan's parallel and opponent. The document compares how the two film adaptations, Peter Pan (2003) and Hook (1991), portray these characters and themes in ways that both align with and deviate from the original text.
1. Palmer 1
Rickie Palmer
Dr. Sarah Maier
English 3713
April 1, 2010
Peter Pan: Rebel or Tyrant?
J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan is a complex story about a rebel boy assuming a position of
power and rejecting his culturally defined role. His immortal youth signifies vulnerability or
innocence of childhood; yet, he demands the respect of a patriarch and refuses the security of
maternal protection. The criticism of a rigid class system is developed through Captain Hook’s
desperate attempt to crush the subversion, which Peter cultivates. The domestic assumptions
about gender are also condemned as negligent and fickle. Peter’s character offers a celebration
of free will and self-governance while preserving a reinvented social order. While Peter’s
egocentrism promotes the feeling that he is free, his alienation as an early modernist character is
apparent in his inability to create emotional bonds. Captain James Hook is both Peter’s opposite
and parallel character because they are essentially both tyrannical leaders differing only by their
adherence to culturally designated roles. P. J. Hogan’s 2003, “Peter Pan” mirrors Barrie’s text in
its unforgiving cynicism masked by boyish charm; while, Steven Spielberg’s 1991 “Hook,” uses
the adult Banning to develop the relationship between Peter and Hook. Barrie’s text and
Spielberg’s “Hook,” are appropriate for children because they may be interpreted only
superficially as a story of preserved childhood. Hogan’s “Peter Pan” however, it not because
draws the danger and vulnerability out of the text, highlighting themes of abandonment, distrust
and sexuality inappropriate for children.
2. Palmer 2
J.M Barrie’s Peter Pan is carefree, literally to the point of dismissing people and events,
because he is unfettered by external rules or societal codes of conduct. He is not however, a
figure of anarchy. On the contrary, he projects his own version of social order in which he is the
sovereign. While Hook is dominated by societal expectations and assumed entitlement of the
wealthy upper class male, Pan enjoys the benefit of authority without fear of external judgement
or loss of status. Instead of conforming to the subservient place of an orphaned child, he
embodies varying figures of patriarchal authority including leader, father and captain. This
makes him a significant threat in Edwardian England, whose rigid class structure depends on
birth and wealth. Peter is governed solely by impulse and his own internal desires. This is
attributed to youth and the impetuousness of being “gay, innocent and heartless” but is
representative of an emerging sense of revolution at the turn of the century (Barrie 154). Barrie
creates a child that never wants to go up, who acts like an adult and demands the respect of a
masculine figure. It is not simply the creation of Peter Pan which is dangerous but his success as
a leader, “with the coming of Peter, who hates lethargy, they are all under way again: if you put
your ear to the ground now, you would hear the whole island seething with life (45).” This
disputes the long held assumption that birthright and wealth equate worth.
P.J Hogan’s characterization of Peter in his 2003 film adaptation “Peter Pan,” captures
the embodiment of authority. Jeremy Sumpter is stern and intimidating as leader of the lost
boys. He represents the hierarchal ruler who lacks practical knowledge, yet is granted authority
because he is driven by self-proclaimed entitlement yet knows little of life. The notion of never
growing up does not necessitate never gaining experience; but, Peter is blinded by his own
assumptions and does not grow out of ignorance. This reflects his attitude in the text, especially
when confronted by areas of naivety, “Peter never quite knew what twins were, and his band
3. Palmer 3
were not allowed to know anything he did not know” (46). Peter’s outrageous demands that
limit how the lost boys dress and speak parallel the relationship between hierarchal leaders and
their subordinates, “They are forbidden by Peter to look in the least like him [...] It was only in
Peter’s absence that they could speak of mothers, the subject being forbidden by him” (46, 50).
Hogan captures Peter’s seriousness exceptionally well, as Sumpter emanates the confident
assuredness of the text’s original. Because Barrie’s use of a narrator limits the development of
the subjective, Peter’s feelings are explained through expression or conjecture of the speaker.
One detail chillingly depicted in the film is Peter’s smile. Peter’s smile is cold and dangerous as
described, “a strange smile was playing about his face, and Wendy saw it and shuddered. While
that smile was on his face no one dared address him; all they could do was to stand ready to
obey. The order came sharp and indecisive” (75). Sumpter effectively portrays the despotic
facet of Peter’s personality with his facial expressions and use of body language.
Steven Spielberg’s 1991 adaptation, “Hook” is also incredibly well-done, and
characterises the textual Peter in an adult’s body. Spielberg depicts Peter Banning’s character as
a parallel to James Hook because he represents the assumption that youth associates an inability
to live without a governing parental figure,
You're not old enough to shave! What are you doing with a sword? I've been flying
around - This is an insurance nightmare! What is this? Some sort of the "Lord of the
Flies" pre-school? Where are your parents? Who's in charge here? No! No, Mr.
Skunkhead with too much mousse. You are just a punk kid. I want to speak to a grown-
up! (Introduction to Lost Boys scene)
4. Palmer 4
Peter assumes superiority based purely on an external and cultural definition of an authority
figure. In Neverland, without the cultural framework which grants him power, Peter must accept
his ignorance of practicalities and re-evaluate his arrogant notions that he is superior. His
transformation from “Banning” to “Pan” occurs when his preconceived conceptions of
entitlement are replaced by his ability to assert authority within Neverland’s merit-based context.
He “bests” Rufio in a verbal sparring match and essentially sheds the presumption that adulthood
warrants submission. Spielberg’s decision to create an adult Pan erodes the superficial
assumption that his actions or politics are purely the product of youth; contrarily, this emphasises
that the underlying danger of Peter Pan is the promotion of a new social order.
Barrie’s Peter enacts the domestic conventions during the “Little House” chapter when
he replicates physical and artificial boundaries between the sexes. The dynamic between Peter
and Wendy portray gender roles as fixed and defined predominantly by notions of respectability
of Edwardian England. He replicates a version of maternal figure without the prerequisite of
experience or age, “‘[you’re being a little girl with no experience] doesn’t matter’ said Peter, as
if he were the only person present who knew all about it, though he was really the one who knew
least. ‘What we need is just a nice motherly person’” (42). Despite Wendy’s fulfillment of her
maternal role, it is only because it is Peter’s invention that makes it palatable to Peter because he
“despised all mothers except Wendy” (68). For Peter, a mother represents the nurturer, silently
waiting to serve the boys compared to the negligent or fickle mothers that they remember. He
rejects the universal belief the all mothers are devoted and watchful by creating one with
attributes he values. Even so the novelty of role-playing is considered a game “until he suddenly
had no more interest in it, which was what always happened with his games” (69). Peter’s role
as “father” is no different from his role as leader of the lost boys, except his resulting anxiety
5. Palmer 5
over the fear of commitment within a social and emotional community. His is scared and
uncomfortable with the thought of fatherhood being a reality because it insinuates an external
benchmark which demands certain expectations of behaviour that oppose Peter’s ego-centric
personality.
Hogan’s treatment of gender and familial community differs from the text because it is
modernised to suit contemporary audiences. Wendy is cast in the role of maternal and her
education is still limited to female accomplishments; however, she is not simply the acquiescent
servant that the text portrays. She is an active character wearing armour and engaging in
swordfights, when the textual Wendy “of course, had stood by taking no part in the fight, though
watching Peter with glistening eyes” (137). Hogan’s film also sexualises Wendy using images
like the kiss, “woman’s chin” and the interactions between her and Peter to insinuate that her
leaving childhood is also her entrance into womanhood. In the text, the Darling children revere
their childhood experiences and Wendy’s departure from is it considered a loss. Later she even
looks back nostalgically wishing she were small again, “she huddled by the fire not daring to
move, helpless and guilty, a big woman [...] squeezing herself as small as possible. Something
inside her crying, ‘Woman, woman, let go of me’” (155). The film uses her impending sexuality
to increase her vulnerability. Hook and Peter both “stalk” her in this film hinting that the
innocence of childhood will be lost.
Spielberg alternatively creates a real-life game of husband and wife in which Peter is
unable to commit. Rather than role playing, Peter is an uninvolved father whose egotism mirrors
the textual Pan. Dustin Hoffman, Hook, characterises him as, “Peter Banning - a cold, selfish
man who drinks too much, is obsessed with success, and runs and hides from his wife and
children!” The insinuation that he is running and hiding from his confined role within the
6. Palmer 6
domestic sphere supports Barrie’s emerging modernist characterisation of Pan as an individual
apart from community. Spielberg however, does not commit to this view. The beginning of the
film establishes Peter Banning’s preoccupation with his own career and inability to emotionally
connect with his family; however, he ultimately reunites with his children and strengthens the
familial bond which would have choked the textual Pan. Due to the vastly different political
climates, the ending appeases an audience which, for the most part, is unaffected by repressive
family or hierarchal systems and therefore seeks the affirmation of North American family
values.
The text creates the complex character of Peter Pan as self-contained and independent
from community. This is wonderfully liberating because he is without external pressure and
unregimented by social judgement. His self-concept is not dependent on the approval of others
or related to a social code of respectable behaviour. Barrie, however, deliberately endows him
with a commendable sense of justice and morals that mirror culturally endorsed models. This
adherence to structure improves the likelihood that audiences will fall in love with the figure of
boyish make-believe; and, overlook the social criticism rampant in this text. As a literary
strategy, this is brilliant because Peter’s childishness is non-threatening, while his actions
highlight the short comings of adult, male authority, “I’m youth, I’m joy [...] I’m a little bird that
has broken out of his egg. This, of course, was nonsense; but it was proof to the unhappy Hook
that Peter did not know in the least who or what he was, which is the very pinnacle of good
form” (136). Perhaps Barrie is metaphorically suggesting that Peter is the symbol of rebirth into
a new order in which the oppressed are given an opportunity to be free of the social identifiers.
Either way, Peter is celebrated for his ability to shape and control the regiment under which he
governs by free will.
7. Palmer 7
While Peter’s apparent freedom is uplifted as fundamentally child-like, as Barrie
defines, “like the most heartless things in the world, which is what children are, but so attractive;
and we have an entirely selfish time, and then when we have a need of special attention we nobly
return for it” there are definite downfalls to his self-determination (101). As an early modernist
character, Peter is alienated because he is without the security or protection of a socially
constructed role. While he is brave and confident on the surface, his dreams expose his
insecurity, “more painful than the dreams of other boys. For hours he could not be separated
from these dreams, though he wailed piteously in them. They had to do [...] with the riddle of his
existence (115). The insinuation of vulnerability complicates a simple reading of Peter’s
character because it reminds the reader that he is a child, and that instigates an emotional
reaction based on the audience’s assumptions about children. The instinctual desire to protect a
child emphasizes the deficiency in society and of parents because Peter’s underlying helplessness
leads the development of defence mechanisms. One in particular is Peter’s ability to dismiss the
maternal is chilling in its loneliness, “If Peter had ever quite had a mother, he no longer missed
her. He could do very well without one. He had thought them out, and remembered only their
bad points” (104). This cynicism prohibits a simple reading of Peter Pan as a representation of
childhood because it suggests familiarity with abandonment and forced self-preservation.
Captain James Hook is another fascinating character because he is Peter’s doppelganger,
only obsessed with external indicators of power and success. He is a wealthy, upper class male
modeled after a real-life man of influence:
He had been at a famous public school; and its traditions still clung to him like garments,
with which they are largely concerned [...] above all he retained the passion for good
8. Palmer 8
form. / Good form! However much he may have degenerated, he still knew that this is all
that really matters (121).
Hook’s ability to exemplify socially constructed expectations of good behaviour is a source of
pride for the Captain, but his position assumes that Peter must not operate at the same standard.
Peter chooses which elements of social structure he will adhere to, while Hook is fixated with a
culturally dictated set of rules for his appearance and behaviour, “Misguided man though [...] he
was true to the traditions of his race [...] his shoes were right, and his waistcoat was right, and his
tie was right, and his socks were right” (137 ). Ironically, it’s Hook’s obedience to Edwardian
symbols of wealth and power that isolate him from everyone in the text. In some ways, Hook’s
character interacts directly with the audience because no other character looks, acts or even
subscribes the same system of endorsed hierarchy.
Spielberg retains the satirical undertone and injects humour into the development of
Hook. Symbols of wealth and luxury dominate his character but the artificiality of such
trappings is subtly exposed. Dustin Hoffman is imposing as Captain, but when he removes his
wig; his uneven, gray hair sparsely covers his head and makes him appear weak and old. Images
like this imply that he is externally impressive but ultimately he is more of a figurehead of the
wealthy, entitled male with a wounded ego. This aligns with the text’s specific explanation for
Hook’s hatred of Peter,
The truth is that there was a something about Peter, which goaded the pirate captain to
frenzy. It was not his courage, it was not his engaging appearance, it was not--. There is
no beating about the bush, for we know quite well what it was, and have got to tell. It
was Peter’s cockiness (109).
9. Palmer 9
Peter’s arrogance challenges the class structure that essentially states children are meant to be
humble and invisible until they are old enough to assume their predetermined role within society.
The reason Hook attempts to “adopt” Jack is because if he succeeds and Jack replicates the social
expectation that an aristocratic young man as a silent miniature of his ‘father,’ it would signify to
triumph of the Edwardian system. This is of course, not the case as Banning saves his children
and Hook is reduced to a whimpering coward.
Spielberg’s version also criticises a contemporary attitude, which shuns rebellion, by
using the skateboarding sub-culture to characterise the lost boys. Hook accuses Peter of being a
“proud and insolent youth” referring to his refusal to meet traditional expectations of children
(134). Likewise, the skateboarders are immediately recognised by their external markers like
shaved heads, ripped jeans and dark clothing. Contemporary audiences understand that using
this sub-culture references a prejudice that assumes a lawlessness, anarchy and disorder; mainly
because they do not conform to cultural expectations of how youth should look or act. While the
text asserts that Peter enforces a rigid social order within his band, it is chaotic only from the
perspective of an adult denied control. In the text, Hook targets Pan because without Peter, the
establishment of a self-contained hierarchy within the lost boys would fail; however, the film
ends optimistically with the assumption that the boys with persevere not only without Peter, but
without his tyrannical methods of governance. The decision of the new leader also insinuates a
shift in values, which reflect authority based on empathy and kindness.
The suitability of either film is questionable because, as true with the text, the level of
interpretation and comprehension will vary by child. P.J. Hogan’s film projects the audience
toward the future through Wendy’s impending womanhood while Spielberg is nostalgic and
longs to return to a boyish carelessness. For this reason, Hook is more acceptable for a child
10. Palmer 10
audience. Spielberg softens details of reality by creating a Neverland with beautiful mermaids,
an elegant but pathetic Captain and a loveable Tinker-bell. The plot follows the predictable arch
which almost necessitates Peter’s success in the end. Hogan is less generous and focuses on
more culturally “real” images of mermaids and pirates.
Peter is celebrated for his ability to retain a praiseworthy set of personal values
while simultaneously assuming the role of patriarch. He exercises free will and shapes his own
social network in which he is the undisputed leader. His position is self-proclaimed and he
arrogantly challenges the system, which Hook desperately tries to preserve. Peter represents a
subversion of the Edwardian England’s social system characterised by the wealthy, entitled
Captain. Barrie’s story is open to multiple interpretations and is therefore perfectly adapted to
film. P. J. Hogan’s 2003, “Peter Pan” replicates the character development in the text and the
distrust of social institutions; but, Spielberg’s 1991 “Hook,” alters the perspective from child to
adult. These films are questionably suitable for child audiences; however, Hook is the least
frightening and ends with revitalisation of familial connectedness.
