My parents took me to see Walt Disney's "Peter Pan" in 1953 when I was 5-years old. I was completely hooked. I was imprinted with this movie the way future generations would be imprinted with "Star Wars". For months after, my anxious parents wished they had opted for deep-pile carpet rather than highly-polished floorboards as I leapt from every piece of furniture in the house aided by imaginary pixie dust.
Disney's take on the story of the boy who never grew up and his adventures with the Darling children in Neverland may have been even more influential, because I ended up earning my living as an artist for the last 50 years.
It wasn't until 25 years later that I saw the film again and I must admit I was apprehensive. Would I be disappointed and see flaws that were not apparent to an overawed child? Well, that didn't happen. Instead, I was overawed all over again with the mastery of the whole thing.
But of course, the film was more that just stunning visuals; there was also the story that was adapted from J. M. Barrie's famous book. And the film has copped plenty of flack over the years - racism and sexism being a couple of the heavier charges laid against it.
The depiction of the Native Americans probably wouldn't get off the drawing board these days, but back in the 50's just about every race and creed had their own cinematic stereotypes, which were repeated in movie after movie. To be totally fair, Disney was actually following the lead of Barrie himself who refers to the Indians as 'Redskins' throughout his story and deals with them in the broadest of stereotypes with a surprising amount of violence thrown in.
As for being sexist, possibly Tinkerbell has come in for the most attention with her voluptuous figure and occasional hip wiggling - she is referred to as Twerkerbell in one critique of the film. But again, rather than just the Disney artists over-vamping an innocent fairy, here is J. M. Barrie's description of Tink: "exquisitely gowned in a skeleton leaf, cut low and square, through which her figure could be seen to the best advantage. She was slightly inclined to embonpoint". That archaic word means a plump, hourglass figure. I rest my case.
To see how good this film is, you only need to compare it with the sequel, "Return to Neverland" made in 2002. With bigger eyes and individual shading, the characters seem more cartoony, lacking much of the warmth and style of the earlier version.
There have been plenty of stage and film versions of the story over the decades, but my favourite is still Walt Disney's 1953 film; even after 62 years, it has lost none of its magic for me.
Disney's take on the story of the boy who never grew up and his adventures with the Darling children in Neverland may have been even more influential, because I ended up earning my living as an artist for the last 50 years.
It wasn't until 25 years later that I saw the film again and I must admit I was apprehensive. Would I be disappointed and see flaws that were not apparent to an overawed child? Well, that didn't happen. Instead, I was overawed all over again with the mastery of the whole thing.
But of course, the film was more that just stunning visuals; there was also the story that was adapted from J. M. Barrie's famous book. And the film has copped plenty of flack over the years - racism and sexism being a couple of the heavier charges laid against it.
The depiction of the Native Americans probably wouldn't get off the drawing board these days, but back in the 50's just about every race and creed had their own cinematic stereotypes, which were repeated in movie after movie. To be totally fair, Disney was actually following the lead of Barrie himself who refers to the Indians as 'Redskins' throughout his story and deals with them in the broadest of stereotypes with a surprising amount of violence thrown in.
As for being sexist, possibly Tinkerbell has come in for the most attention with her voluptuous figure and occasional hip wiggling - she is referred to as Twerkerbell in one critique of the film. But again, rather than just the Disney artists over-vamping an innocent fairy, here is J. M. Barrie's description of Tink: "exquisitely gowned in a skeleton leaf, cut low and square, through which her figure could be seen to the best advantage. She was slightly inclined to embonpoint". That archaic word means a plump, hourglass figure. I rest my case.
To see how good this film is, you only need to compare it with the sequel, "Return to Neverland" made in 2002. With bigger eyes and individual shading, the characters seem more cartoony, lacking much of the warmth and style of the earlier version.
There have been plenty of stage and film versions of the story over the decades, but my favourite is still Walt Disney's 1953 film; even after 62 years, it has lost none of its magic for me.