The Cathy Rigby "Peter Pan", which I caught on A&E last night, is a sad commentary on how far standards have fallen in the last forty years or so. This production has everything that money can buy--good photography, special effects far more sophisticated than in the famous Mary Martin version, and nice sets, although this version was taped in an auditorium rather than on full-scale TV studio sets. The songs are memorable (they are exactly the same ones as in the Martin version), the choreography is good, if not as good as Jerome Robbins's legendary original choreography, and much of the singing is excellent. And yet, it can't even begin to compare to the older version. Why not?
Because this production is shallow in comparison. No one, no matter how hard they try, seems to even get close to the tender,moving spirit of the story. Rigby is wildly enthusiastic, and has a reasonably good singing voice, but she does not LIVE the part as Mary Martin did. Those who don't think of Mary Martin as a dramatic actress, only as a musical star, only need to compare her performance with Rigby's to realize how good she was. In the Martin version, the final scene, in which Peter returns to take Wendy back to Never-Never Land,and discovers what has happened while he has been gone, was absolutely heartrending,while in this version it seems like a minor obstacle to be gotten out of the way as soon as possible.
Paul Schoeffler is a reasonably good Captain Hook, and he can sing better than Cyril Ritchard, but he does not have a trace of Ritchard's memorable prissiness that was so funny in the earlier version.
Elisa Sagardia is a reasonable improvement over Maureen Bailey in the 1960 production (I am too young to remember Kathy Nolan's portrayal in the 1955 version), but then, practically anybody would be.
But this new Cathy Rigby production was still a near-total letdown for me. (I am not relying on nostalgia; I have the Mary Martin version on tape and can play it anytime I wish.) It is a dramatic demonstration of how a classic musical can be trivialized, and of how modern technology and updated staging techniques are no substitute for depth of feeling and understanding. And no matter how well she sings, Cathy Rigby still cannot put over those songs as well as Mary Martin could.
Because this production is shallow in comparison. No one, no matter how hard they try, seems to even get close to the tender,moving spirit of the story. Rigby is wildly enthusiastic, and has a reasonably good singing voice, but she does not LIVE the part as Mary Martin did. Those who don't think of Mary Martin as a dramatic actress, only as a musical star, only need to compare her performance with Rigby's to realize how good she was. In the Martin version, the final scene, in which Peter returns to take Wendy back to Never-Never Land,and discovers what has happened while he has been gone, was absolutely heartrending,while in this version it seems like a minor obstacle to be gotten out of the way as soon as possible.
Paul Schoeffler is a reasonably good Captain Hook, and he can sing better than Cyril Ritchard, but he does not have a trace of Ritchard's memorable prissiness that was so funny in the earlier version.
Elisa Sagardia is a reasonable improvement over Maureen Bailey in the 1960 production (I am too young to remember Kathy Nolan's portrayal in the 1955 version), but then, practically anybody would be.
But this new Cathy Rigby production was still a near-total letdown for me. (I am not relying on nostalgia; I have the Mary Martin version on tape and can play it anytime I wish.) It is a dramatic demonstration of how a classic musical can be trivialized, and of how modern technology and updated staging techniques are no substitute for depth of feeling and understanding. And no matter how well she sings, Cathy Rigby still cannot put over those songs as well as Mary Martin could.