Finding Neverland
Released 2004
Stars Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Julie Christie, Nick Roud, Radha
Mitchell, Joe Prospero, Freddie Highmore, Dustin Hoffman, Luke Spill, Kelly
Macdonald
Directed by Marc Foster
If it's Disney (or its subsidiary, Miramax), it must be "inspired by true events." Or maybe it just seems that way. Those words, which appear in a caption at the beginning, are chose with care. Finding Neverland uses strands of historical fact to weave a story that is largely fictional. Yes, J.M. Barrie did write "Peter Pan," and, yes, many of the characters in the film existed, but this is predominantly a soft-ball approach to the inspiration that led Barrie to write his most famous play. For one thing, it almost completely ignores sex, which was certainly a fundamental element in Barrie's life. (The issue of pedophilia, which has dogged Barrie's reputation for a century, is briefly mentioned, then quickly dismissed, as if it isn't worth contemplation.) Still, even considering the liberties taken with the known record (and I have often said that movies should not be constrained by the same rules that govern history books), the end result is compelling and life-affirming.
The story is a nice mixture of drama, fantasy, romance, and tragedy, with no hints of some of the ugliness that marred the real J.M. Barrie's reputation. Barrie (Johnny Depp) is at the nadir of his creative powers, having just bombed with his latest play, when he encounters Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet) and her four boys: Peter, George, Jack, and Michael. Barrie strikes up a quick friendship with the Davies family, and soon is viewed by the boys as a favorite uncle. Suspicious of his new relationship with the children and their mother are Barrie's wife, Mary, and Sylvia's mother, Mrs. Du Maurier. This association frees the block on Barrie's creativity and he begins to develop "Peter Pan," which would be his most successful stage production.
Summary by James Berardinelli
The first half of this movie is very dry, and I didn't find it all that involving. Once the stage production of "Peter Pan" begins, however, the movie becomes magical. I love seeing a recreation of how a beloved story came to life, and this quasi-recreation is excellent. This movie plays so loosely with the facts, it's hard to tell what actually happened, but the idea of planting orphans in the audience for opening night was a stroke of genius. I hope that part was true, because it was inspired. Without those kids, the stuffed shirts in the audience would have killed that play, and we probably never would have heard of Peter Pan. Their laughs are infectious, and the wonder on their faces is enchanting. If I had been in that audience, I know I would have come back with my kids to see it again.
When the movie opened with "inspired by true events," I thought they were trying to tell us they took some dramatic license as usual, but they did a lot more than that. Apparently, Sylvia and Arthur Llewellyn-Davies were alive and well at the premiere of "Peter Pan", which makes the majority of this movie false. Everything about the relationships between Barrie and Sylvia and between Barrie and the boys (especially Peter) is completely different if both parents are alive and well. Instead of being an uncle figure to the kids, you have to assume Barrie and Sylvia were having an affair unless Barrie and Arthur were great friends. Whatever the real facts were, the movie completely changes them so it can add drama and make a comparison between Barrie and Peter Pan. If they had stuck to the facts, they wouldn't have made such an innocent picture, but I think that would have been ok with me. As a movie, this is solid entertainment, but it sure won't help you on a history test. --Bill Alward, March 28, 2005