![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been to theatre yesterday to see Finding Neverland, and, er... that was... cute. That was a lot cheesy actually, and if I don't dislike the movie, I don't think I will remember it. Why do all movie about imagination have to be cheesy ? To be totaly honest, I mostly chose it for costumes (and also because there was no tickets anymore for the avant-premiere of Million $$$ Baby, and I spend all the movie grumbling on them. And on the mistakes of the story.
First, the costumes : How is it possible to have enough budget to make the fabulous dress of Mrs Barrie, beaded and all, and still gave the movie the look of a 5 $ costumes movie ? What bugs me is that the story goes, Mrs Barrie and Mrs Du Maurier have money, maybe a lot of money in the case of Du Maurier : how could I manage to accord it to the fact that Du Maurier wore the same dress for ALL the movie, and that Mrs Barrie, whose only dream is to be a part of the brillant world and would do anything to succeed in it, still wore the same 3 dress for all occasions ? How can I buy the story when such important details are wrong ?
Second, the story : the idea that Peter needed too be tamed by Barrie and that it explain why Peter was his favorite was interesting, but I think it's mostly fake. For a good reason : when Barrie first meet Peter, the boy didn't need to be tamed, for his father wasn't yet dead... In fact, Michael wasn't even born. Michael is the only Barrie knew from his very birth, and in the end, he was the favorite one. The only reason why Barrie chose to make of Peter his favorite at the time of their first meeting was only because he was the youngest, the one that have the less adult in him. Quite simple, he ?
Which of course change a lot of the story...
I also didin't like what they did of Barrie. They show him as a man that like to play with children and had a great imagination, but there was no moment in the movie where I feel that he was really rather childish hilmself and didn't felt good with adults. They use his childhood trauma in the bad way : because of the death of his brother, Barrie had to became an adult at 10, or something. And they goes : he's missing his childhood, because he had to think as an adult to early in life, and he's trying to recreate what missed him. and I think this kind of trauma work exactly on the other way.
I mean, I somehow lived it, and I know how it works : when you have trauma during chilhood or teenhood, you act as an adult, but you stay blocked in the very traumatising age. My brother made a very bad depression when I was 16, and my family was all fucked up, my mother was nearly destroyed, and I had to be her moral support, to bear eveything going wrong in the family, and in the end, I was deprived of my normal evolution to real adulthood : I feel like I'm still 16, and I feel that I would be 16 in my head till my death.
It was the same for Barrie : he knows how to deal with chidren because he was himself thinking like a kid, and they brillantly missed it in the movie.
It was a movie rant, wasn't it ?
First, the costumes : How is it possible to have enough budget to make the fabulous dress of Mrs Barrie, beaded and all, and still gave the movie the look of a 5 $ costumes movie ? What bugs me is that the story goes, Mrs Barrie and Mrs Du Maurier have money, maybe a lot of money in the case of Du Maurier : how could I manage to accord it to the fact that Du Maurier wore the same dress for ALL the movie, and that Mrs Barrie, whose only dream is to be a part of the brillant world and would do anything to succeed in it, still wore the same 3 dress for all occasions ? How can I buy the story when such important details are wrong ?
Second, the story : the idea that Peter needed too be tamed by Barrie and that it explain why Peter was his favorite was interesting, but I think it's mostly fake. For a good reason : when Barrie first meet Peter, the boy didn't need to be tamed, for his father wasn't yet dead... In fact, Michael wasn't even born. Michael is the only Barrie knew from his very birth, and in the end, he was the favorite one. The only reason why Barrie chose to make of Peter his favorite at the time of their first meeting was only because he was the youngest, the one that have the less adult in him. Quite simple, he ?
Which of course change a lot of the story...
I also didin't like what they did of Barrie. They show him as a man that like to play with children and had a great imagination, but there was no moment in the movie where I feel that he was really rather childish hilmself and didn't felt good with adults. They use his childhood trauma in the bad way : because of the death of his brother, Barrie had to became an adult at 10, or something. And they goes : he's missing his childhood, because he had to think as an adult to early in life, and he's trying to recreate what missed him. and I think this kind of trauma work exactly on the other way.
I mean, I somehow lived it, and I know how it works : when you have trauma during chilhood or teenhood, you act as an adult, but you stay blocked in the very traumatising age. My brother made a very bad depression when I was 16, and my family was all fucked up, my mother was nearly destroyed, and I had to be her moral support, to bear eveything going wrong in the family, and in the end, I was deprived of my normal evolution to real adulthood : I feel like I'm still 16, and I feel that I would be 16 in my head till my death.
It was the same for Barrie : he knows how to deal with chidren because he was himself thinking like a kid, and they brillantly missed it in the movie.
It was a movie rant, wasn't it ?
