# Hook (1991)

### reviewed by
John Wagner

                                        HOOK
                            A film by Steven Spielberg
                           A film review by John Wagner
                            Copyright 1992 John Wagner

(Two Hollywood scriptwriters meet in a restaurant. Number One works for Steven Spielberg's organization; Number Two for another major studio. Number One sits down at Number Two's table, brandishing a heavily-pencilled typewritten manuscript of a film script.)

ONE: Hey there, dude! Que pasa? Listen, is the Spielberg organization hot, or is it hot?

    TWO: Looks like you've been busy.  Do I see a screenplay there
         before me?

ONE: Yeah, we just had a major script conference, with the Marketing and Customer Profile people there and *everything*. Mr. Spielberg even showed up.

TWO: Wow, it *must* have been important. What's the project? Can you talk about it?

ONE: Talk about it? Hell, man, we want this leaked to every major paper in the country. This is *the* number-one idea of the Nineties! It's a heartwarming film that'll make the whole family laugh, cry, and feel good about themselves!

    TWO: SON OF E.T?

ONE: Even better, man! Here, have a look at the script yourself; I'll give you a rundown. (Hands the thick manuscript across the table).

    TWO: So it's called HOOK, eh?

    ONE: Yeah.  Great title, huh?  Now get this for an idea:  Peter
         Pan -- you know, the kid from that Brit fairy tale?

    TWO: Sure, Sir James Barrie.

ONE: No, Pan, Peter Pan. P-A-N. Anyway, get this: He leaves Neverneverland, grows up, and becomes an American corporation lawyer!

TWO: (Aghast) What? You're shitting me! This is some kind of parody, right? Like AIRPLANE?

ONE: Get with the program, man! This is a major creative breakthrough! See, he's married now -- to Wendy's granddaughter -- and he's got a couple of adorable, precocious kids just like the ones in E. T., and he's a borderline alcoholic...

    TWO: *What!?*

ONE: ...yeah, and so totally dedicated to his job that he's, like, losing touch with his family.

TWO: (Leafing through the manuscript) From the way these kids are written, I don't blame him. 'Precocious' is hardly the word for it. Don't you guys over there at Amblin ever get to meet any *real* children? Kids don't act or talk like this. Not without a team of writers handy, anyway.

ONE: Aw, don't be so literal-minded, man! We're just bringing out the true heart and soul of the child in all of us.

TWO: (Suspiciously) Where did you get *that* line?

ONE: It's on the sign over Mr. Spielberg's office. Anyway, Peter's wife goes with him on a business trip to London...

TWO: Yeah, and what >about< his wife? Just riffling through the script, I don't see too much evidence of affection here. They both talk a lot about how much they love their kids, which is nice, but they don't show too much interest in each other.

ONE: Look, they're *married*, for Christ's sake! What do you think this is, a *romance* or something?

TWO: Well, you might at least have made her a more interesting person. She doesn't seem to be much more than someone for the kids to call "mommy." From what I see here, you've made her a cross between Betty Crocker and a botched Anne Murray clone.

ONE: Motherhood is what brings a tear to the eye of every right- thinking American family, you goddam coldhearted cynic. Our Market Research group says statistical surveys bear it out. Anyway, there'll be a big John Williams crescendo behind it every time the little tykes coo "mommy," and that's all the characterization she needs.

TWO: Okay, okay. Hmmm... I see that Peter has somehow managed to forget who he is, and that he used to live in Neverland. But nobody else from Neverland seems to have that problem when they visit our world. How come?

ONE: Just because, that's all. Look, it's a fantasy; you've got to have suspension of disbelief. Don't you have *any* imagination?

TWO: Let it pass. Let's see... Tinkerbell takes Peter back to Neverland, and the Lost Boys... Hey! The way you describe the Lost Boys in here, they sound like a bunch of American kids from some urban street gang. Even spiky haircuts and skateboards! What the hell?

ONE: (Disdainful) Well, *sure*. I mean, this is the nineties, man! You don't expect audiences to identify with a bunch of turn-of-the-century Limey urchins, do you? We've got to have broad-based audience appeal. You'll notice that the Boys are an ethnically-diverse group, too: A prominent percentage of blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Their leader is even a street- smart ethnic kid called Rubio.

TWO: But the Lost Boys, in the original story, were from *England*, not Los Angeles! You're trying to Americanize -- hell, *Californianize* -- the whole setting. Jesus, here you've got Captain Hook's pirates playing *Baseball*! (With sudden suspicion) Hey, do the Lost Boys at least have British accents?

ONE: Don't be such a stickler for petty details; American audiences don't care about this stuff. Now, look here, how the Lost Boys get Peter back into shape after Hook kidnaps Peter's kids...

TWO: Why did Hook kidnap them? How did he know Peter would be in London, especially seeing how Peter doesn't even know his own identity? And how did he get to our world and back?

ONE: Aw, man, there you go again! No imagination! I'm telling you, *suspension of disbelief*! Get in touch with your inner child, and stop whining about every little unimportant thing. Just let the wonder and magic of the story carry you along. The important thing is that Pete saves his little ones, brings them back home to Mommy, and never returns to Neverland again.

TWO: (Amazed) He comes *back* to this world? What for? Neverland is a magic world full of delight and wonder and adventure, where no one ever gets old and dies. Why would he come *back* once he knew the way? If he's so crazy about Mom and the kids, why not bring *them* over?

ONE: Oh, nonononono! Movie characters *never* choose immortality and magic over their everyday lives. They've always got to decide that the life they've got right here at home is the best of all possible worlds. If we were to imply otherwise, audiences might be dissatisfied with their own lives, and a dissatisfied audience is an unhappy audience that doesn't go out and tell their friends to see the film. Immortality is a taboo subject anyway. You can't have it in real life, so you've got to make it look undesirable on film.

TWO: Well, okay, but it still sounds to me as if you're just trying to glorify the American upper-middle-class yuppie lifestyle.

ONE: *Now* you're seeing the light, dude! All those aging Baby Boomers with adorable little kiddies of their own are just going to *flock* to this one! Market Research says it'll even out-pull E.T.!

TWO: (Flipping through more pages, skimming the dialogue) Now *here's* something intriguing, that really rings true: This part where Tinkerbell reveals that she's in love with Peter. And she's a good, strong character, with depth and a certain complexity. (Proceeds a few pages more) Oh, hell -- you have Peter refuse her love because he wants to remain true to Mommy; I mean, his wife. That might be believable if you'd made the wife a real person, with some sort of dimension, but as she's written, she's about as interesting as a slice of white bread. You're trying to say that Peter would find this insipid wimp so fascinating that he doesn't even *consider* an intelligent, unique woman like Tinkerbell? Come on!

ONE: Listen, you degenerate, you're talking about *adultery*, maybe even *bigamy*! This is a *family* film, and the sanctity of the American Family Unit is the product -- I mean *premise* -- of this picture. Peter's wife is a Devoted Mother, and he wouldn't even *think* of betraying her! The juvenile lures of Neverland have no attraction for Peter. He only wants to get back to the rewarding warmth of his family. His sense of *responsibility* carries him away from such childish temptations.

TWO: Oh, really? But it looks to me like an overdeveloped sense of responsibility is what turned him into such a boozy, burned-out workaholic to begin with. It doesn't make sense to try and claim that his experiences in Neverland teach him something about the value of responsible behavior.

ONE: (Loftily) The Work Ethic; Willing shouldering of one's obligations; the sacrifice of one's personal needs for the greater good of the moral community. These are the foundations of our Kinder, Gentler, private-sector, Family-Channel America. What are you, some kind of *hippie* or something? Amblin Entertainment does not endorse self-centered hedonism. We have a responsibility to reinforce the moral outlook of all those ticket-buying, upscale, socially- conservative, middle-American baby boomers out there.

TWO: (Sighs wearily) It's only a film; stop trying to make it sound like the Sermon on the Mount.

ONE: Don't be irreverent. Mr. Spielberg has enormous respect for mainstream American middle-class values and their preju... er, ethical structures.

TWO: Look, I don't care what a picture's moral outlook is; all that matters is that it have a coherent, convincing, logical story, and that it be internally consistent enough to make me accept it on its own terms. This script doesn't do the job on *any* of those requirements.

ONE: Ah, that's because you're just looking at *words*, dude! We are no longer living in your archaic, word-oriented society -- today's world is *visually* oriented. Rock videos; visceral commercials. The image is the message. The *story* isn't what's important, it's the totality of the *product*, er, that is, the film itself. First of all (ticks items off on his fingers), we've got Industrial Light & Magic doing the megabuck special effects. Old Walt Disney must be spinning in his cryogenic vault wishing *he'd* had computer graphics like ours! Then there's the John Williams score, which captures all the rich magic of his music for STAR WARS and E.T....

    TWO: I kind of figured that it would.

ONE: ...right. But I've saved the best for last: Get this, dude, we have signed *Robin Williams* and *Dustin Hoffman* to play Peter and Captain Hook!

TWO: (Thoughtful) Mmmm. Good choices, no doubt about that.

ONE: 'Good?' Hell, it's *great*! We were ready to fall back on Michael Keaton if Williams wouldn't make a deal, but everything worked out just fine, contract-wise. I've seen some of the early rushes of Hoffman playing Hook, and it's *incredible*! I mean, we are looking at possible Oscar material here, baby!

TWO: Well, I can easily believe that; he's quite an amazingly versatile guy. But the presence of one, even two, great actors isn't enough to make a film good by itself. Nor can it cover up a ridiculous premise or a silly, illogical, treacly script full of saccharine, empty sentimentality in place of genuine feeling. And pyrotechnic technical effects won't cover up lack of a story either, even with a John Williams score to dramatize them.

ONE: Story, hell! This film is an *experience*! Audiences will laugh, they'll cry, they'll leave the theater hugging each other with ecstatic warmth; it's a heartwarming experience that the whole family will love and cherish throughout their lives; it's an affirmation of goodness and a triumph of the human spirit.

TWO: It's a dumb, shallow story. And a very expensive dumb, shallow movie.

ONE: (Furious) Oh yeah? Well listen, mister literature-professor- type, you think maybe you could do better?

TWO: (Stares vacantly into the salad bar, thinking quickly) Well, there must be a hundred ways that the basic premise could be handled in a more believable, adult way. How about... Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we keep your idea about Peter somehow leaving Neverland and forgetting who he is. Now he's grown up, unhappy in his corporate existence, but divorced, alienated from his own children. His wife has remarried, and the kids seem perfectly happy with their stepfather, much to his bleak dismay.

Now Tinkerbell comes along, looking for Peter. There's some kind of crisis in Neverneverland; Captain Hook looks to be setting up a pirate dictatorship or something. She drags him back against his will, just like in your version, and gets the Lost Boys to bring him up to speed and restore his lost memory. (Glares at ONE) And the Lost Boys will be British orphans, just like they're supposed to be!

There are all kinds of wild adventures, with as many neat special effects as you can afford, an eventual confrontation with Hook, in which he is defeated but not killed, in case you want to do a sequel. In the course of all this, Peter has gone from a confused, despised tackling dummy of the Lost Boys to a caring father-figure to whom they all look for guidance and support -- things that the old, less-experienced Peter couldn't give them: also not too far from your version. But then -- how's this? -- he realizes how his obsessions with material success were poisoning his relationship with his own children, and, in fact, that it was his buried memories of Neverland that were making him so unhappy in our everyday world, and leading him to the bottle. Now that he's back where he belongs, so to speak, he decides to become a real father to the Lost Boys, having learned his lessons. The love interest with Tinkerbell can be allowed to develop, instead of just being raised and then clumsily dropped. There: The End. Peter Pan remains a legendary, otherworldly figure; everybody lives happily ever after, and not a dry eye in the house. But we've done it with real, three-dimensional adult characters, believable, realistic child characters, and a coherent, logically-unfolding storyline with some depth and character development.

Of course, that's just one possible alternative approach. If you want to insist on keeping Peter's wife and kids in the picture, we could try it this way...

    ONE: (Outraged) Are you *crazy*?

TWO: No, listen, when you start thinking about it, there are a lot of interesting possible ways of handling this set of characters and situations. We could maybe go at it from this angle...

ONE: (Frantic) No! Enough! You call that a *script*? Where's the reaffirmation of Traditional American Family Values? Where's the comforting reassurance that There's No Place Like Home? Where's the goddam *moral*?

TWO: What makes you think a story has to have a moral? Or if it does, that the moral has to be trite and simplistic? I was describing a story with *Human* values, not slanted from any special set of presuppositions. Sometimes, you know, 'home' can be a pretty unhappy place, one from which it's best to move on, if you've got the courage. It would take skill, talent, and a real feeling for genuine emotions to write a script like *that*. You couldn't gloss over the hard parts with a lot of slick, pseudo-sentimental cellophane, or swelling violin choruses.

ONE: (Disgusted) You see? You see? It's just your kind of cynical, jaded negativism that our organization is battling so hard to root out of America. You don't know anything about *real* emotion, the kind the Real People out there in the Heartland feel! Well, let me tell you, Mr. Scrooge, our Marketing Research department says that *your* kind only amount to 2.31 percent of the American movie audience! You can just go right back to your books and your creative writing classes while the rest of us Real People continue to tug at the bittersweet heartstrings of the American Dream! (Grabs script back, shoves it into attache case, and stands angrily) And furthermore, you *pseudo*-intellectual snob, *my* studio's five-year profit curve is *twice* the five-year profit curve of *your* studio! Good-*bye*! (Storms out of the restaurant)

(TWO sits at the table alone, munching on his sandwich and brushing spots of ONE's Cream Of Lobster soup off of his shirt sleeves. A waiter ambles along and begins clearing away ONE's dishes.)

    WAITER: That fella sure was upset.  Jesus, what a mess!  Something
            wrong with his stomach?

    TWO: Too much sugar, I think.

    WAITER: He works for one of those movie studios.  Writer, I think.
            I guess that kind of job'll give you stomach problems.  What
            was it he was talking to you about, if you don't mind me
            asking?

TWO: Oh, I guess he really wanted me to sort of personally review a new movie he's working on.

WAITER: Oh, yeah? And what's your review?

TWO: (Thinking for a moment) P-A-N, buddy. Pan.

                                                John Wagner
                                        Pennsylvania State University

    .

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews