0
Alice in Blunderland: A Review
20 junio 2010
If you haven't read the original books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, just stop right here. There's no sense in reading any further. I'm going to make a lot of references to these two books by Lewis Carroll, and you simply won't appreciate anything I say unless you've read them. I know, I should assume everyone over the age of 12 has read them - they're seminal works of English literature, after all. But experience has taught me I can't assume people read much these days - not even council agendas, let alone great works of 19th century fantasy.
So if you have not read these two books, then stop reading and go read them right now. They're well worth the effort. And read no further here until you have.
So for the rest of you who have read these two great books, the latest film version of Alice in Wonderland is one in a long series of movies that have attempted, generally unsuccessfully, to capture even a modicum of Carroll's wit, whimsy and creativity. But it's not - like all the others - a remake (and conflation) of Carroll's two works. It's a sequel, set 16 years after the original adventures. Which means a lot of artistic licence trying to pull the pieces together to make it work.
It's a bit like doing a sequel to Oliver Twist or The Brothers Karamazov, or rather a Hollywood team deciding they had the talents and skills to do so, then puffing the whole thing out with special effects, to distract the viewer from the thinness of the plot. I mean, after all, what would a Hollywood movie be without a chase scene or a heroic fight scene?
Had it not attempted to be something related to Carroll's books (and had a different title), Alice might have been an amusing work of fantasy. But because the writers felt they had to somehow make sense of the disparate characters in the books, and tie them together in some manner with a storyline that was both reflective of the original books and yet not a mere retelling, Alice in Wonderland simply doesn't work. Or not as I had expected. It will always be measured against the yardstick of the original books (both, since it seems you can't really tell the story on film without weaving the two tales into one weft).
There's an assumption in the movie that you understand and recognize characters like the Jabberwocky and Frumious Bandersnatch - as well as the Mad Hatter, White Rabbit and Red Queen. They're central to the story, but they're not really placed in context with how Carroll described them or the roles he gave them. Well, it's 16 years later, so things have changed in Wonderland, I suppose. Still, there are head-scratching moments as you wonder why or how things got that way (or didn't change despite the time interval).
Jabberwocky and Bandersnatch are not central to Carroll's original tales - they're from poems spoken by characters in the tale (like Father William and the Walrus and Carpenter) who have no other interaction or involvement outside the poems. In this film, they have big roles (the Jabberwocky not until then end, but it impresses itself on the story throughout).
There's an assumed back story about a war between Red and White Queens, too, that's played out in Carroll on the chessboard, but in the film is a violent coup that involves devastation and death.
Plus there's an opening scene of the young Alice meant to set up her character before she falls into the rabbit hole, a rather pretty but dull Victorian set piece to remind viewers that all of this takes place more than a century ago, but also to set up Alice as a female who has broken away from social standards of her day.
Overall, it's not really Carroll as much as a mix of Carroll, the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter. Maybe even a bit of Princess Bride and Narnia, too. I think it is a lot closer to in plot to Dorothy and the Wizard than to Alice, aside from some character names.
Carroll's works included some wry political jests, some word play on logic and meaning, some puns, and a lot of twists and turns on the standard plot lines that turn things inside out and upside down. None of these are in the new movie: it's a fairly straight-forward story line that doesn't really offer anything new. Girl finds new environment, meets allies, meets enemies, is chased by latter, saved by former, gets caught, escapes, saves friends, beats evil monster to save the kingdom, then drinks magic potion to return home. Just click the ruby slippers three times, Dorothy...
The original Alice in Wonderland didn't make sense, in that it is really a series of dream or dreamlike sequences connected to a rather simple story that had oddly complex sub-plots. This version has more coherent story - albeit a rather well-worn one - but despite some stunning visuals, is less dreamlike. The wonder you feel in the books is sometimes replaced with malice and threat. The Mad Hatter, for example, has a dark, violent side not found in Carroll.
As much the centrepiece as Alice, Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter is a wild and crazy guy, well acted, but a little too much of the Cowardly Lion (or one of the other Oz trio depending on the scene). his madness conceals an anger that, while perhaps suitable for this story, is at odds with the original.
There have been numerous film adaptations of Alice in Wonderland, starting with a 1903 version. another in 1915, 1931, 1933 the well-known, Disney animation of 1951, a made-for-TV versions in 1955, 1985 and 1999, this recent version from 2010 - and many others in between. All have been heavily influenced more by the illustrations by John Tenniel in the original, 1865 book - perhaps more by them than by the story line itself. This new version is no different in that.
The Alice of this film is, of course, different from all others because it's not merely a retelling. The Alice of Carroll's books (or properly, Charles Dodgson's) is a young child, full of wonder and curiosity, innocent, naive, yet wise. This Alice, 16 years later, is a young woman, going through self-discovery to determine who she is, in a bit of post-teen angst, much more independent without being too pouty, and not given to wonder as much. Of course to have the chase and fight scenes Hollywood demands, you have to have adults, not children. What six-year-old could stand up to the dragon-esque Jabberwocky, after all? You need this Gwyneth Paltrow-like substitute to run through the forest, to wield a sword and to tempt the evil knight.
Acting and animation are all up to today's standards, but for all the richness of the effects, the film seems curiously flat, probably because the plot is entirely predictable. The Jabberwocky is a caricature of Tenniel's drawing of a modest dragon-like monster, made much bigger and nastier than Tenniel pictured it. Exaggeration, I suppose, makes it more threatening. The Frumious Bandersnatch - not illustrated in any book - turns out to be an overweight dog with too many teeth and, eventually, a heart of gold. The bloodhound is a throw-in not found in Carroll.
There's an odd, awkward political message buried here, too The residents of Wonderland want to overthrow the Red Queen and replace her with the equally monarchical but cloyingly saccharine White Queen who doesn't seem any more fit at ruling than her evil sister. The Red Queen's warriors are cards, the White Queen's are chess pieces. If I recall my Carroll, the White Queen is a rather hapless, somewhat befuddled character in Carroll's allegorical chess game (she flees into a tureen of soup, leaving the White King - vanquished from this movie - to suffer check from the Red Queen).
If I could erase the joy and wonder in Carroll's books from my mind, I'd probably like this version of Alice in Wonderland a lot more. But since that's not possible, it has to stand against the originals and as such doesn't measure up terribly well. It's entertaining, it's a visual treat, but it isn't Alice. I'd give it two stars out of five.
So for the rest of you who have read these two great books, the latest film version of Alice in Wonderland is one in a long series of movies that have attempted, generally unsuccessfully, to capture even a modicum of Carroll's wit, whimsy and creativity. But it's not - like all the others - a remake (and conflation) of Carroll's two works. It's a sequel, set 16 years after the original adventures. Which means a lot of artistic licence trying to pull the pieces together to make it work.
It's a bit like doing a sequel to Oliver Twist or The Brothers Karamazov, or rather a Hollywood team deciding they had the talents and skills to do so, then puffing the whole thing out with special effects, to distract the viewer from the thinness of the plot. I mean, after all, what would a Hollywood movie be without a chase scene or a heroic fight scene?
Had it not attempted to be something related to Carroll's books (and had a different title), Alice might have been an amusing work of fantasy. But because the writers felt they had to somehow make sense of the disparate characters in the books, and tie them together in some manner with a storyline that was both reflective of the original books and yet not a mere retelling, Alice in Wonderland simply doesn't work. Or not as I had expected. It will always be measured against the yardstick of the original books (both, since it seems you can't really tell the story on film without weaving the two tales into one weft).
There's an assumption in the movie that you understand and recognize characters like the Jabberwocky and Frumious Bandersnatch - as well as the Mad Hatter, White Rabbit and Red Queen. They're central to the story, but they're not really placed in context with how Carroll described them or the roles he gave them. Well, it's 16 years later, so things have changed in Wonderland, I suppose. Still, there are head-scratching moments as you wonder why or how things got that way (or didn't change despite the time interval).
Jabberwocky and Bandersnatch are not central to Carroll's original tales - they're from poems spoken by characters in the tale (like Father William and the Walrus and Carpenter) who have no other interaction or involvement outside the poems. In this film, they have big roles (the Jabberwocky not until then end, but it impresses itself on the story throughout).
There's an assumed back story about a war between Red and White Queens, too, that's played out in Carroll on the chessboard, but in the film is a violent coup that involves devastation and death.
Plus there's an opening scene of the young Alice meant to set up her character before she falls into the rabbit hole, a rather pretty but dull Victorian set piece to remind viewers that all of this takes place more than a century ago, but also to set up Alice as a female who has broken away from social standards of her day.
Overall, it's not really Carroll as much as a mix of Carroll, the Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter. Maybe even a bit of Princess Bride and Narnia, too. I think it is a lot closer to in plot to Dorothy and the Wizard than to Alice, aside from some character names.
Carroll's works included some wry political jests, some word play on logic and meaning, some puns, and a lot of twists and turns on the standard plot lines that turn things inside out and upside down. None of these are in the new movie: it's a fairly straight-forward story line that doesn't really offer anything new. Girl finds new environment, meets allies, meets enemies, is chased by latter, saved by former, gets caught, escapes, saves friends, beats evil monster to save the kingdom, then drinks magic potion to return home. Just click the ruby slippers three times, Dorothy...
The original Alice in Wonderland didn't make sense, in that it is really a series of dream or dreamlike sequences connected to a rather simple story that had oddly complex sub-plots. This version has more coherent story - albeit a rather well-worn one - but despite some stunning visuals, is less dreamlike. The wonder you feel in the books is sometimes replaced with malice and threat. The Mad Hatter, for example, has a dark, violent side not found in Carroll.
As much the centrepiece as Alice, Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter is a wild and crazy guy, well acted, but a little too much of the Cowardly Lion (or one of the other Oz trio depending on the scene). his madness conceals an anger that, while perhaps suitable for this story, is at odds with the original.
There have been numerous film adaptations of Alice in Wonderland, starting with a 1903 version. another in 1915, 1931, 1933 the well-known, Disney animation of 1951, a made-for-TV versions in 1955, 1985 and 1999, this recent version from 2010 - and many others in between. All have been heavily influenced more by the illustrations by John Tenniel in the original, 1865 book - perhaps more by them than by the story line itself. This new version is no different in that.
The Alice of this film is, of course, different from all others because it's not merely a retelling. The Alice of Carroll's books (or properly, Charles Dodgson's) is a young child, full of wonder and curiosity, innocent, naive, yet wise. This Alice, 16 years later, is a young woman, going through self-discovery to determine who she is, in a bit of post-teen angst, much more independent without being too pouty, and not given to wonder as much. Of course to have the chase and fight scenes Hollywood demands, you have to have adults, not children. What six-year-old could stand up to the dragon-esque Jabberwocky, after all? You need this Gwyneth Paltrow-like substitute to run through the forest, to wield a sword and to tempt the evil knight.
Acting and animation are all up to today's standards, but for all the richness of the effects, the film seems curiously flat, probably because the plot is entirely predictable. The Jabberwocky is a caricature of Tenniel's drawing of a modest dragon-like monster, made much bigger and nastier than Tenniel pictured it. Exaggeration, I suppose, makes it more threatening. The Frumious Bandersnatch - not illustrated in any book - turns out to be an overweight dog with too many teeth and, eventually, a heart of gold. The bloodhound is a throw-in not found in Carroll.
There's an odd, awkward political message buried here, too The residents of Wonderland want to overthrow the Red Queen and replace her with the equally monarchical but cloyingly saccharine White Queen who doesn't seem any more fit at ruling than her evil sister. The Red Queen's warriors are cards, the White Queen's are chess pieces. If I recall my Carroll, the White Queen is a rather hapless, somewhat befuddled character in Carroll's allegorical chess game (she flees into a tureen of soup, leaving the White King - vanquished from this movie - to suffer check from the Red Queen).
If I could erase the joy and wonder in Carroll's books from my mind, I'd probably like this version of Alice in Wonderland a lot more. But since that's not possible, it has to stand against the originals and as such doesn't measure up terribly well. It's entertaining, it's a visual treat, but it isn't Alice. I'd give it two stars out of five.
