Originally posted way, way back on July 8, 2010.
Yo, Cine Beast reporting for duty. The two “Alice” books written by Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) are probably the most influential children’s books ever written, right? Many talented and popular storytellers have felt the impression of these stories (L. Frank Baum, The Wachowski Brothers, Hayao Miyazaki, etc.), and the books are obviously considered classics. I’m not really sure why, since they suck.
Well, what I mean is that they don’t have much of a plot. At all.
What exactly is the plot of Alice in Wonderland? A girl dreams that she follows a talking rabbit down a hole, meets some odd (but pointless) characters, and then wakes up. Truly riveting.
The plot of Alice Through the Looking Glass is barely an improvement: a girl dreams that she crawls through a mirror into a chessboard-themed land and becomes a queen when she reaches the other side, then wakes up. You may argue that Through the Looking Glass is a clear step above the first book since Alice is given a goal and a quest, but it still turns out to be a dream. Whether the dream actually helps her character mature or not is up for debate, although I personally believe Alice doesn’t change a millimeter.
Anyway, enough about the books themselves, which I need only concern myself with to a certain degree to properly write this review. Ever since the invention of film people have tried to adapt the Alice books (sometimes ignoring the second one), and now I’m going to take a gander at some of them and try and decide which is the best.
I’ll be reviewing quite a few of ’em, so this post will be split in four parts to save room and relieve pressure. I’m not reviewing the films in any particular order, either. Now then, this first adaptation isn’t a theatrical film, but rather an episode of Great Perfomances:
Directed by: Kirk Browning
Featuring: Kate Burton, Eve Arden, Austin Pendleton, Maureen Stapleton, with Donald O’Connor as the Mock Turtle, and Nathan Lane as The Mouse
Written by: Florida Friebus and Eva La Gallienne
Air Year: 1983
Running Time: 90 minutes
This is quite a strange little adaptation. It begins with a rather promising twist: Alice, a young woman, is a stage actress who is participating in a theater adaptation of both Wonderland and Looking Glass and is extremely nervous on opening night. While trying to calm herself by smoking in her dressing room, she begins to dream, and from then on the episode is a nearly exact recreation of the original books. This is a bad thing, obviously, since any respectable adaptation should not recap the dull events of the original stories but rather reimagine them so that viewers won’t die of boredom.
The one thing the episode does differently than other adaptations is that the art direction is based exactly off of the pictures drawn by Sir John Tenniel, the original illustrator for the books. The costumes, the sets, everything looks identical to the book’s original drawings.
It’s very interesting . . . until you realize just how dreary and subtly haunting the original pics are, and then the movie suddenly changes course from simply being boring to being a boring nightmare. Really, most of the episode’s tone is akin to an awkward, yet strangely unpleasant dream.
There are some highlights, of course, namely, some of the actors. Nathan Lane has a brief role early on as the Mouse that Alice almost drowns with her own tears, and he’s wonderful. Austin Pendleton plays the White Rabbit as a likable emo nerd; the great Richard Burton is naturally interesting as the White Knight, although he’s only in one scene; and Donald O’Connor is funny and memorable as the Mock Turtle, although I wish he wasn’t in such a physically-constraining costume. The guy’s primarily a physical comedian, right? So why put him in an enormous turtle suit that he can barely waddle in?
However, the actor who stole the show for me was Geoffrey Holder. Never heard of him? ‘Ever seen Live and Let Die?
That’s right — Baron Samedi. Anyway, he has about three minutes of screen time as the Cheshire Cat, but he rocks every second of it. Standing six feet six inches tall, with a voice pitched relative to a trombone, this guy is easily one of the most naturally intimidating actors of the past half-century, and he was cast as the Cheshire Cat? That’s brilliant, that is.
Well, not much else to say about this one, although I would like to add that I found Kate Burton’s portrayal of Alice to be the most unlikable iterition of the character. I’m not hating on her because she’s over seven years old; heck, I’m not even hating on her because she’s over seventeen. My quarrel is that Alice is meant to be a charming character, and Kate played a harsh, rude, selfish Alice whom I could barely stand to watch. Anyway, the rest of the cast is pretty decent, but the script doesn’t even attempt to alter Lewis Carrol’s original “storyline” and the art direction is unsettling (if inventive).
Cine Beast’s Rating: 3/10
Directed by: Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske
Featuring: Kathryn Beaumont, Ed Wynn, Verna Felton, and Sterling Holloway
Written by: A lot of people . . .
Year of Release: 1951
Running Time: 75 minutes
MPAA: G
Budget: $3 million
Ah, the Disney cartoon. Everyone remembers this one, and I don’t wonder why: it’s a very, very good-looking movie. Disney has always been able to make memorable, colorful character designs. Virtually every character in the film is incredibly iconic. With that said, this is still a pretty bland movie.
The plot is, unfortunately, extremely similar to the original narrative: Alice sees a talking rabbit, falls down a hole, blah blah blah. It’s not different enough.
Wait, hang on.
Actually, there are a few interesting arrangements: in this adaptation the Queen of Hearts is actually a combination of the Duchess and the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass. Also, Disney made up an entirely new segment where Alice finds herself lost in the Tulgey Wood (from Carrol’s Jabberwocky poem) and breaks into tears. I actually really like that scene, since it hints at the threatening nature of Wonderland and also adds a minuscule amount of character development to Alice. It’s not much, but it’s better than nothing.
Besides that I also must commend the film for adding more screen time to certain characters, the Cheshire Cat in particular. He’s actually really well-handled in this adaptation, although they cut out his origin story (he belongs to the Duchess, who doesn’t exist in the film). Sterling Holloway’s soft voice is extremely fitting, which I find kind of funny, since I was praising Geoffrey Holder earlier, a guy with a voice deeper and graver than James Earl Jones. I also loved how the Cheshire Cat is always humming lines from the Jabberwocky poem: it’s a very ominous poem, and he sings it in such an upbeat mood that he comes off as both funny and menacing, exactly how I prefer the character.
Anyway, I also like how the White Rabbit reappears several times throughout the film to remind Alice why she’s even there and to keep her moving forward. He’s nothing more than a Macguffin, but his continuous presence helps to aim what passes for a plot.
One other thing the film has going for it is it’s music: a lot of Alice adaptations feature musical numbers, and most of them suck. Disney has always been talented at writing quirky songs, though, and this film is no exception. It’s not great music, but it won’t make your ears bleed, either. That’s a win in my book.
Despite all these improvements and alterations, however, the film is still extremely un-engaging. It’s colorful, but dull; it’s witty, but slow. It simply didn’t take enough risks, like the earlier Disney cartoons.
Plus, it doesn’t have the Mock Turtle in it. No, I’m serious, every adaptation of Alice should have the Mock Turtle in it. He’s such a bizarre, lonely character that you can’t help feeling sorry for him, even when he’s played by Donald O’Connor, the lord and master of all things jolly. Disney royally screwed up when they forgot to include him in their adaptation.
Oh, wait a minute:
. . . Never mind.
So, this is a better adaptation than most; some of the characters are made more integral to the story, the visuals are gorgeous, and the songs are somewhat entertaining. The thin plot has more drive than a few other versions, but it’s just not enough, not nearly enough. This is a children’s movie, I grant you, but that’s never stopped Disney from making an engaging story that older people can enjoy. They could have done a much better job.
Cine Beast’s Rating: 5/10
Well, that’s all for now. I’ll post the second, third, and fourth parts as soon as I’m able. Until that time, Cine Beast, signing off.