Spoilers herein.
`Alice' has to be among the most unfilmable literary experiences on the planet. But of all the attempts (I think I have seen them all), this is the most Alice-like. But good luck finding a copy -- Disney crushed it to eliminate competition for its cartoon travesty. The only problem is that while this has the most Alice, it is a pretty unengaging film. I saw it in an audience that was mostly preteen girls and they were bored. Disney scores higher on the motion and color attraction scale.
Some interesting things:
--This is likely the first Alice with a longhaired, blue-eyed blond Alice in a blue dress. Incidentally, Alice's sisters are a redhead and brunette. A rather striking statement. (The redhead is a bitch.)
--They added some unattractive songs, and music to existing songs and poems. But at the same time, abridged in odd places: there is no mouses's tail, no serpent and pigeon, lots of small cuts in the text that are every bit as awkward as what they lost. They added a goofy bit about 100 fish-footmen. The puppy now has a bell that resembles that in the Tower of Christchurch.
--But some of the changes are pretty well informed, showing that the writer did some homework. Two elements at least are from the handwritten version that were changed in the later printed book: Alice now works with both the rabbit's gloves and `magic' fan, and she goes through a door in a tree.
One thing that makes this different is the framing. We are given the storyteller and the story. Much is made of the mirroring of one into the other, a device that is central to `Alice.' Strange that they note the stuttering but don't tie it to the Dodo. They note Dodgson as a photographer but fail to capitalize on the delicious possibilities of him as the filmmaker.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.
`Alice' has to be among the most unfilmable literary experiences on the planet. But of all the attempts (I think I have seen them all), this is the most Alice-like. But good luck finding a copy -- Disney crushed it to eliminate competition for its cartoon travesty. The only problem is that while this has the most Alice, it is a pretty unengaging film. I saw it in an audience that was mostly preteen girls and they were bored. Disney scores higher on the motion and color attraction scale.
Some interesting things:
--This is likely the first Alice with a longhaired, blue-eyed blond Alice in a blue dress. Incidentally, Alice's sisters are a redhead and brunette. A rather striking statement. (The redhead is a bitch.)
--They added some unattractive songs, and music to existing songs and poems. But at the same time, abridged in odd places: there is no mouses's tail, no serpent and pigeon, lots of small cuts in the text that are every bit as awkward as what they lost. They added a goofy bit about 100 fish-footmen. The puppy now has a bell that resembles that in the Tower of Christchurch.
--But some of the changes are pretty well informed, showing that the writer did some homework. Two elements at least are from the handwritten version that were changed in the later printed book: Alice now works with both the rabbit's gloves and `magic' fan, and she goes through a door in a tree.
One thing that makes this different is the framing. We are given the storyteller and the story. Much is made of the mirroring of one into the other, a device that is central to `Alice.' Strange that they note the stuttering but don't tie it to the Dodo. They note Dodgson as a photographer but fail to capitalize on the delicious possibilities of him as the filmmaker.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.