jeffj@sfmin.UUCP (J.S.Jonas) (12/12/85)
[curiouser and curiouser!]
Let me introduce myself. I am Alistair Cookie, a self
proclaimed Carrolian (one who is rather knowledgeable on things
from or pertaining to the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson,
a.k.a.Lewis Carroll).
Ready or not, here is MY REVIEW AND COMMENTARY
on the CBS movie Alice In Wonderland, Part 1
(broadcasted on Monday Dec 9, 1985 from 8 to 10 PM).
Let's start with the beginning. Already, we have a departure from
the book. The book has Alice next to her sister who was reading a book
but it had no pictures or conversations in it, "and what is the
use of a book," thought Alice, "without pictures or conversations?"
When she falls down the rabbit hole, she fell past cupboards and
bookshelves and talks to herself about a great many things.
Alice is quickly established as a smart, brave little girl who can
cope with all that was happening, in fact she rather enjoyed it.
The movie starts her helping her mother [her parents
NEVER appeared in the book nor were mentioned]. She is
worried about being 'grown up' and what others will think of her.
Her later comments on the Wonderlanders' behavior doesn't include
herself, and she comes across as harsh and bitter. The household
scene does things that were never in the book, and I don't
understand why it was added. Alice's comment to her sister was is passing,
barely enough to establish the depth of the character. Disney
kept the falling sequence in the animated film, so these writers
should've recognized the importance and kept that scene.
Alice comes to the table with the key. The book specifies
that this is a glass table, not a wood one. And furthermore,
"tied round the neck of the bottle was a paper label with the words
DRINK ME beautifully printed on it in large [friendly?] letters",
not the bottle the movie featured. The writers even ignored
the illustrations of the book! The so-called special effects
were cheap. The shrinking/growing sequences were okay for 20
years ago, but a modern production should do better. The only
prop for her in the tiny size was the leg of the table, so
she never moved. And they left out the wonderful taste it had
"a sort of mixed flavour of cherry-tart, custard, pine-apple,
roast turkey, toffy, and hot buttered toast", and Alice
remarks how she's shutting up like a telescope
not the movie's plain old ordinary "I'm shrinking".
None of Alice's curiousity and amazement was displayed.
* mild flame * This seems like an overprotective parent wrote
the script. The theme of growing up/being grown up appears in the
movie dialog a lot. The book had no such thing. Alice's changing
sizes was not sickening like the movie shows. The movie Alice
might as well have swallowed poison by her reaction holding her
tummy and going 'ooooh'.
After the pool of tears, the movie didn't explain how the birds
dried off. In the book, they first read very dry literature.
This having failed, they run in a circle in a Caucus-race
"where everybody has won, and all must have prizes" where the Dodo
presents Alice with the thimble she just gave him. This political
satire was omitted from the movie.
Before you accuse me of holding the movie strictly to the
book, let me first say that I am pointing out how the attitudes and
themes presented are so different that the changes were completely
out of line. Second, here's a change they made that was beneficial.
The song for the Mouse's Tail bore no resemblance to the one in the book,
but was better since it was easier to understand, and answered
the question of why the mouse disliked dogs and cats.
The poem in the book _Alice's_Adventures_In_Wonderland explains
only the dislike for cats, but not dogs. The poem in the manuscript
spoke of both cats and dogs, and on second thought,
may have gone well to music [but then what would the songwriters do?].
When Alice was too big for the rabbit's house, she tried to
grab the rabbit, "but she heard a little shriek and a fall, and a crash of
broken glass, from which she concluded that it was just possible it had
fallen into a cucumber frame...". The picture shows this. The movie
didn't, but had the rabbit fall into a bush. This could've been a funny
scene with a good prat fall. Why was the opportunity thrown away?
The movie encounter with the caterpillar was okay, except for the
obligatory "...I think I grew up a little...", and the hookah
produced very little smoke. [I guess the writers didn't want to
encourage smoking or not growing up.] The Father William song
and dance was ok. They omitted Alice's eating the mushroom and
the consequences of her changing size too rapidly, leaving how
she unshrunk unanswered. I'll give them the benefit of the
doubt and say it was filmed and later edited out.
The fish-footman and frog-footman were appropriately
silly. Martha Rae was a perfect match for the duchess who was
originally modeled after a fourteenth century duchess called "Maultasch"
meaning "pocket mouth". The chesire cat was noticeably missing from the
kitchen "grinning ear to ear", as it was one of the two creatures NOT
sneezing. But then it probably would've been crowded.
There is an amazingly appropriate commercial break as Alice
carried off the baby afraid that "they'll be sure to kill it".
The baby was crying like a human baby. *WRONG*. "the little thing
grunted in reply (it had left off sneezing by this time)" the
book states, to which Alice replies "Don't grunt. That's not at all a
proper way of expressing yourself". I felt that the movie
made an implication of child beating, especially with the
commercial break to think about what just happened
(conveniently before it changed into a pig). It should've
been toned down by FOLLOWING THE BOOK in tone and attitude,
or at least have the baby change into a pig before the commercial break.
The baby's cries were totally uncalled for. Charles Dodgeson's
dislike for little boys is well established, and that displeasure
was well expressed by being unsympathetic to an ugly little boy
who turns into a pig. Even Alice herself (in the book) says
"If it had grown up it would have made a dreadfully ugly child: but it
makes rather a handsome pig, I think". [ok - the book makes some
references to growing up, but not in any serious light]
The close-up shots of the baby/pig are from an angle
that makes it obvious that Alice is not holding the pig/baby.
Was a stand-in used? I figure that if *I* can catch this
(never being a film major), then the special effects/camera angles
are very wrong.
In the book, Alice meets the Chesire Cat in a tree and has
the following conversation:
Alice: "Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go
from here?"
Cat: "That depends a good deal on where you want to get to"
Alice: "I don't much care where-"
Cat: "Then it doesn't matter which way you go"
Alice: "-so long as I get somewhere"
Cat: "Oh, you're sure to do that if you only walk long enough"
Alice felt that this could not be denied.
The movie destroyed this rapport between Alice and the cat. The cat
was portrayed as a sad character, telling Alice "There's no way
home", "no time for friends", "no time for playing"
[why's the cat talking about time? That's the Mad Hatter's hangup!]
"you are naive". What a nasty cat! And more BS about going home
and growing up!
In the book, Alice left the cat puzzled. "Well! I've often seen
a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat!
It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!".
[The Annotated Alice has an interesting note how that phrase
is not a bad description of pure mathematics]. The movie
had Alice leaving in a huff, saying "maybe I'll find somebody
to help me", "he's so mean". [sounds just like Dorothy of The Wizard
of Oz]. The movie turned the meeting from delightful to
disappointing, and I felt it was beating on a
stuffy adults vs. fun-loving-but-caring-and-loving kids theme. Feh.
The cat exited without any charm.
The mad tea party missed some important details:
1)All the other movies I have seen of the mad tea party follow
the book's pictures and feature nice furniture. Alice sits
in a big stuffed chair, and for good reason. The Annotated Alice
points out that the Mad Hatter is based on a furniture dealer
near Oxford, so the items of furniture are prominent in this
episode. This movie has all plain chairs.
[I think that the best Mad tea party sequence was the one in the
movie "Dreamchild". Jim Hensen does it justice, and
the camera angles are great, making the table seem to grow!
Was it absolutely faithful to the book? No! It was appropriately
modified to show Mrs. Alice Hargreaves' confusion and
merge with her current surroundings. It appropriately had
a dreamy aire to it. Many times, Alice was changed from a little girl
(as in the book) to her current self (an old gray lady)]
2)The Mad Hatter's hat still has the pricetag
"In This Style 10/6". This movie had the tag "10/6", which
one would not recognize as the price. It was not put in perspective.
3)In the book, the seating arrangement was as such:
clockwise: Alice, March Hare, Dormouse, Mad Hatter.
In the movie, the Hatter and the Hare were reversed.
4) When the Hatter wants a clean cup, they all move one over.
To quote the book
"He [the Hatter] moved on as he spoke, and the Dormouse
followed him: the March Hare moved into the Dormouse's place, and
Alice rather unwillingly took the place of the March Hare.
The Hatter was the only one who got any advantage from the change;
and Alice was a good deal worse off than before, as the March Hare
had just upset the milk-jug into his plate."
In the movie, the Hatter didn't get a clean cup since he moved into
the Dormouse's seat [okay, maybe the Dormouse didn't use its cup],
and Alice didn't move over. She stayed at the head of the table
[perhaps to feel a little 'grown up' since such a privilege
is usually reserved for grownups? okay, maybe I'm overreacting here],
but there was an empty chair between Alice and the Hatter.
Pray, what was the reason for that?
5) When offered wine, the book Alice notices there isn't any and
thinks it rude to offer non-existent wine. This movie Alice
says "I'm much too young" [that darn theme again!].
On the brighter side, the Hatter's watch being exactly correct
twice a day is another Carroll joke. To quote the Annotated Alice
"One is reminded also of an earlier piece by Carroll
in which he proves that a stopped clock is more accurate than one
that loses a minute a day. The first clock is exactly right
twice every 24 hours, whereas the other clock is exactly right
only once in two years. 'You might go on to ask', Carroll adds,
'How am I to know when eight o'clock does come? My clock
will not tell me. Be patient: you know that when eight
o'clock comes your clock is right; very good; then your
rule is this: keep your eyes fixed on the clock and
the very moment it is right it will be eight o'clock".
In the book, the Hatter's watch tells the day, not the time,
but in either case, the hour has stopped at tea-time, thus
the perpetual tea party.
The movie's song for the Hatter _Just_Laugh_ is fine,
it is keeping with the character. I gave a sigh of relief when Alice left with
NO comments about being childish although in this case it was warranted.
From here to the end of part 1, the movie's sequences bear little
resemblance to the book. Instead of proceeding directly to the
croquet grounds, she is suddenly in the forest of no-names
[which comes near the middle of _Through_The_Looking-glass_,
the next book!]
[the concept of the forest of no names was ignored in the movie.
Perhaps the writers couldn't understand the jokes?
Or won't admit to a discontinuity?].
In the book, Alice meets a Fawn and asks it its name. Neither can
remember, since this is the forest of no names. In the movie,
Alice sings to the Fawn how everyone is mad. [Ugh! More of the
child vs. grown up theme]
I think that the red queen was not furious enough.
Another note from the book:
"I pictured to myself the Queen of Hearts", Carroll wrote
in his article "Alice on the Stage", "as a sort of embodiment
of ungovernable passion - a blind and aimless Fury."
Her constant orders for beheadings are shocking to those
modern critics of children's literature who feel that
juvenile fiction should be free of all violence and
especially violence with Freudian undertones. Even
the Oz books of L. Frank Baum, so singularly free
of the horrors to be found in Grimm and Andersen,
contain many scenes of decapitation. As far as I know,
there have been no empirical studies of how children react
to such scenes and what harm if any is done to their psyche.
My guess is that the normal child finds it all very amusing
and is not damaged in the least, but that books like
_Alice's_Adventures_In_Wonderland_ and _The_Wizard_Of_Oz_
should not be allowed to circulate indiscriminately among
adults who are undergoing analysis".
[so there!]
The commercials at this point were amusingly appropriate. First
a Pampers commercial (babies - everyone acting like babies?),
then an Ivory Soap commercial with football players (grown-ups
using baby products), then Welch jelley (something liked by
kids and grown-ups alike). [Am I getting carried away? Nah!]
The croquet game was decent.
And now for something completely different:
a scene with no meaning! Alice comes to a trapped goat and frees it
telling it "go back to your mother" (she said the same thing to the Fawn),
and again to the monkey. What was this all about? THERE IS NOTHING
LIKE THIS IN THE BOOK! Why another goat (a trapped one at that)
and a monkey? Neither said anything. Was it a timefill? They
could've used the time for some original material and laughs.
The mock turtle's song _nonsense_ was fine. No
gloom or nasty overtones this time.
The trial - close but no cigar. The rabbit was supposed
to blast his trumpet before the opening announcements (he didn't
even HAVE a trumpet). The jury was supposed to be a mix of
animals, and Bill the Lizard had a squeaky pencil (the movie
had all birds and no attention drawn to them). When the movie Alice
grows two miles tall, she says "I'm growing up" [Awwwwwwwwwww -
come on already!] and "I didn't eat any mushroom..." which is
a reference to something that didn't happen in this movie
[perhaps edited out? Time limit, or fear of making drug abuse
seem too attractive?]. Alice then says "let the prisoner go
home to his family...it is horrible to feel homesick" [Dorothy -
SHUT UP!]
Alice then kicks the guards and the chase begins!
I feel this was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY and contributed NOTHING to
the story. The book had the entire pack of cards jump up at her,
and when she wakes up (next to her sister, remember?)it turns
out that the cards falling on her are just leaves, and she retells
the story to her sister who replies "It was a curious dream,
dear, certainly; but now run in to your tea: it's getting late".
[Aha! A contradiction! The book has Alice going to tea where the movie
has her suffering to get that honor]. This is a much gentler
ending. [note how the book NEVER EVEN MENTIONED THE PARENTS].
Back to the movie:
Alice runs back home. Her sister is gone. "mother, father,
I'm back" she cries. Everyone is on the other side of the mirror.
She is sad and trapped -- quite unlike the book's Alice who NEVER
felt abandoned. [okay - how'd she get in the other side of the
mirror Mr. Irwin Allen?]. She reads Jabberwocky [which should
have been printed backwards, requiring her to hold it to the mirror.
It is a looking-glass book. Well, even the original book had only one
paragraph reversed]
Alice says [here it comes again] "it's a good thing I'm grown up
or I'd be a little frightened" [no comment this time].
The Jabberwock appears amid cheap special effects, in an attempt
to leave us in suspense. [THE JABBERWOCK NEVER PHYSICALLY APPEARS
IN ANY OF CARROLL'S STORIES (although it is referred to)!
The illustration is for the poem, a
'story within a story' if you will. Why oh why did they bring that
miserable creature into the movie?]
In the coming attractions: the Jabberwock terrorizes Alice's
party [What a party pooper! It is NOT IN THE MOOD OF THE BOOK --
Alice rather enjoyed her party until she got fed up with it.]
I didn't catch who got credit/blame for the script, but the
not-so-special effects were done by Joseph Unsinn.
I'd say, they were a sin!
Jeff 'the REAL LIFE Chesire cat' Skot
{ihnp4 | allegra | mcnc ...} attunix ! jeffjnancy@enmasse.UUCP (Nancy Werlin) (12/17/85)
Noticed, among your comments, your regret that the Caucus Race
was omitted, probably because political satire is considered
inappropriate for children. Well, be that as it may, but my
memory was jogged and it turned up a song from god-knows-where
about the Caucus Race. I can only remember a few, yet intriguing,
bits:
Caucus Race!
Let's run around the round track,
Round around the round track round.
Everyone, let's run around the Caucus race track.
Who can win it (win it),
Two or three or four, maybe even more. /* I love this line */
Now: ten points for the person who can remember either
where this comes from (Carroll himself?)
or what the rest of it is (twenty points for
the person who knows both). I'll be up all
night wondering, myself. Help!
Nancy Werlin
EnMasse Computer Corp.
Acton, MAjohn@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (12/18/85)
In article <626@sfmin.UUCP> jeffj@sfmin.UUCP (J.S.Jonas) writes: > Let me introduce myself. I am Alistair Cookie, a self >proclaimed Carrolian (one who is rather knowledgeable on things >from or pertaining to the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, >a.k.a.Lewis Carroll). To add to your fund of knowledge: The author of _Alice_ was an Anglican deacon, but not a priest. The correct form of address for deacons is *not* "the Rev.", but "the Rev. Mr." So call him the Reverend Mister Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. (Or Fr. Dodgson, also common and acceptable among Anglicans.) -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "The heart has its reasons that the mind does not know." -- Blaise Pascal