Is this the full version of the Miller version?
I partially ask because I have been interested to see it.
I will reply using Hitchcock’s repost: because that would be dull.
More seriously, nothing is at stake.
Go and watch the Beatles’ Magical Mystery Tour movie if you can find it. It does just that and it plods.
Produced by Hanna-Barbara. Link to wiki: Alice in Wonderland or What's a Nice Kid like You Doing in a Place like This? - Wikipedia
And Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble were Tweedledee & Tweedledum.
That’s it!
But I can’t imagine it without the spooky Shankar musical score (buzzing oboes on top of the sitars and Indian percussion) that reinforces the surreal mid-'60s vibe.
Given that the book is a classic, I don’t think that’s a reasonable critique.
There are books where most of the action takes place in the character’s head and very little actually happens around them. Those are books where they probably won’t translate well to the screen. But Alice’s adventures are almost purely enjoyable from the characters, the situations, and the dialogue. There’s very little in the works that wouldn’t directly translate to a screen, other than having enough time to properly dwell on what has just occurred, which you get when reading but not when watching a film. But I don’t think that, that’s the fundamental problem with the film versions.
The problem is possibly just that the people who have made the film versions aren’t Carrol.
If you compare American remakes of British shows, remakes of movies (Shall We Dance/Shall We Dance, Insomnia/Insomnia), movies that are functionally the same (Armageddon versus Deep Impact,), dubbed versus subtitled versions of the same film, etc. you’ll notice that sometimes success isn’t as simple as the content. Something about the specifics of the presentation, as done by that director/actor/writer/etc. just happens to be the thing that makes the thing “work”. And without that, it just doesn’t.
Shakespeare’s tales, for example, generally work pretty well, regardless of who is performing it and regardless of the take they put on it. Versus, for example, Bryan Cranston’s voice English voice work on The Wings of Honneamise made it a dull, pointless movie, whereas I find the original Japanese to be a genuinely great film. But outside of the voice acting, it’s exactly the same film. It shouldn’t be any different. And clearly it’s not that Bryan Cranston is a lousy actor. The Hulk failed with 2 different talented actors. The third accomplished more in a bit part than either of the previous actors did. Some things are just hard to get right, for some ineffable reason.
That Disney felt that Alice needed “heart” may be why he couldn’t make a better film out of it. It just wasn’t suited to his, and most story-tellers’, sensibilities. But, under someone else, it could have worked out perfectly without any large revisions to Alice or the plot.
I do agree that so far there’s been no great adaptations. So whatever it is that it takes to make Alice work still hasn’t been found. I offered my theory in my previous post. But I certainly don’t think that the problem is that there’s anything about the medium preventing a successful transition. There just isn’t anything non-visual/non-auditory in the books to prevent a smooth adaptation.
I think the 1951 Disney film made a sensible choice to at least have a throughline of chasing the white rabbit. That adaptation is about as good as it gets, IMHO, and yet it’s still somewhat formless. The book is episodic because it’s based on stories Carroll told extemporaneously. Movies need arcs, otherwise there’s no momentum and you’re left feeling largely unsatisfied.
That said, Woolverton’s choice of making it a standard hero quest is lazy and unimaginative. The 2010 movie pisses me off just thinking about it.
I personally think Disney did a good enough job, the same way that the classic *Wizard of Oz * movie did. A different medium requires changes. But I got the same feel out of the book and the movie.
Well, at least, until I learned of the deeper mathematical meaning of the book, but I’m not sure how to get that on screen.
Spielberg’s 1941. Plods not. Totally rocks. Haters can’t live without their stinking plots.
Just for the heck of it, I rewatched the Kate Burton Alice on Youtube. My impression that it is the most successful dramatization of the story still holds.
I can think of several reasons for this.
[ul]
[li]Kate Burton (Richard’s daughter) was 26 when she played Alice. Usually, it’s cast much younger. But the advantage is that you have an adult actor in the part, so Alice’s lines come to life.[/li][li]The frame tale of her having to recite “Jabberwocky” gives it a real climax.[/li][li]They stayed very faithful to the text and even included things that are usually omitted (e.g., the caucus race, Pigs and Pepper). [/li][li]They solved the “two book” problem by doing Alice as written and then segueing right into Through the Looking Glass from the trial of the Knave. This keeps things faithful and doesn’t require shoehorning the second book into the first.[/li][li]An all-star cast doesn’t hurt.[/li][li]They included many of the poems by turning them into songs.[/li][li]The original adaptation (from 1932) was written by two actresses: Eva La Gallienne and Florida Frebus, so they came to it with a performers point of view.*[/li][/ul]
*The original play included them in the cast, and also Whit Bissell, Howard da Silva, and Burgess Meredith. The adaptation was also used in the 1933 Paramount movie version, though other writers were credited and the story changed.
A great cast…but a miserable, sad movie. Look at the mad people going about the caucus race: they look like real “mad” people, i.e., people suffering from mental illness. They aren’t daft and goofy; they’re confused and lonely and frightened.
Notice how Alice never looks at the person she’s talking to, but off in front of them. Conversations are at an odd angle. No one meets each other’s eyes or gaze. The whole film is horribly flat of affect.
In the whole film, no one smiles or laughs. Peter Sellers, for God’s sake, is totally deadpan!
Still… I’m glad someone likes it!
I remember in the 60s or 70s seeing one on TV which was cute… It might technically have been Through the Looking Glass.
Live-action, with actors inside large chess-piece costumes with two holes for faces, so you could whirl around and be looking out the “back” of the costume. (A little like the Mayor in Nightmare Before Christmas.) Can anyone help me identify what movie this was?
(1967-1973? I seem to remember it being in the “Laugh-In” era.)
I don’t recall if I suggested Burton’s Alice for the Greatest War Film threads that we had a while back, but the fact that it’s genuinely eligible for the running (on the War side, not the Great side) is a pretty strong indication that the production crew had no interest in doing an Alice In Wonderland film.
At least with Snow White and the Huntsman, you can reasonably say that the source material is sexist and deserves to be mauled (though I could easily argue against that view), but there’s no such argument to be made for Alice. You could just as easily change out “Alice” with “Alfred” and “she” with “he” and there would be nothing amiss with the result.
The main character is treated like a child, but the main character is a child, so there’s nothing strange about that. Maybe somewhere in the framing stories there are some references to dresses, or whatever, but it’s really a unisex tale. And for its time, that’s probably quite the accomplishment.
Silly old bea…FUCK!
Yes, that was Through the Looking Glass, from 1966. The Smothers Brothers were Tweedledum and Tweedledee, before they had their own show. Also had Ricardo Montalban, Agnes Moorehead, Nanette Fabray and Jimmy Durante. And Jack Palance was the Jabberwock!
It was okay for what it was, but had virtually nothing to do with the source material, and it was cringingly obvious that they were trying to one-up The Wizard of Oz. Also, Alice has a huge rack for someone who is supposed to be a kid. Great singing voice, though!
I’m working my way through every adaptation of Alice, from silent films through the latest Tim Burton version. Currently, I’m on the 1966 BBC version, and I agree with Trinopus. Also, Alice is rather unpleasant. Eric Idle is an extra in the caucus race, though that hardly makes up for the rest of it. And seriously, they can’t make the Cheshire Cat disappear? If Ravi Shankar does the music, clearly you’re trying to be trippy, so how can you skip the grin-without-a-cat?
I agree. I think that the books are eminently filmable, but the product wouldn’t sell. The odd things that occur are nothing at all to people (children particularly) who are familiar with CGI and modern animation where anything at all can be and is regularly depicted. The books are to a very large extent intellectual wordplay, and that isn’t a big seller of movies.
“Oh, botherfucker!”
I saw it and remember it. TV Guide did an article on it at the time.
I actually enjoy the Burton movie, although I agree it has little to do with Carroll.
I kinda like the lead actress, and the Jabberwocky is voiced by Christopher Lee. I can do without Depp, though.
That’s what irks me most about the avoidable Burton films- the creature is just “Jabberwock”; “Jabberwocky” is the name of the poem it appears in.