The thing you’re not understanding is that the Opium Trade wasn’t about the British buying Opium from China. China, at the time, had lots and lots of silver and other trade goods (silk, spices, crafts, etc) that were highly desirable in Europe, but the gwailo had nothing that the Chinese were prepared to trade for on any significant scale.
So, someone (The East India Company, I believe) hit upon the idea of selling Opium to the Chinese… and getting them hooked on the stuff, which A) Meant British traders had a guaranteed market for at least one product in China and B) Since they had the upper hand in the matter, they could get “preferential” deals and agreements with the Chinese merchants.
Not one of the highlights of the British Empire, but the point being made is that since about the only trade good the British had that the Chinese would trade for in the time period that Alice is set in is Opium, that means that if Alice is heading off to China to establish trading posts, it’s almost certain that Opium is involved on the supply side of the ledger.
I watched it again today, without the 3D. The sloppy CGI effects that popped up from time to time were much more obvious - I dunno if it was because it wasn’t in 3D or just because I already knew what was going to happen and could focus on the details.
I wish it’d been a bit darker. Or . . . I don’t know. More SOMETHING. The whole “you’ve lost your muchness” bit struck me as ironic this time because that is exactly how I would describe this movie. It lacks a muchness.
Also it disturbed me that I found Johnny Depp’s crazy Scottish accent . . . hot.
I still haven’t seen the movie and don’t plan to from what I’ve read, but how do they have the Red and White Queens and the Knave of Hearts? Alice in Wonderland was more episodic, but Through the Looking-Glass was clearly built around the theme of a chess game. I suppose they could make Wonderland into a game-box with cards, chess pieces, and other playthings, but the final battle in the previews looks like it takes place on a chessboard. What does a playing-card knave have to do with that?
And does the movie have any of the wordplay the originals were built on? The whole concept of Wonderlands and Looking-Glass World was largely that they were a child’s understanding of various metaphors and figures of speech. When a child hears adults playing cards saying that a Queen beats a Knave, she imagines it literally. When she is served mock turtle soup, she imagines there must be some creature called a mockturtle. Hatters and March hares are proverbially mad. Is there anything like that at all in the movie?
I’d like to hear the answer to this, too. My understanding is that the Red Queen is the Queen of Hearts in this version, but the apparent mishmash of metaphors sounds very wrongheaded.
Do we care about spoilers any more?
Answer to question: The Red Queen is also the Queen of Hearts. Her foot soldiers are the card deck, with the Knave of Hearts as her senior henchman and suggle buddy.
The White Queen has soldiers that are chess pieces. They face off on a chess board, but it’s chess against cards.
As for wordplay, there is the comment at the beginning with Alice explaining why she isn’t wearing a corset and stockings (she’s not properly dressed). She likens wearing a corset to wearing a codfish on her head.
There’s Absolom’s (the smoking caterpiller) comment
when asked if this Alice is the Alice, he responds “Not hardly”. Then later she asks again and he says, “I didn’t say you were not Alice, I said not hardly. Now you are more so Alice.” Or words to that effect.
Tweedledee and Tweedledum have their expected exchanges.
Then there’s
When Alice ends up at the Red Queen’s castle and suddenly grows from tiny to huge, she has to explain who she is and how she got there. But the Red Queen is hunting her as Alice. The White Rabbit pauses trying to think of what to say, “She’s, um…”, and then Alice responds, “I’m Um, from Umbridge.” I’ve since used that line a couple times.
Not exceptionally much wordplay, and I can see how some would be upset at the twist on Jabberwocky. The original point was it was the guise of an epic poem that didn’t actually say anything, but sounds like it says something because the words in the right places sound similar to words that mean something.
Like “Oh frabjuos day”, which sounds like it should be something like “Oh fabulous day.” But this story pulls out a compendium and says every day has a specific and unique name, and that Frabjuos Day is a specific day that is approaching, and that the poem is a prophecy about Alice.
That’s one of the examples of giving concrete meanings to things that were supposed to be meaningless.
Personally I liked the film more than I thought I would. I didn’t love it, but I didn’t really dislike it either.
One of my favourite things (or people) was Anne Hathaway; I liked the “dainty hands”, and how - at least IMO - her demeanour showed her conscious effort at distancing herself from her evil sister. Polar - yet related - opposites: she was the white queen but her lips were dark (if not black), and the Red Queen’s face is pale (or white).
And the first time we see her, the White Queen makes sure no one sees her run towards the dog, as she can’t possibly run with her hands in the air. This, I think, makes her human; she is aware of evil, but makes an effort to distance herself from it. I also think we see more of this towards the end when the Red Queen realises the people around her aren’t what she thought. “You’re right; it’s better to be feared than loved.”
Hurrying in that manner was very “unqueenlike”. It wasn’t dainty, and really royalty should never have to run, right? So her doing so was counter to her image, and image was important to her.
In retrospect, I can certainly understand why purists are unhappy with this movie. It is not Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, and it is not true to Lewis Carroll’s intent for what wonderland was to be about. This is more of a reinvisioning of wonderland to suit someone else’s purpose.
I’ve been disappointed by this same process on other properties, notably I, Robot, so I can’t fault others for the same reaction here. I guess the difference is my lack of connection with the original in this case, so the new one does’t clash for me.
Speaking of reimaginings that don’t get the point, one could make the exact same complaints against the SyFy version of Alice not long ago. In fact, it has some similarity of structure in that is a “return to Wonderland” rather than the original adventure. That version also made it an adventure story where Alice has a purpose and the characters with the names of the originals aren’t really much like the originals. For instance
The March Hare is a psychotic killer working for the Queen of Hearts, who was previously beheaded, then resurrected. Except the resurrection was a rush job, and there was no time to put his head back on proper, so the lab had to make do with a substitute head - a rabbit-shaped cookie jar. Ergo, the mad March Hare is a man with a white hare cookie jar head and kind of jerky movements, trying to track down Alice.
Saw it on Sunday, and wish I hadn’t. Was trying very hard to tell if I would have disliked it as much if I weren’t such a huge fan of the books.
I think I would have. So much seemed just stuck in for no reason. Things like AH’s hands, or why was HBC’s head so big? I understood the prostheses (didn’t notice the knave, tho), but they just impressed me as stupid. And the dance…
Of course it takes all kinds. I was talking to a guy at work who watches and reads about a ton of film. He said he thought HBC was great, and the dance quite funny…
The acting didn’t make me “buy” the characters. Why did JD keep switching from a lisp to a brogue - to something sounding Russian? And why did he have such a important role in that world? I don’t remember what I thought a bandersnatch was supposed to look like, but it sure wasn’t a big toothy cat. Whoda thought the dormouse was some kinda Fievel/Redwall cross? Popping the bandersnatch’s eyeball out sure was a tad jarring - and then I didn’t buy that this horrible beast would switch to Alice just because she gave it back. Come to think of it, with the knave and another scene with the jabberwocky - TB seems to have something about eyes being poked out.
Afterwards my kid said, “You sure are tough on movies.” Actually, I don’t think I am. I enoy my share of escapist nonsense or even just pure crap. But this was expensively and poorly done escapist nonsense that gave the impression it thought it was something more. Glad I paid matinee prices.