by Marc Bauer
Sometimes, when watching a movie, it inspires you with questions. In the best scenarios, these questions are a good thing, you are thinking about the plot, the characters, and where this is going next. In Tim Burton’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’, these questions are there, but they are of a different nature. ‘Why did I pay nearly $15 for this?’ is one. ‘The original material was so good, why would they change it?’ is another. Tim Burton has taken a great story, one of the most recognized fantasies, and turned it into something completely different. Imagine, if you will, a 5-year old being given free reign in a kitchen; I’d venture the jellybean sandwich they created to be the culinary equivalent of this movie.
The movie is capped with two scenes in the real world, filmed in flat pastels. These scenes rely very lightly on tinkering and special effects other than some color balancing to wash away anything that resembling human flesh and expanding a few extras into a field full of followers. Imagine if you will a “Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jette” inhabited by the undead and you will be able to mentally approximate the ‘warmth’ of this scene. What comes between those capping scenes is brash, colorful, and completely saccharine. These scenes are the ‘white bread’ in the aforementioned sandwich, and the entire time in Underland (more on this in a bit) are the jellybeans betwixt.
Without spoiling too much for those would-be viewers, let me address a few changes in the film that ‘let the air out,’ so to speak. First, the original was a fine story, the change made, where Alice had visited before and was returning 13 years later was unnecessary. It was a device that allowed less exposition to introduce the characters to Alice, as it is assumable that she has met them before. The world she visits is called Underland, something the 6 year old version of Alice misheard as Wonderland. Also gone is the lazy meandering through a world of whimsy. The new version is a good vs. bad morality tale with an ultimate goal. Sure, some of the memorable bits are still there, but some of the greatest scenes were done away with… you get the eat me/drink me bit, but gone is the sea of Alice’s tears; gone are the Duchess and the pig baby, the mock turtle and the gryphon. Most noticeably gone, is the connection to the characters.
Tim Burton’s vision is one of bright colors and sharp angles; where the unimaginable becomes real and the real being something shoved under the carpet. To achieve this look, a heavy reliance on CG was used, but not very well. Nearly everything seen on screen in Underland is tweaked, twisted, stretched, squished and shaped, and not with the best results. The Knave of Hearts is a lanky, awkward and altogether unpleasant looking character. His arms sit strange in the shoulders; his movements are stark, almost as if watching Jack Skellington from Nightmare Before Christmas with flesh. The character handles like something out of a videogame circa 1999. Pasted onto this gangly monstrosity is the face of Crispin Glover. Or rather, 2/3 the face of Crispin Glover, as a large scar an eye patch and long hair block most of the face. Crispin Glover , someone who is known for quirky portrayals is used to ill-effect. His performance is blocky due to poor CG integration, and poor costuming hides his identity. The role could have been filled by anyone with the ability to read emotionless lines into a camera.
The bad performances don’t end there… everyone in the film is wooden, but by no fault of their own. The actor’s greatest tool is their body, and no one gets to use their body in this film. Alan Rickman’s voice comes out of an animated caterpillar, Stephen Fry from a disembodied cat or sometimes from thin air. The worst offender is Helena Bonham Carter; nepotism got her the role, and she did nothing to prove she deserved it. Her face is pasted onto the body of the Red Queen in what looks like an afterthought of design. She, too, does nothing more than read lines to a camera knowing full well that her face will be manipulated later into what Burton wants.
Anne Hathaway, as the White Queen, shows up roughly around the time you are looking at your watch to see if this movie is over yet, and spends a few short moments on screen through the climax. She is one of the few people that isn’t manipulated, tweaked or reshaped by a computer. This is an issue too, because as such a ‘real’ person amongst these homunculi, she stands out in her realism. Clad totally in white from hair to toe, without little CG, she is symbolical of purity. The side of good, the personification of the color, or lack of it, that is white.
In previous films, Johnny Depp has channeled a musician to help him portray a character. In the Pirates of the Caribbean series he was a sketch of Keith Richards. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, he was Marilyn Manson. In this film, his Mad Hatter is a strange version of Jack White if he was fathered by Carrot Top. It is nothing great, yet is nothing terrible either. It merely is. He is loony, disconnected and distant; exactly the traits we want to see in the Hatter. Depp delivers a scenery chewing performance that is the only believably one in the film.
The mostly unknown Mia Wasikowska as Alice was. For a relative unknown to carry a film of this magnitude, she did a decent job. Acting at a blue screen for what must have been 90% of her daily calls on this film must have been hard for her, but it works for her. She portrays the ‘this is all a dream’ mentality well into the third act, where by necessity of plot, she has to start believing it is all real to further her quest. Something I take issue with, again.
The list of strong female protagonists in Fantasy is short, at best. One of the things that keeps the list as short as it is, is the lack of any real adventures for the women, and this film continues that trend. The female character in Fantasy is usually a girl that experiences a dream. The film introduces characters, and then shows you a fantastic version of that character in the dream world. The Mad Hatter is paralleled in the real world by an orange haired, gap toothed man with a large cravat. A set of twins in stripes in the real world are replaced by the Tweedles in Underland. When male characters engage in fantasy, they go on a journey, they fight an adversary, and they actually DO something. When a female character engages in a fantasy, it is often given the Oz treatment, that it was all a dream; usually with an artifact of the fantasy spilling over into the real world to challenge our conceptions. I understand that, in itself, IS fantasy, but the image of the hysterical woman talking nonsense is far too common in film. Tim Burton gave us Lidia in Beetlejuice. He showed us female fantasy needn’t be just a dream. I hope oneday he can do it again.
If you must, take the kids, not LSD, to see this movie.
Yikes!…I’am still going to see it!
DeeDee 😦
This is what I expected, as the reviews have been weak except for Depp’s performance, which you are impressed with. And Anne Hathaway is another reason that one might be tempted. This is a beautifully composed review by a writer I don’t think I recognize. Burton is a hit or miss director, and after the accomplished ‘Sweeney Todd’ it almost seemed inevitable he would go in the other direction.
……The bad performances don’t end there… everyone in the film is wooden, but by no fault of their own. The actor’s greatest tool is their body, and no one gets to use their body in this film. Alan Rickman’s voice comes out of an animated caterpillar, Stephen Fry from a disembodied cat or sometimes from thin air. The worst offender is Helena Bonham Carter; nepotism got her the role, and she did nothing to prove she deserved it….
That’s really too bad, as the nepotism you speak of didn’t diminish her work in the musical Sweeney Todd. But colors, shapes and pretty visuals are only part of what this famous literary property is all about. Very nicely written analysis.
I guess we’ll have to pull out our old Disney animated DVDs. Even on rottentomatoes the film got the splatter grade.
Further thoughts I’ve had since completing this review…
Tim Burton attempted to do here what Spielberg did in 1991 with Hook; he tried to expand a story that is well loved by millions. However, unlike Hook, which was a true to tale follow-up, Alice in Wonderland is a sequel told with-in the original framework. In Hook, we return to Neverland, and everything that Peter saw as a youth is different. As he says to Hook at one point “I remember you being taller.” The glimmer of recognition in Hook, when it came, opened the floodgates for a character to return. In Alice, when she begins to remember, we the audience can’t seem to care, and the credits role shortly thereafter.
This is an excellently posed and fine differentiation here Marc!
It does seem from reading this Marc (and Lucille and I and the gang will be going to Edgewater after dinner tonight to see it) that despite Burton’s penchant for ravishing visuals, the film fails to connect emotionally. I’m reminded here of Wendy darling from “Peter Pan” more than any other character, and that’s not really the right interpretation, though I’ll refrain from saying much more until I actually see the film.
What I do know is that you’ve hit a home run here with the writing.
Nice review from an old friend that I never get to see… I had no hope for this film and the rash of film that will now almost be totally dominated by CGI world and transformed actors due to the success of AVATAR is dreaded. That a director as old school as Burton (remember his claymation sand worms in BEETLEJUICE? The puppet animation in NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS?) its sad to see them slide toward computer rendered film-making and be seduced by the dark side of the force. I agree that Burton is a hit/miss film-maker. But when he hits is spectacular (NIGHTMARE, SLEEPY HOLLOW, SWEENY TODD). But when he misses, its DEVASTATINGLY EMBARASSING (CORPSE BRIDE, PLANET OF THE APES, BATMAN). Unfortunately, the love he has for painting and illustration that brought him some success is now going to drag him down. Can’t these guys just refrain from playing with the computers?
Let me be clear though. I have no problem with CGI when its used as a tool to further the story or enhance a film (ex. The very real dinosaurs in JURASSIC PARK, the tri-pods in WAR OF THE WORLDS, the Ents in THE LORD OF THE RINGS). I also have no problem with film-makers that know what they’re doing if they create whole films with the process (PIXAR). But, something like ALICE just seems to me to be a film-maker just grabbing ahold of the process and carelessly playing with it the way a young child brandishes the found gun in the back of dad’s closet. These incidents are more about jumping on the band-wagon than making a good film. I have no doubt we’ll see more of this (GULP!). I’m going to watch FINDING NEMO now……
Bingo, Dennis you summed up my antipathy towards CGI PERFECTLY. Great when its the pronounced texture of an animated movie, great when its one element among many (Jurassic Park), not so great when it’s used to “improve” live-action with a massive overhaul that’s still supposed to convince us of its texture.
And… What would posess Burton to go after this material anyway?????? I cod understand him wanting to give his spin on Wonka with CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (a wonderful film). But, ALICE? This is tried and true material that has been exceptionally difficult to adapt. Its a book that leaves very clear images in the readers mind. Unless your going to painstakingly adapt the book (like Jackson did with LOTR) or subtly tweak it (Disney’s ALICE, although not a masterpiece, still a damn good film), then why even dare to do battle with an overpowering man-eater. Burton succeeds only when his material is original (EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, ED WOOD, PEE-WEE all come to mind). Its when he tries to stir the pot on also-rans that he falls on his face (APES, BATMAN-CHARLIE is the RARE EXCEPTION). Give me a SWEENY TODD or BEETLEJUICE any day.
Recently, Steven Spielberh was asked if he would be interested in revisting JAWS and replacing the shark with a more realistiv looking one rendered in CGI. His answer: NO. He felt that while the shark was important its the quick glimpses of it, the UNBELIEVABILITY of it that made it more terrifying. Just because we can do anything with CGI doesn’t mean we SHOULD do everything with CGI.
Hi! Dennis,
Dennis said,”I agree that Burton is a hit/miss film-maker. But when he hits is spectacular (NIGHTMARE, SLEEPY HOLLOW, SWEENEY TODD). But when he misses, its DEVASTATINGLY EMBARASSING (CORPSE BRIDE, PLANET OF THE APES, BATMAN). Unfortunately, the love he has for painting and illustration that brought him some success is now going to drag him down.
But, how do you, know this? Burton’s next film may be a hit (with or without the use of CGI…)then his next film may be a hit…then his next film may be a miss…and then…
Dennis, once again, I respectfully, disagree with you, in my humble opinion all great directors with
work that is consistant have to experiences hit or misses…yi, yi, yi… did director Alfred Hitchcock, have his share of hit or misses.
To me it’s a sign that work is coming their way in order for them to experiment…with new ideas (Can anybody name one director that is consistently, “churning” out “hit” movies?)
…By the way, I’am taking a closer look at director Tim Burton’s and actor John-ny Depp’s work together (and separately…) for the first time and believe me I don’t consider Burton’s Corpse Bride and Batman, failures. Well, this is just my opinion, but of course!
Dennis said,”Can’t these guys just refrain from playing with the computers?”
Dennis, Wot!!!!…I’am an artist, and believe me when I tell you this CGI…is the…future Mr. Gitts! the future.
CGI Rules!!!!…(I must admit when used appropriately, CGI rules…)
DeeDee 😉
Wow!!!!…Take a look at this video it’s over 100 years old and getting more than a couple of hit over there on youtube.
Dee Dee, this has been on my radar for a few weeks, ever since Allan pointed me towards the “Silent Britain” documentary. I’ve been dying to watch it and will do so soon. Thanks for bringing it up.
Just from the clips I’ve seen, the film proves a marked contrast to Burton’s vision. Whereas the latter-day film twists and bends live action until it resembles a flat cartoon, this Alice is forced to make do with the “real world” lending its fantasy a slightly surreal quality. I liked what I saw, seemed almost like a “home movie” version of a classic.
Tremendous addition from Dee Dee! This is from the very beginning for film. Amazing.
Marc, astute takedown of the film – unfortunately, this confirms many of my trepidations upon seeing the previews. The comparison between Alice and Hook in the comments is, as Sam points out, a very telling one.
(Btw, you’ve got a dangling sentence in your 8th paragraph; otherwise, very absorbing read.)
Well I saw it last night, and surprisingly I liked it a bit more than Marc, though I wouldn’t go higher that 3 of 5. It was rather a convoluted mess, and a few characters were cheesy, (and yeah for the most part there was little emotional connection) but in a general sense there was a lovely visual design and another exquisite Danny Elfman score with some solid voice work. All in all a passable effort.
Dee Dee, you are again quite the sport for putting up that you tube clip!!!!
I’m afraid I must voice complete agreement with Mr. Bauer’s insights come to:
….Tim Burton’s vision is one of bright colors and sharp angles; where the unimaginable becomes real and the real being something shoved under the carpet. To achieve this look, a heavy reliance on CG was used, but not very well. Nearly everything seen on screen in Underland is tweaked, twisted, stretched, squished and shaped, and not with the best results…
Sadly this contrasts with the claristy of Lewis’ vision.
Interesting argument Frederick, though you are a bit harsher than I would be.
Hi! Dennis and Wonders in the Dark readers,
Look who will probably get the last laugh…Just follow the link…
Look Who Get The Last Laugh…
Terrific stuff here Dee Dee!!!
And yes, isn’t that 41 million dollar Friday unbelievable????
They are are projecting the BIGGEST gross for any film for the first quarter of all-time!!!!! And for this weekend well over 100 million!!! Who woulda thunk it? Burton and Depp are laughing their way to the bank!!!
Sam Juliano,
Burton’s film seems to be receiving mixed reviews…check out this comment left over there on the website that I just linked by commenter…“good news. Would that the public began to take to heart the message of Alice in Wonderland and question the radical nonsense perpetrated on them by those in authority like criminal banksters and fake government leaders.
Black is white and the red queen is ruling right now.
Comment by buddhabob — Saturday March 6, 2010″
I wonder if this is true…Do director Tim Burton’s film goes beyond
the fairy tale and cross the line into the political arena?
Since I have never read or watched any version of Alice in Wonderland I’m not sure if this has been the message that the author had in mind when the story was first written. 😕 (As I shrug my shoulders…)
DeeDee 😉
Dee Dee, as I stated earlier I did like this film marginally. I respect Marc’s stupendous review here and we are lucky to have someone like him aboard, but in this instance I still thought this was worth at least a visit. The “mixed” reviews you bring up here are indeed precisely what the film received, and I could certainly understand them. There are aspects of the voice work, some ravishing set pieces and a fine Danny Elfman score that do lift it, even if it’s rather a mess in a narrative sense, and it has difficulty in connecting emotionally apart from the more poignant passages in the score.
As to the question you pose about deliberate political inference, I can’t say for sure that this was the intent, though I will investigate this, though that wasn’t of course the gist of Lewis’s children’s classic.
DEE-DEE. Fact: since the huge success of AVATAR, movie production companies are asking for more like it. Its one thing for CGI to add to the texture of a film or, in the case of PIXAR’s work, create animated films with the use of computers, but.. Where this will lead us is a total domination by computer generated images that leave no room for constructed sets, costume design, location scouting and, worst, real live actors/people in front of the lens. With all the film created and preserved since film started cranking big in 1900, it is possible that, sooner or later, recorded data will be molded to create a performance by an actor that doesn’t exist. For instance: it would be possible to take selected scenes from every Cary Grant film, manipulate his movement, change his attire and thread together spoken words from recordings of his voice and create a NEW performance by the very dead actor. How bout a romantic comedy starring Spencer Tracy and, uh, Britney Spears? No. Computers are a TOOL, no more than that. PERIOD
WHATTT?!?!?! I LOVED IT! & I GIVE IT A 10 OUT OF A I-10(;
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan and WitD readers,
Here goes the…
Second Straight Weekend Earning for Burton’s Alice in Wonderland…
Cont…
DeeDee 😉 🙂
This is simply remarkable Dee Dee, but there you have it: the numbers don’t lie.
Thanks for following up here.
Dennis said,”DEE-DEE. Fact: since the huge success of AVATAR, movie production companies are asking for more like it. Its one thing for CGI to add to the texture of a film or, in the case of PIXAR’s work, create animated films with the use of computers, but.. Where this will lead us is a total domination by computer generated images that leave no room for constructed sets, costume design, location scouting and, worst, real live actors/people in front of the lens. With all the film created and preserved since film started cranking big in 1900, it is possible that, sooner or later, recorded data will be molded to create a performance by an actor that doesn’t exist. For instance: it would be possible to take selected scenes from every Cary Grant film, manipulate his movement, change his attire and thread together spoken words from recordings of his voice and create a NEW performance by the very dead actor.”
Hi! Dennis,
Here goes a response from a fellow blogger and I agree with his comment wholeheartedly,
A fellow blogger said,”There were several articles released after the Oscars, that said it was no surprise that The Hurt Locker (2009) beat the megabucks blockbuster Avatar (2009) for Best Picture.
Now, I haven’t seen either film, nor do I intend to. (Not my thing.) But from what I gather, Avatar was created mostly by computer, and humans (supposedly) take a secondary role to the special effects. Since most Academy voters are actors (and actresses), they naturally will not vote for a film that systematically tries to prove actors are less important than science fiction and special effects.
(Dennis Fact: (He didn’t say Dennis, Fact…I’am the one that added Dennis name…)
In 1978, the big favorite to win Best Picture was Star Wars (1977), the biggest blockbuster of the year. But at the Oscars, it was beaten for Best Picture — by Woody Allen’s Annie Hall.
In 1983, everyone expected the year’s top grosser E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982) to win, but the Oscar instead went to a people picture, Gandhi.
And, I suspect, it will always be that way. Sci-fi pics may bring in the big money at the box office, but at the Academy Awards, with people doing the voting, a people pic will win every time. “
Dennis, personally, I don’t think that CGI will ever replace human beings…Well, maybe not anytime in the “near” future!
I think that you are just in a…“panic state!!!!” ha!ha! (Just kidding!) 😉 🙂
DeeDee
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, Dennis and WitD readers,…
Dennis said,”Just got on the Ferry, heading into Jersey now. Stopped by MOMA and walked through the TIM BURTON exhibition. While not the biggest gallery exhibition I have seen there, it was loaded with interesting drawings, paintings and sculptures from Burton’s youth all the way up to conceptual diagrams and drawings he’s done for Disney and his subsequent films.”
…Here goes a link to the MoMa Exhibition that Dennis, mentioned in his previous comment…
…and Mr.Burton, talking about his exhibition…which I think ends in April?!? 😕
Dennis said,”I should be at your house no later than 6pm. I’ll call you if I need a ride.”
By the way, Dennis, did you get a ride…Hmmm…Just kidding
🙂
DeeDee 😉
Aye Dee dee, Dennis’s visit is definitely worth highlighting here, and the link is a super idea!
Hi! Dennis,
Dennis said,”Burton succeeds only when his material is original (EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, ED WOOD, PEE-WEE all come to mind). Its when he tries to stir the pot on also-rans that he falls on his face (APES, BATMAN-CHARLIE is the RARE EXCEPTION). Give me a SWEENEY TODD or BEETLEJUICE any day.
Dennis, after watching the clip (that I posted above) it seems that director Tim Burton, is more in agreement with you than not in agreement with you, when it comes to the use of CGI and modern day Technology.
DeeDee 😉
The film was marginally not horrible. Tim Burton has turned into the ‘Michael Bay’ of quirky movies, it’s formulaic and forced weirdness. He used to make some really inspiring and amazing films but Burton’s been really uninspired lately. Chocolate Factory sucked, Sweeney was ok, Big Fish was decent, Apes was horrible….he’s failed to ignite the magic that made so many people fall in love with his work. I know some people will disagree but typically they’re female and also swoon over most things Johnny Depp does. And Johnny Depp hasn’t had a really good role in like 5-6 years. It used to be interesting but recently he’s pretty much done only quirky roles which has grown boring and uninspired.
Storyline wise the movie is a big FU to the spirit and creativity of the original Alice. There’s a freaking ‘breakdancing’ scene….there’s no excuse for that or the crap quest storyline. It’s like they read a cliffs notes version of Alice and then went and made a sequel completely ignoring what has made the original such a masterpiece.
Depp should stop trying to be weird, and work on actually acting again. Burton should maybe buy some new set pieces instead of recycling the same ones in some dull sound stage setting and work on new ideas instead of ruining perfectly good ones.
I think the movie was great and I’m 19(not a kid). the special effects were great and these people worked hard on this movie.. GIVE THEM SOME CREDIT FOR DOING THEIR BEST!!