DIScussions - Alice in Wonderland

[Luke]

Use this thread to discuss the first in our series of articles on Disney films and topics, Alice in Wonderland.

[Prince Phillip]

Well I have to disagree with the author. I find disney's version of peter pan, far less enjoyable than Alice in Wonderland. It does have a story and a plot. Though it is one of the stories like the Canterbary Tales, I can't think of what they are called, but it is when you have mini stories inside of one bigger story.
I think Alice goes through major growth. The Plot and Alice's character growth as I see it:
Alice starts off as a day dreamer, which I know I can certainly relate too, as I'm sure many of you can. She has a short attention span, and takes many things for granted. She dreams of a place with talking flowers and such where everything is non-sense. Then she goes to this place and realizes that it is not as great as she initially thought. As it turns out she was dreaming, but it sure would have been one heck of a coincidence if she haddn't. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to the words in her song before she goes to wonderland and see how they relate to her adventures in wonderland. I think when she returns she suddenly realizes how wonderful her reality is, and how much she really does learn from her studies. (several times she is made to recite her studies) Even if she goes back to daydreaming of whatever the next day, she is really no different than most of us. And as for her re-acting and not pro-acting, having no control over her situation, often times we feel that way in our own lives. I think people who do not like the non-sense aspect of the movies, fear the non-sense in their own lives. Don't take it so seriously just enjoy it.

[Matty-Mouse]

I have to agree with you Prince Phillip, Peter Pan is easily a less enjoyable movie than Alice.
Out of all 5 animated movies from the 1950's I think that Alice in my second favourite (after Sleeping Beauty).

I think it has some really FUNNY lines and good spot gags, like the tea party scene or the stuff with the Queen of Hearts.
I love the animation, with its bright colours and great effects (the marching cards bit).
Although some of the songs are rather short I happened to really love "In A World Of Mine Own" and "All In The Golden Afternoon" with their great sing-a-longable quality.
Not only is this movie funny and holds your attention really well but there are some quite creep parts, like the cheshire cat and the Tulgy wood sequence.

Now I Cant think of anything to defend this great movie expect the fact that I LOVE "Alice In Wonderland".

[sleepingemporerlilo]

Kathryn Beaumont is British, if you watch the making of Peter Pan, you will see her interviewed today as an older woman and see that she still has an English accent. (Unless of course she is still using a fake one for fun.) That aside, I do agree with your points brought up in your article. It seems that in the 50's characters became secondary. If you watch Sleeping Beauty (my favorite of all time) you will see that it is the 3 fairies, not Aurora who is the main character. You don't even hear the prince talk for most of the movie. Yet, there is still something nostalgic about these films, which is why they are favorites to this day.

[2099net]

Kathryn Beaumont is British, if you watch the making of Peter Pan, you will see her interviewed today as an older woman and see that she still has an English accent.

Yes, but I am British, and believe me, that accent of her's is in no way typical British!

I don't know if Kathryn literally does come from an aristocratic background, or if she has maybe found emphasising the British accent is more desirable and/or profitable in America, but I doubt she ever spoke like that down the shops!

[Maerj]

Walt always had a keen interest in this story, as most everyone knows, one of his earliest film efforts were the "Alice Comedies." I think that the appeal of this story to Walt was the great opportunities for surrealistic imagery to be worked into the story, allowing his animator's imaginations to run wild. So he finally got to do a full length animated version... there are mixed feelings on this film from many people. I enjoyed it for what it was. I like abstract, surrealistic stories, and this certainly was one of those.

What I found about this particular film to be odd, coming from Disney is that almost every character is insane in this movie! The leading lady, conversely, happens to be the most logical, down to earth person on the face of the earth. I guess the feeling was to make her very grounded, to the point where she is almost boring, to offset the wackiness in the rest of the film. What is perhaps the biggest irony in the film is that the whole Wonderland sequence is HER dream! The logical, uptight little girl has a REALLY warped imagination. The trip into Wonderland is a trip into the mind of Alice herself and what a strange trip it is!

[Loomis]

I know this is only designed to get us in a heated discussion so I'm not playing.

Ok, I'll play.

I've always been a fan of the Alice story. Just always thought it was cool. One of the chief complaints that was leveled at 'Alice' was "In both of the book, the bulk of the story is nothing more than a series of events that Alice finds herself wondering in and out of." (Reader, para 3) This, however, is what I find most fascinating about it. The dreamlike quality of the whole production. What has often been called 'trippy' by some is a magnificent animated recreation of the disjointed images one might experience in a dream. In real life, you wouldn't follow a rabbit down a hole. in a dream, it might seem like a perfectly logical thing to do. For me, this quality adds to the sense of 'wonder'.

"Although Alice has an overall quest throughout the film, namely to escape Wonderland, ultimately her quest is poorly resolved – Alice simply runs away from confrontation and 'wakes up'." (Reader, para 5)
See, this is where I have to disagree as well. Following the whole dream-like nature of the film, simply waking up is what happens in most cases when one is dreaming.

Ok, this is one of my faves and I am somewhat biased. Yeah, there are weak links to the film (Alice's voice is a little too twee on occasions), and there are legitimate arguments for it being worse/better than other films. However, to dismiss this as poor because of the narrative structure of the piece (at the same time the narrative structure of the books!) is simply unfair. I think this has rightfully earned a place in the Disney masterpiece collection.

P.S. on a side note, I'd like to say I love the idea of these discussions. It is good to have a critical discussion of the films from time to time rather than just talking about where the inserts have gone and what is coming out next - of course, they are fun too

[Maerj]

Loomis, I see that you 'get it' when it comes to this movie. I find it an odd complaint as well when people say she only walks through the world and things just happen to her. So what, right? Ever see a movie called Naked Lunch? Sometimes the trip or journey IS the story and sometimes things just do happen. I'm with you, I love movies like this.

[Eeyore]

Heh, these are a good idea. I find that I pretty much agree with the original article, Alice just has never done a lot for me as a film. I've never owned any video of it.

Maybe I should write the next one, about Beauty and the Beast. Belle is a golddigger, and knows exactly what Beast is (you'd have to be stupid not to understand what happened in the West Wing), and is just using him to get out of that small provincial town.

[zoboomafoo]

Alice in wonderland may not be the greatest of all disney films. I'd love to put it up near the top of the list, but I have to say there's so much good stuff out there that this gets pushed down a little bit.

First off, there is a context to be considered with this movie. When you look at the other films produced in this era, a number of them were segmented just as Alice is. Ichabod and Mr Toad, Saludas, Melody Time, Fun and Fancy, Fantasia. None of these were a single, contiguous story line. With Disney still working heavily in short animation, the notion of a segmented story like this one seems to appeal to them.

The notion that a character must reinvent one's self is not of much value either. It's been a long time since I've given any Lewis Carroll presentations, but I'm pretty sure LC was very much against something like this. A reinvention of self in a story easily lends itself to the perception that the author and the book are both horribly pedantic. Ironically, a disinterest in forced education is exactly what drives this story to creation. Alice falls asleep, bored from her sister's book. And I would imagine that a book with neither pictures nor conversation can be safely assumed to be educational in nature.

What the book and movie seem to be, rather, is a simple investigation of the child. If there is a reward to be found on the part of the viewer, it is the appreciation for the imagination.

The voices I can't say much about. Alice is British of course, so to consider it false is, well, odd. That said, the acting I think comes with the times. As it goes with so many movies in that time period, you'd rather shoot yourself than believe everyone in the world talks like they do in the movies. Is it well-delivered dialogue? Probably not. But I think its a sign of the times.

Alice had to be made. And it had to be made early in the life of disney. This is a classic story and if disney had never made this movie, there would be more people asking when disney is going to make it than there are people asking when Star Wars will come out on DVD.

It is the perfect disney movie. Perhaps the movie was not well executed back then and perhaps the story would not succeed in today's message-driven audience, either.

I love the story and I love the movie. I prefer this movie just as i prefer Sword in the Stone not because of any particular message I receive from it, but just because I admire the use of imagination.

[Disneykid]

Betcha guys were wondering when I'd show up, huh?

Here goes. ::deep breath::

I, of course, totally and completely disagree with that review. I will agree, however, that the story DOES feel like a series of shorts starring Alice that have been strung together, but that's the POINT. Alice in Wonderland is meant to diverge from the traditional narrative of going forward with the plot, and I have no problems with that whatsoever. I mean, do you see people criticizing Memento because the movie works backwards? No, so why should Alice be criticized?

The reviewer states that Alice has a disappointing ending and conflict compared to other Disney films. Oh really? Has he read the book? The book is even SLIMMER in those areas. In the book, Alice has one goal-to get into the garden at the other end of the door. She doesn't give a crap about going home. Then once she gets to the garden, she has no purpose whatsoever except to linger around because her goal's fulfilled. As for the ending, in the book the playing cards flew at her and.....she woke up. Disney beefed up the climax DRAMATICALLY and yet the reviewer's STILL not satisfied, despite there being (in my opinio) a very exciting and surreal chase scene where every character returns for a final bow. The only criticism I have for the film in its ending is how SOON it ends after Alice wakes up. She barely spends 30 seconds in the real world after she wakes up before the credits roll. But besides that, the ending's superb.

As for Alice being a bland character, that almost seems like an oxymoron when discussing Walt-era heroines. Compared to syrupy sweet 1-dimensional characters such as Cinderella and Aurora (though I admit I love both, so don't bash me!), Alice seems rather realistic. She's rather selfish, which makes her seem more like a prissy British girl and not the perfect cookie cutter cutout her Disney sisters came out to be. Would any of you respond differently than Alice had you been in her situtation? No. You would remain rather subdued and keep to yourself as well, possibly even moreso if you were more like Alice.

Now, about Kathryn Beaumont's vocal performance, I think it was absolutely perfect. No other British girl could've pulled it off as nicely as she did. As Walt wanted, her voice isn't too British for the Americans nor too American for the British. True, her singing ablity isn't all that great, but apparantly she fixed that before doing Peter Pan where she sang "Your Mother and Mine" with goosebump-inducing beauty. And about that comment that Alice sounds almost like a cliche of a British person, perhaps the reviewer should listen more carefully to the laid back slang of such modern American characters like Terk and Baloo which (according to that reviewer's theory) might make the British think ALL Americans spoke like that.

So, to make a long story short (too late...), I disagree with that review.

[2099net]

Have I read the book (or should that be books? As I believe the film is actually based on both Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through The Looking Glass). No, I haven't.

But has Disneykid read Kipling's Jungle Book? Why do I ask? Because Disney's filmed version of The Jungle Book is only loosely based on the actual literary story. Has DisneyKid read The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Because the Disney film alters the ending dramatically. Everything from Snow White to The Little Mermaid has shown that Disney has no issues with altering the stories from which they take their inspiration from. I'm sure that Disney would have no problem deviating from the story text if he felt it would make a better film. If you feel strongly that the filmed version of Alice in Wonderland should stick to the book, then perhaps the book was not a wise choice to make into a film in the first place?

Comparing the almost non-narrative to Alice to Memento is not really a fair comparison. Despite it's first appearance, Memento does have a structured story with a strong beginning, middle and ending.

Have I made a mistake and Alice does in fact have a stronger and more coherent storyline that I first detected? Perhaps, and I'm willing to admit I could be wrong (Prince Philip posted a thoughtful post on Alice's character growth). But the point is… unlike Memento, Donnie Darko or Mulholland Drive, the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland has never inspired me to rewatch and dig deeper. I'll certainly be picking up the (rumoured) Special Edition at the start of next year and pehaps this will inspire me to dig deeper – who knows? It could totally change my mind about the film!

As for taking the film in its historical context – I have no problem with that. Yes other films like Fun and Fancy Free and Adventures of Ichabod & Mr. Toad were 'partworks' and therefore even more fragmented than Alice. Of course they were. Films like Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros literally are a series of shorts with no narrative. Of course they are. But I enjoy The Three Caballeros enormously – because unlike Alice In Wonderland it doesn't pretend to be anything different.

I'm actually quite surprised how popular Alice in Wonderland actually is – before writing my piece I read Luke's Ultimate Disney review, plus other reviews from various DVD sites and couldn't find one negative review about the actual film. Something I cannot really understand when the same reviewers seem to be keen to rip into later Disney films like Atlantis and Emperor's New Groove. I wonder if the film would have such a loyal following had it been released in the 21st century?

[Matty-Mouse]

Good points 2099, I'd like to say that if Alice had been released in the 21st century it would be as popular but the fact is I don't think it would.
Because it comes from the 1950's (the studio's second golden age) people might look at it more fondly. Also we've all grown up with this film version of Alice and because of that we look at it with rose tinted glasses.

At the end of the day though I really do enjoy Alice, and think it certainly is one of the stronger films from WDFA.

As a side note, could you imagine the reaction if Disney had kept the original ending to Hunchback? "Oh the bells, the bells!"

[Disneykid]

Have I read the book (or should that be books? As I believe the film is actually based on both Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through The Looking Glass). No, I haven't.

But has Disneykid read Kipling's Jungle Book? Why do I ask? Because Disney's filmed version of The Jungle Book is only loosely based on the actual literary story. Has DisneyKid read The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Because the Disney film alters the ending dramatically. Everything from Snow White to The Little Mermaid has shown that Disney has no issues with altering the stories from which they take their inspiration from. I'm sure that Disney would have no problem deviating from the story text if he felt it would make a better film. If you feel strongly that the filmed version of Alice in Wonderland should stick to the book, then perhaps the book was not a wise choice to make into a film in the first place?

Actually, that wasn't exactly my point. My point was that you seemed to be disappointed in how "slim" certain aspects of the film were when Disney actually beefed up those aspects in comparison to the books. I personally have no problem with deviating from the text unlike the many people who bashed Alice in 1951 for not being a literal adaptation i.e. Harry Potter.

I know your questions were rhetorical, but yes, I've read both Jungle Book and Hunchback and I realize how dramatically Disney changed the stories, though I admit I like the Disney counterparts more than the original texts as blasphemous as that sounds.

I do seriously hope delving into Alice's (hopefully) informative bonus features on the January SE disc helps you appreciate it more, for it really is a genuine work of art.

[Maerj]

I know this is an old topic, but there was some discussion about the actress, Kathryn Beaumont, who did Alice's voice. This site has some pretty decent information on her:

http://www.donbrockway.com/kb.htm

Check it out!

[herman_the_german]

My own view is that Disney's Alice is a flawed interpretation of Lewis Carroll book. On its own it's a fine nonsense movie (with some weird Disney morals attached to it).

What is the point of The Warlus and the Carpenter if neither Alice nor the Tweedle Twins are allowed to comment on it? What is the point of starting Father William, if the poem doesn't get finished and later analysed and explained to Alice? Whereas in the book, each scene has an individual purpose, whether to tell private jokes (in Dodgson's circle of friends) and outrageous puns or to criticize victorian children's poetry, Disney's version misses the point every time.

In spite of this, Disney's cartoon version remains light and breezy, while other adaptations become plodding and cumbersome. But yet other adaptations have succeded where Disney's version fails.

Wonderland, the first book, is pretty much unfilmable, since it has absolutely no structure and no dramatic sense. The second book Thru The Looking Glass would seem to have a better structure for adaptation into film, and yet both Lou Bunin and Jan Svankmajer succeded.

Lou Bunin creates the interesting integration of the historical and the fictional. It is generally accepted that the characters in the book had counterparts in Alice Liddell's real life, and Bunin establishes this as part of his film, nicely dovetailing history & fiction. While the Wonderland scenes remain nonsensical, the realistic scenes create a good dramatic background for them.

Jan Svankmajer's Alice film succeeds in creating a filmic visual feast that is comparative to Carrolls literary one. The film replaces some things (the rabbit is still there, but is now an animated taxidermist's stuffed rabbit), and keeps others including the basic structure of the story. The story remains non-linear, nonsensical and absurd, which is exactly the effect the book has on the reader. Carroll's literary puns and logic are replaced with visual puns and logic. Not for everyone, but recommended.

[Wonderlicious]

But has Disneykid read Kipling's Jungle Book? Why do I ask? Because Disney's filmed version of The Jungle Book is only loosely based on the actual literary story. Has DisneyKid read The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Because the Disney film alters the ending dramatically. Everything from Snow White to The Little Mermaid has shown that Disney has no issues with altering the stories from which they take their inspiration from. I'm sure that Disney would have no problem deviating from the story text if he felt it would make a better film.

Actually, I feel that you've not got the point totally there, chummy! Lewis Carroll's Alice stories were (and still are) very popular books. And when I say very popular, I mean extremely popular; Alice in Wonderland is the best selling book ever save The Bible. In order for the film to get accepted, it would have been best to stick to the original text a bit closely. Anyway, there's not that much of a problem with the plot, IMO. Being episodic and surreal actually means that there are no plot holes. I can see why Disney removed the Christian subtext of The Little Mermaid or stopped The Jungle Book from turning into Bambi 2, and I can accept this. But to find fault in a perfect plot is not fair.

[2099net]

Actually, I feel that you've not got the point totally there, chummy! Lewis Carroll's Alice stories were (and still are) very popular books. And when I say very popular, I mean extremely popular; Alice in Wonderland is the best selling book ever save The Bible. In order for the film to get accepted, it would have been best to stick to the original text a bit closely. Anyway, there's not that much of a problem with the plot, IMO. Being episodic and surreal actually means that there are no plot holes.

Surely having her wake up from it all being a dream is the biggest Plot Hole of the lot?

Actually, I'm not fond of the term Plot Hole in general. Its thrown around far to often and is often used to excuse people's inattention.

[ichabod]

I love Alice in Wonderland, because i think it has fantastic characters it is very funny, it is well designed, beautiful to look at! However i don't think it has a very good plot at all!

[Evil Genie Jafar]

I think that Alice is one of the luckiest ones that stand the pass of time. One thing that make this work is the almost lack of songs. Yeah you can tell me songs are timeless, but honestly you can tell the differemce between Snow White songs and The Lion King's.

Another fact is the lack of plot. The movie is just fun, fun, fun. Like Gremlins for example. You really don't care about what's happening because you're having fun.

And one more thing that helps it's the fact that characters and backgrounds are so weird and interesting that you want to see what could possible come next.