Hola all. Massawyrm here.
The key to understanding ALICE’S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND in any of its forms is to know that Charles Dodgson, the man the world knows better as Lewis Carroll, was a mathematician by trade. He wasn’t a writer. That was a side gig that ended up making him very rich. His passion in life was mathematics but his obsession was with logic puzzles. He loved them. Most importantly he loved playing with how easily broken logic puzzles could become. Logic is built upon math and is thus an inflexible system capable of turning out wrong answers if given faulty information. Give me a piece of paper and a pencil and I can prove beyond a shadow of logical doubt that God exists. Give me another piece of paper and I will work that proof another way and prove that he can’t (many of you might know of this proof as the long running internet joke The Flying Spaghetti Monster.) The point is, if you understand the math of it you can prove or disprove anything. And Charles Dodgson loved that. He so loved it that he created a series of nonsensical logic puzzles that they still teach today in college level logic courses.
ALICE’S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND and THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS, AND WHAT ALICE SAW THERE - more commonly known blended together as ALICE IN WONDERLAND - are exercises in being wholly illogical whilst maintaining a rigid adherence to logic. It is a commentary on society, its norms and the people who slavishly and rigidly conform to it. More importantly, it is a diversion for children, playing with the types of word games, riddles and logical inconsistencies that would amuse the children he was writing it for. As it turns out, his wonderfully realized fantastical world coupled with his incredible wordplay and logical gymnastics would prove to create legions of adult fans as well.
And therein lays the first of two major problems with Tim Burton’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND. This film is that it is neither an adaptation of ALICE’S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND nor its sequel THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS. It is part 3. The sequel to those first two books as if they had occurred as a single experience. And to many, that is as offensive as making a sequel to HAMLET, THE LORD OF THE RINGS or CATCHER IN THE RYE. In fact, if this film shares a pedigree with any other film, it is Steven Spielberg’s misfire HOOK, the sequel to the classic PETER PAN. And while it doesn’t share the sentimental goofiness of HOOK, it does share an awful lot of similar elements – chiefly a hero who doesn’t remember their previous adventures being cast back into a world they have to re-learn in order to fulfill their destiny.
The second problem is that this film was not written by anyone with Carroll’s mindset. Absent is all of the twisted logic, all of the mind-bending puzzles, all of the erratic, disjointed behavior of the inhabitants of Wonderland (here referred to as Underland). In its place is a strict obedience to the behavior laid out in Carroll’s works, eschewing the madness and strange logic and instead simply obeying rules that Burton dare not break, lest he lose the audience that he has asked so much of to begin with. This actually creates a world that FEELS less like Wonderland and more like the Land of Oz. This could just have easily been Dorothy returning to Oz as a young woman and having to do battle against a witch and her beasts rather than Alice returning to Wonderland to bring down an evil queen. I can’t help but think that Tim Burton desperately wanted to make an Oz film, but could only get the rights to ALICE.
To be honest, I think I would have much rather seen American McGee’s ALICE, if only because I like the idea of Wonderland being a reflection of Alice’s psyche and seeing what was already a somewhat disturbing and frightening landscape being transformed into something truly gruesome and fractured. But that’s not what this is. This is the Chronicles of Narnia in the Land of Oz peppered with the window dressing of Wonderland.
So why did I like it? Because despite its intellectual failings, it was still a gloriously surreal trek through a beloved childhood paradise. As a film it is beautifully realized, excellently paced and very well told. Alice is endearing, albeit a tad stereotypical in the way that she comes across as Elizabeth Bennet’s gaunt, withdrawn younger sister – but she’s still very likable, and Mia Wasikowska does a great job carrying on as if she isn’t at almost all times surrounded by CG. She seems completely immersed and thusly so do we.
As a fantasy story it is pretty by the numbers, but hits all the right notes. Burton’s clear love of the canon allows us to spend a little more time with a number of classic characters, that he clearly wants to be more likable than antagonistic – the latter being how many of them come across in the original work. This all comes together in a very enjoyable, very palatable Alice story that has the right mix of humor and adventure to keep you enjoying it throughout. Only one moment falls truly flat – a dance sequence that had some griping for quite some time after the film and proved for many to be either the tipping point or something they simply chose to pretend didn’t exist when gauging their experience as a whole.
So I find myself torn; understanding both sides of what will easily be a very divisive film. Intellectually it is a failure, completely failing to grasp hold of the material it is borrowing substantially from. Going into this with Carroll in your head can only lead to disappointment – and that is not necessarily the fault of those viewers. But as an experience, this is a lot of fun and it is hard to deny the base, fundamental attraction to the material. It is a visual theme park ride, taking you through a new tour of a fantasy land you’ve grown up with in your own imagination. And on that level I really liked it. So it comes down to the classic hamburger/junk-food cinema argument. I know it is not a steak - despite the use of the word sirloin on the menu - but I found it delicious and filling anyway. It’s not flawed enough to be called a guilty pleasure – it really is a well made – but it is also not gourmet.
The kids are gonna love it. Families will love it. And it will make truckloads of money. But the critics who will argue that it isn’t Alice aren’t wrong. It’s not. But it is close enough to find likable. I could have done without that Dance though.
Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em.
Massawyrm
Got something for the Wyrm? Mail it here.
