Ever since Disney announced they would be releasing a Tim Burton-directed version of "Alice in Wonderland" with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, my 9-year-old daughter begged to go. On opening night. With a stop at Hot Topic to buy movie gear beforehand. I was able to squash a midnight showing, explaining that "midnight on Friday" actually meant really early and not only did she have to go to school on Friday, I had to work. Me, I was less enthusiastic about this movie, although I do like Johnny Depp. But since her younger brother would be at a Cub Scout sleepover, I promised we could go. And go we did. She wanted to see it in 3D, but the 7:00 show was already sold out when we arrived, so we settled for 2D (since neither she nor I really wanted to wait for the next 3D show at 10:00 pm).
Now, if you've been living down a rabbit hole and not heard of this movie, here's the gist: it's not a remake of the Disney animated version. The movie opens up with a 6-year old Alice telling her father about a nightmare she had about falling down a hole and meeting all sorts of weird creatures, some of whom weren't very nice. Flash forward 13 years. Alice, now 19, is on her way to a garden party hosted by a young lord (who looks as icky and priggish as he is) with her mother. Her father is dead. In typical spunky Alice fashion, she refuses to wear a corset or stockings, at which her exasperated mother says, "But it's accepted." Alice responds, "If it was accepted to wear a codfish on your head, would you do that to?" It's a nice reverse of roles (okay, how many parents have used the old "If everyone jumped off a bridge" line with your kids?).
Once arriving at the party, Alice learns that Hamish (the priggish young lord) intends to propose, with about 100 party guests looking on, and she is less than thrilled. Fortunately, she spies a rabbit, follows him, falls down a hole, and thus adventure begins.
Turns out, this is not her first trip to Underland. The White Rabbit was sent to lure her back. In the years since her first visit (at six) the Red Queen (deliciously portrayed with a hydrocephalic CGI head by Helena Bonham-Carter) has usurped the throne of her younger sister, the White Queen (a dreamy, more delicate creature than her sister and played by the charming Anne Hathaway) and brought terror to Underland through use of the Bandersnatch, Jub-Jub Bird, and the Jabberwocky. (Okay, note here: If you're thinking Burton has made all these things up, he hasn't. The original Disney cartoon was actually a mashup of two Lewis Carroll books, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and Through the Looking Glass. All these characters are from those books, notably Through the Looking Glass, if my memory serves. And I can't put my hand on my copy right now, but I do believe Carroll calls the place "Underland" and it is Alice who dubs it "Wonderland" so don't go accusing Burton of distorting the story.)
Once there, she meets most of the familiar characters, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Dormouse, all of whom seem to think she's the "wrong Alice." So they take her to the Caterpillar (voice by the wonderful Alan Rickman) who dubs her "not hardly Alice." Eventually, she goes off to tea, and is rescued from the pursuing forces of the Red Queen by the Mad Hatter, who explains that it is crucial that Alice face the Jabberwocky (voiced by Christopher Lee, who unfortunately only gets about a dozen lines) on Frabjous Day. And the adventure really begins.
(Another note: It was Disney who introduced the notion of the Queen of Hearts. Carroll always had the Red Queen and the White Queen.)
Earlier on Friday, I got a text message from a friend saying the reviews had not been very good (really, I only listen to Roger Ebert) and the movie was "dark, twisted, and not for kids." Um, okay folks, this is Tim Burton. If you're looking for sweetness and light, you've got the wrong director. Even Ebert gave it 3 stars, only decrying the inevitable battle scene (which, honestly, I didn't have a problem with - it was clear from Alice's first meeting with the Hatter that some sort of battle was brewing).
However, I'm not sure the critics are on the mark here. Yes, this is not Disney's animated Wonderland. The colors are certainly lush, and the CGI is not irritatingly overpowering. Burton's storyline (which actually extends the Alice story) is logical - here is a young woman looking for what she wants. There is a lot of oddity and strange-looking creatures (flowers with faces anyone?), but I would call Burton's version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory darker and more twisted than Alice.
Not for kids? Well, if your child is easily spooked by loud noises, or fantastical (and yes, somewhat grotesque) visuals, then don't take him or her. Depp's Mad Hatter alone is pretty outlandish looking. But the movie is rated PG and I think that's appropriate. There's the battle scene, some fantasy disgust (for example, a scene where the White Queen brews a potion to get Alice back to normal size and uses "buttered fingers"), but no sexual innuendo and no profanity. So really, the only "objectionable" content for children is the fact that Burton has not remade Disney's cartoon and it is slightly twisted. The effect is not quite that of watching a cartoon on LSD, but you know for sure and for certain that this isn't your mother's "Alice in Wonderland."
And here's the thing: Wonderland isn't cute and harmless. Read the book. Tenniel's illustrations are slightly alarming. Carroll's book is not sugary children's fare. Just as those who bemoaned Burton's "Charlie" as "betraying the original Gene Wilder version (which I love, don't get me wrong), Roald Dahl's books were closer to Depp's portrayal of Willie Wonka than Wilder's. The same applies here. Wonderland (or Underland) is supposed to be distorted. It's fantasy, but not a candy-coated one. I've read the Alice books three times: once in high school, once as an undergraduate, and once for a Children's Literature class in graduate school. At no time did I think these were light-hearted affairs suitable for a five-year-old. They are, on a certain level, very disturbing.
There is this notion, perhaps born out of the 50's but that has certainly persisted to today, that a "children's" movie must be cute and happy. I've heard many criticisms of Pixar's "Up!" that say the movie is too sad. But that's life. Life is happy, and sad, and violent, and dangerous, and joyful, and wonderful all mixed together. It is sweet and bitter. A great movies show that. Great children's movies show that in an age-appropriate manner.
The Alice in Burton's movie is a young woman who isn't happy with the role Victorian England has assigned her: marry young to a lord, produce children, and spend your days at teas and garden parties. "What do I want?" and "Who am I?" are the predominant questions here. It's even something that the Caterpillar asks repeatedly, "Who are you?" Alice keeps saying "I'm Alice Kingsley." But that's not the question. "Who are you?" does not mean "What is your name?" The Caterpillar's question is more profound: Who are you and what do you want to be? It's a question that plagues us all, and we are lucky to be able to answer it before we die.
Happily, I think Alice does answer the question. She finds out "who are you" in a way that satisfies her. The last time we see the Caterpillar, he is building his cocoon and says he's going away. "Are you dying?" asks Alice. "No," he replies, "perhaps I will see you in another life." A deep question. But one essential to the human story.
Is Burton's "Alice" children's fare? Perhaps not, in that a child of 9 will hardly appreciate the profoundness of the question. Will children enjoy it? I think so - it is a visually stunning film with plenty to capture the imagination. Should you take your child? Can't say: how sensitive is your child to fantasy violence and visual oddity? As a parent, I don't find the behavior of the characters or their language objectionable (well, nobody wants to imitate the Red Queen, but the movie doesn't exactly try to make her a heroine - the "off with their head" line is alive and well).
"Perhaps I will see you in another life."
Who are you?
No comments:
Post a Comment