![Teething [2007]](http://ambival.net/images/teething.jpg)
![Karma Shot [2008]](http://ambival.net/images/karmashot.jpg)
![Alice in Wonderland [1951]](http://homepage.mac.com/shoat/movies/a/alice-in-wonderland-1951.jpg)
Of course, as the Disney version, this is the best-known, most-loved, most stylised and standardised of all the adaptations. As far as I know, it was likely my only source of the story for a good chunk of my life, and by that I mean, I don’t even remember reading or being read the book (sniff lol): I only realised this past week reading the first of the books that parts of this and the other adaptations, like Tweedledum and Tweedledee for example, were in fact taken from “Through the Looking Glass” which I’ve yet to read. In this version, in fact, they even pull in a couple of elements from Carroll’s “Jabberwocky”, as well as throwing in some genuinely clever characters and lines of their own (“You gave me quite a turn!” “She’s stark raven mad!”) … all in 70 minutes. I still prefer the Fiona Fullerton version by a smidgen, and who knows what Tim Burton’s going to deliver, but this is one of Disney’s best, it’s eyepoppingly colourful particularly when you consider the year it was made, and the character designs etc certainly stick in one’s memory.
Posts Tagged ‘Alice’
Alice in Wonderland [1966]
Sunday, May 4th, 2008This one is fascinating – another TV production, this time by the BBC for the “Wednesday Play” series, and boy does that show: the word “pretentious” certainly comes to mind but I for one won’t be using it because this is one of the best adaptations of the book that I’ve yet seen. It begins by perfectly recreating the part of the story that has always been the most strongly evocative part to me: the simple, lazy image of Alice and her sister on the bank on a hazy Summer afternoon (“All in a golden afternoon …”). From there it launches into some of the most surreal, dreamlike progressions I’ve ever seen on film. It captures some part of the book that few other adaptations would dare. Through clever editing, it’s the closest and most prolonged replica of the dream experience I’ve seen.
I wouldn’t have thought it, as I’m quite attached to the innocent and gracious image of Alice in the blue dress with blonde hair in a bow etc, but I quite like this Hermione-haired, black-dressed, aloof version as played by Anne-Marie Mallik, too; I love how she’s always walking away from people with a “hmph!” flick of her hair. The look she almost gives the camera as the caucus-race “winners” gather around uttering, “prizes, prizes, prizes”, quite like zombies droning, “brains”, lol, is quite priceless, it’s the look of a person bemused by the herd-like behaviours of society.
In short, what it lacks in colour, effects, costumes and comprehensiveness, it makes up for entirely with the feeling it gives by the extraordinary stillness, both in the image and in the soundtrack, Mallik’s whispery distant voiceover, and that very BBC “Play for Today” type score (excepting the odd moment when it, like the imagery, goes a little mental). At 70 minutes, there’s no excuse to pass up the chance to see it.
Alice in Wonderland [1999]
Sunday, May 4th, 2008I love Tina Majorino in just about anything so I kind of knew that I’d be comfortable through most of this despite some bad comments about it (Martin Gardner calls it “undistinguished” and “boring” in “The Annotated Alice” and considering how great his insights are in the margins of that volume, I couldn’t well not believe him). With the book very fresh in my mind (I just finished reading it minutes before putting this on), I was pretty dazzled by how faithful it is to the text (to “Wonderland” at least; I can’t speak for the episodes towards the end I’m assuming are from “Through the Looking Glass”, which I’ve not yet read). That, however, turns out to perhaps be the production’s singular problem. There’s a fine line between being faithful and too damn literal, and this certainly crosses that line eventually.
As expected, I found Majorino delightful as Alice (I don’t like the yellow dress though 
) – her English accent is a little too clipped at times but mostly it’s perfect, as is she. The rest of the cast is certainly impressive (how often do you find Ken Dodd, Martin Short and Gene Wilder in the same place, lol?) but often just plain annoying; for me nothing much compares to the fantastic supporting cast of the Fiona Fullerton version. The visual effects are fairly clunky at times and the production and costume design etc (I already mentioned the yellow dress) is some of the most garish and unappealing I’ve seen in any artwork based on the story – towards the end, in fact, it almost looks like they’re running out of money by the scene. For Majorino and the details in the script, however, it’s certainly worth seeing if you’ve read and enjoyed the source material.
MirrorMask
Sunday, May 4th, 2008“It’s just life.”
“It’s just stupid.”
Hmm … I have to say, I was really looking forward to seeing this again having, I think, only seen it once before. But I can’t help but feel a little let down by it a second time around. Everything I said below still applies – even that it is a kind of favourite of mine that I will watch many times more – but it felt dreadfully bleak and uneventful this time around, like there should’ve been more. The ending feels rushed, and though Rob Brydon (as good shedding his usual image here as James Nesbitt was in Millions) and Stephanie Leonidas sell it perfectly … I don’t know, it just feels a little bare. It could just be me going overkill on the Alice theme, I guess. Like I said, I really love it, it’s visually stunning and everything – I love the “Close to You” scene – it’s just a little, I don’t know, creaky? Though for some, perhaps even me on the right day, perhaps that adds to its charm.
December 18th, 2005:
Fast reviews from now till the end of the year, apologies :-p
I said earlier in the year how I wanted to get to reading Neil Gaiman’s books having stumbled across his blog via regular RSS searches for Roger Avary and Poppy Z. Brite. This movie turns out to be a fantastic introduction to his work. Visually electrifying, with beautiful music and inspired casting, with a central performance by Stephanie Leonidas (aged 21 playing 15, lol) that will go down (for me at least) with Jennifer Connelly in Labyrinth and even Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz, both movies this brings to mind (as well as Paperhouse and the work of Hiyao Miyazaki), this is my new favourite movie of the year.
![Labyrinth [1986]](http://homepage.mac.com/shoat/movies/l/labyrinth-1986.jpg)
Labyrinth [1986]
Sunday, May 4th, 2008“You seem like such a nice beast. Well I certainly hope you are what you seem to be.”
I don’t know what it is about this movie. It’s undeniable how perfect an example of “bad” 80s moviemaking it is. It’s obviously comparable to “Alice in Wonderland” (you’ll notice a theme in the next few reviews, incidentally … it is a certain someone‘s birthday this weekend, afterall …), not only in the “lost girl” theme but also in the rhymes and riddles she encounters along the way. It’s practically identical to “Wonderland” in fact – but for one detail, Sarah’s brother, the baby … the goal. The whole thing is set up like a video game. The wonder of wonderland, of course, was that Alice had no great reason to be there, it’s very much one thing after another (“Begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”)
I guess the goal element comes from “The Wizard of Oz” – Jareth’s (has there ever been a sillier name for a villain? lol) castle as the Emerald City, you see the book (with a lot of other fairytales – not sure if Alice is there though) in Sarah’s room at the start – but it strikes me more as over-dependence on the Joseph Campbell mythology thing that started to dominate screenwriting around the time thanks to Syd Field and hand in hand with high concept and VHS produced hoards of horrors that still have my kneejerk thought on the Eighties as “the worst decade for cinema” even while movies like this always remind me it really wasn’t so bad.
In the end there’s just something mystical about it that defies explanation – if you know and love the movie, you just know what I’m talking about – it’s there when the opening credits music strikes up, in those shots of Jennifer Connolly running through the rain to “Underground”, at the strange diversion of the masked ball where she dresses older and dances with Bowie, and at the end with the upside-down staircases; ironically, somehow it just wouldn’t be the same without the tacky Eighties synth music and hairdos, lol. It makes you feel like a horrible wish like the one Sarah makes at the start – the kind we all half-heartedly make from time to time – really could be granted and turn our world on its head. It’s bizarre and silly and fun, but in the end it’s somehow a lesson that never gets old, perhaps because it never quite gets learned.
Tideland
Saturday, May 26th, 2007I get the feeling that this is always going to be one of those movies I feel like I dreamt. There were a number of details in this viewing that I have literally no recollection of seeing before, even though I was watching the exact same copy of the movie that I watched the first time. If anything, the movie is more disturbing than I grudgingly admitted in the first review; but bizarrely, at the same time, I find it even more beautiful than ever. There’s really not much more I want to say at this point, except, “Squirrel butts don’t glow!” I’d also add to the “little girl lost” themed movies I referred to in the first review as good companions for it, aside from the obvious “Alice in Wonderland” adaptations, this would also work brilliantly alongside Lawn Dogs … I can’t believe it didn’t occur to me before.
21st November, 2006:
The reaction so far to this movie suggested to me that it was gonna be a real love-it-or-loathe-it affair, and I was almost certain which category I’d fall into, being as I love most Terry Gilliam movies, I love movies such as this, I was enthralled by the trailer, and recently wowed by the amazing Jodelle Ferland in Silent Hill and the “Dead Like Me” pilot (incidentally, funny how that featured a train crash much like the ending of this movie).
But the movie isn’t so cleancut as that and, as it ended, I found myself really not knowing what to feel. It’s an incredible piece of work, I can tell that immediately, but for now I can neither say I love it nor that I loathe it. I can’t believe I’m gonna say this … but this one actually kinda weirded me out, lol. That really takes some doing.
I love how one review I read of this movie recently said its biggest failing was Jodelle Ferland’s performance, and I think it’s a good place to start my review – if you can’t make the leap with Ferland, and I can understand there’ll be many who can’t, then you’re pretty screwed watching this movie, because it’s pretty much entirely her and entirely through her.
I didn’t think the movie would be nearly so unsettling as it is. As I said, it takes a lot to unsettle me, and this is one of the most uncomfortable movies I’ve ever seen. And if this movie’s disturbing to me, I can’t imagine how much it’s upsetting certain types of people (cough Daily Mail cough) Yet, unsettling as it may be, my eyes haven’t been so glued to the screen in ages. Gilliam succeeds in showing how fantastic the crazy world Ferland occupies is through her eyes without forgetting to remind us what’s really happening. I think that’s what makes it so uncomfortable, the way it keeps sucking you in and as soon as you reach a warm place, it kinda slaps you and says “that’s sick!”
The music and photography are beautiful, and Jodelle Ferland’s performance, while not perfect, is certainly demanding and demands attention. The movie loses its way in the second half, I think, but it picks up beautifully for a haunting finish.
It’ll sit nicely alongside movies such as Paperhouse, Mirrormask, Labyrinth, and, I’m guessing, Pan’s Labyrinth (haven’t seen that yet, will do soon, but I get the impression it’s pretty similar stuff); and really, no matter what you think of it, I can’t understand how anybody could call it terrible, as the aesthetic values alone, as in any Terry Gilliam production, are worth the price of admission.
Slightly fragmented review there, sorry, but there’ll be plenty of chances to refine it on the many, I expect, repeat viewings I’ll be giving it.
There’s a nice review of the movie that just found its way into my RSS feed searches here.
Spirited Away
Thursday, September 16th, 2004I think I remember when I first watched this I said something about how overjoyed I was when I realised it would be seen by children… usually children’s movies are so simple, or striving so much to be entertaining and funny instead of enlightening. This movie is entertaining and funny, it has all the hallmarks of a children’s movie, but at the same time it serves as the most complete life lesson ever seen in animated, or possibly all, cinema. Basically it is the story of a girl who is thrown into a world where she doesn’t want to be (ain’t that all of us?), she is forced to obey the rules of the world as soon as she arrives in order to survive – if she doesn’t eat food from the world, she will literally disappear (ain’t that all of us?) and then she is forced to get a job she’s not going to like in order to prevent herself being turned into a pig like her parents (and ain’t that all of us?). Miyazaki is amazing at making the mundane fantastic.
I’ve seen the Japanese original version and something has to be said for this movie being seen in the original language – the whole philosophy just seems to fit the language, and I’ve heard that the subtitles are more accurate translations than the dub. But the English dub is definitely as good as I’d heard it was – especially Susan Egan, who is really so good it seems the role was originally written for her, it even practically looks like her. This is either talent or a freakish coincidence, I’ll take the former 
Joe Hisaishi is an amazing composer, and his score here completely lifts everything, especially the Big Moment with Chihiro on the dragon’s back at the end, absolute beauty.