i have accumulated numerous topics to discuss, but i will begin with the most obvious & absolutely most important: alice.
i was convinced from the moment the production was announced that the film was made for me: my favourite director, my favourite actors (johnny & helena), my favourite story - one of the five or so books i've ever read. i scoffed at other peoples' excitement because i was naturally more genuinely excited & alice-educated than anyone else anticipating the film's release. (I AM DEVOTED.) so when march fifth came around - even though the original release date was march 10th - i dragged my midnight-premiere-virgin friend kelsey with me to see it. never have i had more thoughts run through my brain throughout the course of a movie. i was loving the costume & scenery artistry, hating the hatter's scottish brogue, & wondering why the movie was called "alice in wonderland" when the plotline was bandersnatched right from "through the looking glass & what alice found there". i tried to watch it as if i was lewis carroll (or, as refer to him because i am an elitist, charles dodgson) & couldn't decide if he would have liked it.
overall, my review is this - as a film, it was absolutely excellent. as an alice guru, it was alright. the movie was poorly titled - disney should've purchased the rights to the title "alice" from the scifi network, because that would've been far more appropriate - and failed to give dodgson credit for his creations like the jabberwocky, the white queen, and the chess board. of course, in my opinion, the white queen may as well have been omitted from the film.
on that note, certainly there were little things that bothered me - young alice's terrible wig, the decision to set the story in underland from "looking glass" but not explain the name, the "wizard of oz" ending, the rabbit's loyalty to the white queen instead of the red, the size of the red queen's head when it is the duchess, not the queen, that is bulbous, & the inexplicable shift from black to red that spane's eyepatch made. but if i could/had to alter the movie, i wouldn't even bother correcting the minor problems. i would take but two actions.
1) i would exile anne hathaway so as to insure that she could never come anywhere NEAR the production therein ruining it with her inability to portray the white queen - something i had anticipated from the moment i learned she had been cast - as well as her ability to annoy me to death. not only was the decision to cast her a poor one, but her character was written completely wrong. there are no cauldron-like concoctions in underland (or wonderland, for that matter).
2) i would require & make certain that the flutterwacken bore absolutely no resemblence to hiphop, not to mention animated, contortionist breakdancing. with one, swift, completely idiotic move, someone - i will not name burton because i choose the route of ignorance in saying that he could not have been responsible for the atrocity that was this dance - managed to downgrade the gravity & maturity that this story of "older alice" sought to convey, not to mention completely destroy the victorian english mannerisms & setting that had accurately & properly dictated much of the film & the characters. when i saw the film for a second and third time, i could not help but cringe & let out a gasp of gut-wrenching anticipation when the music started up. & as if that wasn't enough, they forced alice to bring it back in the alice of oz ending when she returned to the real world. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!?
it may seem like i have more negative things to say than positive about alice. this is wrong. i am strongly opposed to the comments made by most people that it doesn't live up to the "tim burton standard". i'm sorry that you think morbidity & eerieness cannot come in any form but dark & ghoulish. the leering satire in this film carried from dodgson's writings is just as disturbing & chilly as a dead bride or a cannibalist restaurant if you look at it from the right perspective. burton's ability to portray society's problems uniquely is what makes him a great director. with alice, he has proven that he can show victorian england as a gory, man-eat-man world of unsympathetic chaos AND as a world trapped in routine, nonsensical conformity, & almost futile social & political cycles. how many directors could do such a thing & still capture an audience because of the unique approach & production design? very few. i am appalled to hear anyone critisize this film for being "un-burton."
i'd also like to take note of the soundtrack. danny elfman's unparalleled fantasy soundtrack abilities paired with a beautiful (albeit completely digital) world did dodgson justice. no music has ever roused in me more excitement & anxious anticipation than the masterful track "proposal/down the hole". even the third time i saw the movie, that piece of music as it follows alice on a brief chase scene made me feel truly as if i was going to implode with unimaginable excitement.
overall, i congratulate the production on its success - after all, it grossed $116.3million in its opening weekend, blowing "avatar" out of the water, & has remained on top. (thx disney 3D lolz!) even after three weeks it is still on top, grossing $265.8m thus far. according to box office analyst paul dergarabedian, this is particularly unusual for this time of year. of course, there is still debate going on about when the movie will be released on dvd - a controversy that almost caused british theatres to boycott the projection of the film when it was released - but it should be resolved soon. hopefully for the best.
oh, did i mention that mia wasikowska scalped me & used my hair for the movie? because she did.
in order to make this post relevant: i have been dressing with my big black bow in alice costumes for years - including halloween & random school days. i have a few other pictures to add, including the miniature dress i wore when i was alice as a child, a costume that my mother made for me.
