Once the shunned oddball stuck playing in his own corner of the Hollywood playground, Tim Burton has in the past few years become the idol of teenagers who fancy themselves artistic and dark. And while it's not hard to see how Burton's trademark macabre and misfit-as-the-hero movies appeal to those leaving childish things behind, Burton has drawn much criticism of late for stylistically repeating himself to the point, some would argue, of self-parody. Personally, while I recognize the validity of these criticisms and would like to see Burton expand as an artist (for which there is still plenty of time; Clint Eastwood is twice his age and is still cranking 'em out every year), to me Tim Burton is like a Hostess cupcake: not the greatest of its kind, not particularly good for you, but reliable in quality. You know what you're getting before you open the package. I think whether Burton works or not for any individual person depends on how much they like the Tim Burton aesthetic to begin with. And being a teenager who fancies himself artistic and dark, I'm usually on board for anything with Burton's name on it.Although his films have always been associated with terms like "twisted" and "dark," Tim Burton's movies--Alice in Wonderland included--are only dark in design. The Burton canon may stylistically be full of looming shadows and twisting staircases, but the typical Burton tone is lighthearted and in fact often campy. There's nothing wrong with this style, but it is a mistake to think that Burton's films are dark in anything but atmosphere. And I think there was an incorrect assumption about Alice before the film came out that Tim Burton was "at last going to give the source material a fittingly spooky adaptation, unlike the watered down Disney version."
The original Disney Alice in Wonderland, however, is actually much darker than Burton's film. Burton's Wonderland is clearly, and at one point literally, divided into "good" and "evil." The White Queen, the Mad Hatter, and the like are Alice's friends and protectors. Despite the movie's insistent (and annoying) winks that all the characters are "mad," Wonderland is less threatening than Narnia. Which is precisely what's wrong with Burton's Alice: it turns what could have been a surreal, dangerous story into a watered down The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. By contrast, the animated Alice in Wonderland is one of Disney's darkest movies. In that film, Wonderland is a wild and strange place, one that is hostile and uninterested in the plight of its child protagonist. At times, Wonderland threatens to swallow Alice up whole. Burton's film contains neither this sense of danger nor one of wonder.
Instead, the Tim Burton Wonderland is tame, dull, and rife with cliches. While the film is at first able to subdue its more trite elements with visual boldness and sharp CGI, the movie's awful last act is enough to push Alice from being a barely good film to being a disappointingly mediocre one. At one point in the film's conclusion, after an (anti-)climactic battle, Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter character begins to dance in celebration, and for one horrifying moment, it appears that the film is going to turn into Shrek. Fortunately, the scene ends before this can happen, but not before it tosses the audience's goodwill to the wind. The movie's final scene, in which Alice conveniently wraps up all the film's hanging dilemmas in one monologue, hammers the final nail into the film's coffin.
While Tim Burton's artistry is usually enough to carry even the director's weaker films, this one cannot be helped. I'd like to lay the blame on the hackneyed screenplay, but Burton is a good enough filmmaker that he should've known and corrected the script's weaker aspects. Unfortunately, Alice in Wonderland is nothing more than Lewis Carroll's classic novel churned through the Hollywood family film formula as presented through Tim Burton's typically morbid visuals. It is Burton's worst film since Planet of the Apes.
Wait. In what way was this movie mediocre and don't just repeat what you just said because none of that really made sense. Maybe it was not on the same level as some of his other works but it had fantastic elements. For instance Johnny Depp's portrayal of the mad hatter was impeccable. The movie was indeed lighter than one may have at first desired but can it truly be classified as a mediocre film? Not every work of art can be a deep reflection. Some are for sheer enjoyment. Not to be analyzed or torn to pieces but to be watched or read or listened to. As a rule most good works have things that need to be analyzed. I am not saying that everyone should run out and buy the first stupid book or movie they see (Twilight for instance), but that some things are not meant to be looked at on the same level. Actually there is quite a bit of depth to be found in the mad hatter, there is a sense of sadness not immediately seen that gives depth to his character. Also the end monologue which I normally despise was well done and I believe clinched the movie well. Chances are you will tear everything from my grammar and spelling (which I know are atrocious) to my seemingly shallow and juvenile opinions but I had no choice but to state my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDude, I'm not gonna harp on you for grammar. People who do that are usually looking more to puff up their own egos than to have a reasonable discussion.
ReplyDelete"The movie was indeed lighter than one may have at first desired but can it truly be classified as a mediocre film? Not every work of art can be a deep reflection. Some are for sheer enjoyment. Not to be analyzed or torn to pieces but to be watched or read or listened to."
I agree that some movies are meant to be enjoyed more on a visceral level than on an intellectual one, but my problem with "Alice in Wonderland" was that it didn't even engage me on a visceral level. Too much of the script was taken from stock storyline formulas without being given any real weight. Here are just a few of the cliches that were in the movie: the opening scene between the protagonist as a child and their soon-to-be-dead parent whose dialogue will later be echoed in the movie, the "You have to go now!" "I'm not leaving without you!" scenes that serve no other purpose than to keep the protagonist where the screenwriter needs them to be, the big CGI battle scene, etc. It's all been done before and much better too. A cliche can work well if it's done right, but "Alice" just throws cliches at the screen and none of them really stick. Wonderland, as Lewis Carroll envisioned it, was a strange and dangerous place, and I was hoping that a Tim Burton revisionist "Alice in Wonderland" would be a fittingly strange and dangerous film. It's not though, it's just "Alice in Wonderland" as processed through the typical family fantasy film storyline.
Sometimes when watching a movie or reading a book you can tell the director or author has spent a lot of time thinking about every little detail and portraying it imaginatively, but I just didn't get that feeling from Alice. Some of the sets looked cool, but overall it didn't seem to have much innovation behind it and all the costumes and scenery were just the same as what we've seen in other versions but with a "dark" theme slapped onto them.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, my favorite part of the movie wasn't when Alice was in Wonderland at all, but before she fell down the rabbit hole. I thought Burton's portrayal of the stifling, austere English society at that wretched party was much more interesting than anything that happened afterward. I really liked all the social interplay, like the pressure on Alice to marry that nasty guy because he's a Lord, and how she has to keep quiet about her sister's husband kissing that other girl,and those obnoxious girls, and her crazy aunt. Maybe it's just me but I found those scenes and characters to be more imaginative and captivating than Wonderland itself. Tim Burton did a good job of satirizing that lifestyle so I wish he'd done more of that.
Sometimes Alice's lines were a little over the top... Like when she suggests to her future mother-in-law to just paint the roses red. The lady gets all confused and huffy about Alice's suggestion and since she's one of the bad characters the audience is supposed to disagree with her. But seriously? That's kinda a dumb suggestion that Alice had so I'm not sure how someone is supposed to react to it.
Helena was so funny as the Red Queen though, I laughed multiple times at her lines.
I agree, my favorite part of the movie was also the opening scenes of the English aristocracy. I was almost regretful when Alice fell down the rabbit hole and the snooty fun had to end. It would be awesome to Tim Burton direct a Jane Austen adaptation or something.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the Red Queen was funny. I thought she was the character that worked best in the movie.
In the film's defense, everyone has been harping on the final battle scene, which, though cliched, I thought was much more exciting and well done than it was given credit for. (Though the dancing at the end was frightful and a little anti-climactic)
ReplyDeleteThe one thing the film lacked from the original story, and the Disney version, in my opinion, was the sheer lack of wonder in wonderland. The whole time it was like "oh, we know you, cool... wait are you really you? GET IT? DO YOU GET THE MORAL/ETHICAL DILEMMA OF ALICE NOT REALLY BEING ALICE!!!!!!! IT'S CREATIVE DAMNIT!!!!!!!!"
Yeah, there was a serious lack of danger and wonder throughout the film. In fact, it was that danger and wonder that makes me still not like going back and watching the original Disney version. That one legitimately scared me. It was so dark and made so little sense I couldn't stand watching it as a child.
It was that wonder that I wished for, along with that fear, in this updated version. Not a "finding yourself" story. The only wonder in Alice in Wonderland was the CGI and art direction, which was wonderful, but, as Ben points out, fails in carrying the film.
Guess who! haha
I think the battle scene would've worked a lot better if I'd had any real investment in the movie at that point. And the dancing scene was so weird and out-of-place. It should've just been that he did a quick little jig, not this self-contained number that threatened to turn into "Shrek" before it sputtered out.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I totally agree with you about the originality of it. For the movie to justify its existence, it really needed to be a lot more daring and interesting than just a run-of-the-mill fantasy movie. Burton really dropped the ball on this one.
I also was listening to an audio review of "Alice" in which someone made the awesome point of how retarded that scene is where Absalom the Caterpillar is encasing himself in a cocoon and Alice thinks he's dying. The reviewer pointed out, "Is there anyone older than the age of three who doesn't know that caterpillars turn into butterflies? I can't believe the movie tried to play it off as such a dramatic moment."
Haha, I am going to guess Paul.