Alice in Wonderland, 2010. Tim Burton.
Mia Wasikowska
Johnny Depp
Helena Bonham Carter
Anne Hathaway
Last week gone I thought to myself: would it be possible to write a review of Burton’s latest without actually seeing the film? The release drew closer. I began to scan newspapers, magazines, the imagery of Alice in Wonderland was everywhere, as well as getting a fix from glossy entertainment bulletins. The chatter was beginning to build momentum as March 5th, the release date, drew closer. It appeared as though many journalists, reviews, bloggers and the usual general riff-raff, must have has the same thought as I and never went to the press screening. All articles seemed to follow a pre-determined review structure. Surely one of these misfits had seen the film? But maybe not. The Disney press release ran as good copy. And no journalist worth their salt dared lose favour with the mouse. All in all the reviews read as run-of-mill tripe. That can of shit I expected. I could have wrote without seeing the film; ‘Burton delivers his unique visual style yet again, Depp is superb’, etc. etc. etc.
A Burton film has become an event. We know nothing of the film but the little teasers we're feed to just keep us satisfied. The machine of Disney works the viewing public like a pusher works a junky. Supply is always on Disney’s terms. Disney build and plays with our expectations. Alice in Wonderland?.Burton? And with Johhny Depp? Then the stills of the cast are released. Depp as The Mad Hatter, Bonham Carter as The Red Queen. Visually it looks promising. The audiences are hooked. The very notion of a Burto-Depp collaboration is waged deep into the cultural conscious and it is only summer 2009.
A Burton film today is primarily sold on the expectation of the visual. But would he have achieved that ‘unique visual style’ without technological progress? Well, yes. He has already given us a range of films dated back to the 80s in both animation and real-time that carries his visual mark. We know he has a gifted imagination. However, what needs to be addressed is with the advances in digital, Burton has been able to push his creativity even further in ways I doubt he could have even imagined. It has allowed him to reinvent literary classics, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland, and portray them in a light that somehow seems fitting in the new cinema age of 3D. As a result it has got you and me parting with our cash at the multiplex and in return we get a fix of lights, shapes and colours. The studios love it. Burton, once regarded as box-office poison, has caved out his own niche and with an on-screen alter ego, Johnny Depp, bringing his characters to life how can a studio go wrong when a Burton film is seemingly a hot commodity
On the surface it has all the hallmarks of a lavish fantasy that only Burton could deliver from the pages of his imagination. Wonderland is an extremely simple story and in turn, disconnected and shallow. Visually you are there in Wonderland and so you can forgive the lack of consistency in storytelling, but does it meet expectations? Are we given the Alice in Wonderland that we were sold to back in 2009 when the Disney machine got its wheels greased and we began salivating at the prospect of such a film? Alice in Wonderland's publicity strategy built hype and excitement for the event till we were fit to explode come release day. These methods worked. Disney broke records for weekend takings but this is never in the interest of us the paying public. You can imagine a meeting between Mickey and Burton. ‘Right Tim’, Mickey would go, ‘We want to make Alice in Wonderland’ cram it full of all Carroll’s characters and make it… erm . . . Burtonesque’. Burton would then reply ‘what about the story?’ ‘Fuck the story!’ Micky would shout while slapping Tim around the face with a ream of hundred dollar bills, ‘BURTONESQUE!!! THAT’S HOW IT’S SOLD!!! But without the underlining dark elements after all, we are Disney’. As a result you come away feeling a little under-whelmed by the whole experience. You know you’ve just watched a Burton film but you have a gut instinct that there was something missing, a little cheated perhaps. Burton was originally reluctant to take up the directors’ chair with Disney and this, maybe, is an explanation to why the film seems so jaded in substance. Visually, it is Burton. The magical and weird forest for instance that been curves and undulating since Tim Burton started shooting films is there for all to see, but there is something missing, it is a lack of earnestness.
There is a certain darkness Burton contextualised in his work, which in turn gives the visuals a deeper meaning. Themes of innocence and sexuality are played around, and as a consequence watching Burton can often be a visceral engagement. But with Alice in Wonderland you are left a little disappointed. The film neglects to play around with the possibilities that Lewis Carroll’s work offers. I know I wanted to see what Burton's imagination could conjure up with such an original text, and what darker elements he could raise to the surface. Burton never dares to adventure into the darker complexities of the characters he offers up. Somehow, it feels like he is being held back, and so you are left with a feeling that the characters, such as the Mad Hatter, are somewhat under used and they tend to come off as mere narrative devices. Alice in Wonderland works on the bases of cultural assumptions. We are already familiar with the characters that inhabit Lewis Carroll’s novel and so Burton’s adaptation does not have to work as hard in establishing them in the context of his reinvention as it is all done on the assumption that the audience will know Alice, that we will all be familiar with the Mad Hatter and The Cheshire Cat, as we know these characters from our childhoods. They have manifested themselves into the cultural consciousness along with Robin Hood, Jack, from Jack and the Beanstork and The Seven Dwarfs. Burton more or less follows the same narrative cause and effect cues as the original. Right up to the ‘mad’ tea party. The tea party, if we remember correctly, where the Hatter was doomed eternally to spend forever more at 6pm, is completely bypassed. It is at this junction where the idea of the sequel comes into play. Though the method of cultural assumption does work, I feel that Burton could have done more in establishing characters in his version and giving them a firm grasp in his Wonderland. It is fair to say that if Alice is some fourteen years older surely the characters would have evolved in some way. These subsequent events in Wonderland are never really explained, allowing for absurd plot holes and somewhat whimsical connections to the original.
The narrative moves along fast. Before you know it Wonderland is over. Did you ever care about Wonderland under the tyranny of the Red Queen? No. Will you forget about this film? Yes. The story is revealed within the first twenty minutes and the rest of the film soon becomes a shooting gallery for Burton’s ‘unique visual style’. Even Disney’s The Frog Princess, a return to old school animation, had more twists and unexpected turns. The sheer lack of the unexpected in Wonderland is the film’s greatest irony, given what we were sold on with regards to it being a Burton film. We all bought the ticket with these fantastical expectations, and to be honest, let’s face it, we really couldn’t care what the story was going to be, but is it a reason patronise us? If the Red Queen recognises Alice from the scrolls, which also foretell the next sixty minutes, remarking ‘I would know that hair anywhere’ then why does she not recognise her in the flesh? Such holes are a little ridiculous and ultimately frustrating. The scrolls foretell that Alice is to slay the Jabberwocky and after much deliberation and soul searching, she does, and equilibrium is restored to Wonderland. Credits roll. Film is over. You walk out of screen where you are then accosted by a poster for Iron Man Two and you can feel the saliva building up in your mouth all over again.
After James Cameron’s 3D visual masterpiece we all lusted for more for trippy, psychedelic delights to push forward the new frontiers of a 3D movie going experience. Who else but Burton could possibly give it to us? So when Wonderland opened in 3D some of its weekend success must be credited to Avatar. It seems a shame to make comparisons to Avatar, but you can not help it since both were sold under the banner of 3D and have been released very close to each other. Avatar certainly sets the bench mark and frankly, Burton does not meet it. If I hadn’t seen Avatar maybe I would have been more inclined to believe in Burton’s 3D visual fest. I am not saying that visually Alice in Wonderland is not impressive, because it is, but unfortunately, in terms of cinematic spectacle, Cameron has certainly raised the bar and as paying movie goers, we now undoubtedly expect more in return.
Avatar is work of perfection. It has revealed that some methods in the 3D medium, whether that is within the sci-fi genre or the fantasy genre, work. For instance both Avatar and Alice in Wonderland use the location of a forest, spiritual and or mystical, to great effect as a way of highlighting the advantages when entering an audience into the 3D cinema experience. The similarities don't just end with the forest, both these films have a beast like creature that rampages through the Sylvanian scenes, thus maximising the visual. There is a striking difference in the use of colour. Avatar's colours were vivid and luminous, with a glow which really works on the eye, whereas Wonderland's colours are taken from the typical Burton pallet, and are a little darker. With Wonderland you are always aware you are watching a digital environment. You are never allowed to be totally submerged. Avatar, as a rule, rarely mixes real-time action with a digitally enhanced world. Whether you are with the characters in the lab or HQ, that’s where you are. Even when you are on-board one of the ships flying through the air, Pandora is viewed and framed within the windows of the ship. You are still in real-action. When you are on the ground in Pandora you visually situated in the digital world. As Alice advances through Wonderland you become all too aware of digital enhancements. She is shot in real-time, along with other characters, and so the computer wizardry is exposed and can be sometimes jarring. Even to the point where it seems that post-production has been sloppy. Eye-lines between Alice and the creatures are amiss. Actors seem to be missing their marks in the digital world of Wonderland. Neither Avatar nor Wonderland has credible stories, regardless of the fact you never actually were drawn to these films for an excellent story in the first place but Avatar does its job when it come to the visual illusion .
What is Alice in Wonderland once you get past the Disney diluted take on Burton version and the flawed narrative? What it boils down to, in my view, is a simple coming of age flick. Like the smoking caterpillar points out in both Carroll’s original and in Burton's take on Wonderland, Alice must come to terms with her insecurities and identity. When we first met Alice she is filled with uncertainty and finds the adult world, though full of Burton caricatures, is a somewhat dull and serious affair. She enters Wonderland, embarks on an odyssey, slays the Jabberwocky and re-emerges from Wonderland as a strong independent woman.
Finally, the cast assembled make watching the film enjoyable experience. Depp is more or less the harmless lunatic he has come to do so well in a Burton film. Depp's on screen chemistry with Helena Bonham Carter works well and is fun to watch as they bounce off each other. Depp does play the Mad Hatter with a sense of schizophrenia, but you are left wanting more, something of substance. Characters seems somewhat lost and forcefully packed into the story juts to allow Depp to have more screen time. Carter is the star of the film and delivers a fantastic performance. But this is no original portrayal, just think back to Black Adder II and Miranda Richardson’s superbly comic performance of Queenie and you'll be there - Carter’s mannerisms and style as the Red Queen can be directly attributed to Richardson. Notable performances include that of Matt Lucas, who will make you giggle every time he is on the screen. The digital executions of the The Cheshire Cat, voiced by Steven Fry, and Caterpillar, voiced by Alan Rickman, are just as cute. The Cheshire Cat especially, as he floats around the screen upside down and around and around, is an absolute joy.
So, this is an enjoyable film. But it is not a Burton film. It is a Disney film. There are certain elements missing to make it a Tim Burton film that are sadly not there. However, Burton and Depp are now middle-aged family men. Will their work become less overtly dark in nature and become family box-office friendly? Alice in Wonderland, as I am reminded, is a children’s film. ‘It is no Bronx Tale’. As a children film, no doubt aimed at Disney’s core demographic, I was left a little dissatisfied and let down from my original stand point of enthusiasm. But if you are a lover of Disney you’ll leave the cinema with a warm glow but maybe now is the time to graduate to Miramax.
Written By Siôn Thomas
Edited by William Andrews
