RSS

Yearly Archives: 2010

Movie Review: “Alice in Wonderland”

06 Mar

If you’ve been to the movie theater recently, no doubt you’ve seen the rather unsettling posters of Johnny Depp with teased-out red hair, pale makeup, and electric green eyes. You were probably, like me, repelled by this new interpretation of the Mad Hatter…and when I first heard about Tim Burton’s live-action remake of “Alice in Wonderland” I dismissed it as a whimsical nightmare come to 3D life. But a couple of trailers later, images started popping up of an armored Alice toting a huge sword and battling hordes of playing-card-soldiers. Curiosity overcame my initial distaste.

To summarize the movie in one sentence: it’s a slightly psychotic reinterpretation of the Chronicles of Narnia.

19-year-old Alice Kingsley, narrowly escaping the cloying attentions of a disgusting suitor, falls down the rabbit hole again and ends up in Underland. (She heard the name wrong on her first visit). It rapidly becomes clear that Burton’s “Alice” isn’t a retelling of the original story – rather, it’s a sequel of sorts that combines elements from Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” “Through the Looking-Glass,” and “Jabberwocky.” As she ventures further into Underland, familiar characters – Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Cheshire Cat, the smoking caterpillar, and the Dodo Bird – start reappearing.

Underland is greatly changed from her last visit. The tyrannical, bulbous-headed Red Queen (played by a maniacal Helena Bonham Carter) rules the land with an iron fist after usurping it from her sister, the White Queen. Of course, no villain works alone…and the Queen is backed by the Jabberwock (a huge dragon), the Bandersnatch (a monster somewhere between a bear, a bulldog, and a shark), and the sinister Knave of Hearts.

Alice makes her way to the ruins of the Tea Party, where the Mad Hatter and March Hare are awaiting her. She quickly learns it is her destiny to confront the Jabberwock and restore the White Queen to power – that is, if she is the “real Alice” and not just an imitator. From this point on, the story becomes very reminiscent of the “Chronicles of Narnia” – a coming-of-age empowerment tale set in a fantastical universe.

As its title would imply, the film is a visual wonderland. Surreal, quasi-gothic imagery fills the screen – at once both mesmerizing and unsettling. The Mad Hatter’s tea party is an almost hallucinatory sequence that revels in dystopian fantasy. Images of broken teacups, a decaying windmill, and the mangy March Hare shrieking “You’re all late for TEA!” all combine into a disturbing panorama. The mashup of live-action and animation creates a product that’s both brilliant and chilling. (I personally didn’t think the 3D added that much to the movie, but maybe that’s just me.)

The acting is where the film really shines. From Mia Wasikowska’s breakthrough performance as Alice to Johnny Depp’s slightly-deranged Mad Hatter, the characters feel entirely believable despite the oddity of their surroundings. (As a nice touch, Alan Rickman – better known as Severus Snape – cameos as the voice of the sagacious caterpillar Absolem.) Alice’s feelings of uncertainty feel entirely genuine, as does the Red Queen’s megalomania. When the Queen shrieks “Off with his head!” there’s really no doubt that she intends to carry through on her threats.

The movie errs, however, in its attempt to produce a “family-friendly” film. This is by no means a movie for the sensitive or easily disturbed – while actual instances of violence are fairly muted, there are a fair number of grisly moments that feel truly shocking in a movie marketed to “all ages.” And it’s worth mentioning that Underland itself is just plain nightmarish at points. The average person will probably fall into one of two categories: those who enjoy the movie and those who loathe it…there really isn’t much of a middle ground. “Alice in Wonderland” will be either fascinating or horrifying, depending on the viewer.

I was expecting there to be a lot of worldview elements in a fantasy film such as this – however, spiritual considerations were pretty much a non-issue. Aside from a few individualistic assertions by Alice, such as “I make my own path!” there really aren’t a lot of philosophical implications. The story is very much a cut-and-dried battle between good and evil, without much nuance. (Personally, I wished that some of the villains had been a little more complex.) It doesn’t have the spiritual richness of the “Narnia” films, and feels fairly shallow in the spiritual department.

So should you see it?

If you like fantasy-adventure films with surreal visuals and a large helping of dark humor, you’ll love “Alice in Wonderland.” If, on the other hand, you’re completely turned off by the film’s blending of innocence with the macabre, this is definitely not the movie for you. It’s not the best movie of its kind, but it’s definitely not the worst, either.

VERDICT: 7.5/10
An inventive, yet occasionally unsettling, dark fantasy.

Normalized Score: 4.6

 
5 Comments

Posted by on March 6, 2010 in Fantasy

 

Literature Commentary: Gone with the Wind

26 Feb

The name immediately evokes visions of the antebellum South, and of Scarlett O’Hara boldly declaring “I’ll never be hungry again!” For many Americans, Margaret Mitchell’s classic historical novel of the Civil War is inextricably linked to the epic 1939 film starring Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. In both its paper and celluloid forms, it’s a story of love, war, decadence, and tragedy, as millions of viewers and readers have come to learn. After a fellow literature lover suggested I read the full novel, I promptly checked it out from the library.

“Gone with the Wind” is the story of Scarlett O’Hara, a flirtatious Southern belle with a consuming “love” for the seemingly unattainable Ashley Wilkes. But before she can put her romantic plans into action, the Civil War comes knocking on her doorstep. In a matter of months, she is forced to watch as her home and country come crashing down around her, thanks to Union General Sherman’s invasion of Georgia. Desperately trying to save her plantation, Tara, Scarlett hardens physically and emotionally – embracing a cold pragmatism that seems to offer dim hope for the future.

But “Gone with the Wind” isn’t just a history textbook – at its heart, it’s a story about people and their motivations. Throughout the course of the novel, Scarlett’s unreasonable passion for Ashley is offset by depictions of the true, sincere love between Ashley and his wife Melanie. And of course there’s the romantic scoundrel Rhett Butler, the one man who truly loves Scarlett for who she is…and the one man who eventually refuses to submit to her.

From a stylistic standpoint, it’s a masterful, sweeping epic that manages to balance romance and historical drama without coming off as hackneyed. Author Mitchell’s prose clips along at a rapid pace that never feels dull or sluggish. Despite the length of the novel (my unabridged version topped out at 1035 pages), “Gone with the Wind” doesn’t lag. (For the record, the movie adaptation is, for the most part, quite faithful to the book – but the book is definitely better.)

“Gone with the Wind” is told entirely from Scarlett’s viewpoint – a narrative choice that allows the reader to more effectively understand her motivations. Several cringe-worthy moments throughout the story leave one wishing they could warn Scarlett where her destructive behavior is leading…and the theme of actions breeding consequences is fully developed throughout. Scarlett’s single-minded pursuit of hedonistic self-interest leads to her alienation from respectable society – but there’s still a small element of reader sympathy that persists throughout the book, even during her worst periods. In this sense, “Gone with the Wind” is quite effective – it doesn’t portray her as a greedy, self-centered monster, but rather as a hardened spirit in need of redemption. (Whether or not that redemption ever takes place is an interesting question, and one that many readers and authors have tried to answer.)

The emotional core of the story is the love triangle between Scarlett, Rhett, and Ashley. Scarlett is obsessed with Ashley for the sole reason that she cannot have him. Moreover, he represents the lost ideal of the Southern gentleman – a sort of bewildered knight left behind by an evolving world. Sharply contrasting with Ashley is the dynamic Rhett – a scalawag who’s willing to do anything to survive. In this respect, he and Scarlett are evenly matched. They’re both determined to prevail against seemingly unbearable odds, and are willing to sacrifice principles in order to do so. Scarlett is obviously more compatible with Rhett, and by the end of the book realizes it…but her revelation comes too late.

From a worldview standpoint, there are some interesting aspects to “Gone with the Wind.” Early on, Scarlett expresses a longing for the quiet, serene faith of her deceased mother – but rapidly proceeds to behave in a completely different manner. Several times during the story, she expresses a brief interest in religion (primarily as a means of self-preservation…she fears that her actions will lead to eternal damnation). Whether or not she truly repents and reforms by the end of the book is left unclear.

So should you read it?

There’s a reason for this book’s enduring popularity. “Gone with the Wind” is a masterpiece of American literature, and highly recommended to readers of Civil War fiction or those who enjoy historical drama. While it’s undeniably a long book, its swift pacing, powerful characters, and insightful observations on human nature make it well worth your time.

VERDICT: 8/10
A must-read for students of American literature.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on February 26, 2010 in Classic

 
← Older posts
Newer posts →