Jonathan Miller's Alice In Wonderland (Again)

[poliphilo]

If you didn't know the book you'd be baffled by the movie, but everybody knows the book, so no problem.

It marks the point in British cultural history when- after decades of contempt- Victoriana became cool. Watching it now I find myself falling in love again with the clothes, the hairstyles, the clutter, the hymns. 

The casting is so odd- and touching. The very old Finlay Currie- craggy Scots patriarch of a hundred Saturday afternoon classics- in dialogue with the very young Alan Bennett, the sublime John Gielgud dancing the lobster quadrille with bad-boy journalist turned Christian moralist Malcolm Muggeridge, thirteen year old Anne-Marie Mallick- the non-professional- treating the assorted show-offs  with detached contempt, asking questions they sidestep or refuse to answer. 

It's as if Miller had gathered his mates together for a lazy summer's afternoon of fun and frolics- and some of them were very famous and some of them weren't.  Great actors of several generations- Gielgud, Redgrave, Sellers- rub shoulders with the Footlights gang.  Keep your eyes peeled and you'll spot a very young Eric Idle in a non-speaking role.

If Julia Margaret Cameron (whose work Miller studied in preparation) could have made a movie it would have looked like this. 

Comments

[setsuled.livejournal.com]

Nice to know there's someone besides me who likes this one. Every time I try showing it to people they get angry with me. But I'll always love it for being the adaption that's tinkered the least with Carroll's dialogue (of the adaptations I've seen). Having great actors speak that dialogue is too rare a treat. Beautifully shot, too, and I like the choice of a sullen Alice. I recommend listening to Miller's DVD commentary if you haven't already. He's very articulate and what he says about his intentions with the film reflected a lot about how I felt the books ought to be adapted.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It's the only adaption I can bear(of the ones I've seen)- the only one that has any claim to be considered a work of art in its own right.

[setsuled.livejournal.com]

My definition of art encompasses both the good and the bad, but certainly it's astonishing how consistently people fail to make good adaptations of Alice books given that there are so many. I do like the visual design of the 1951 Disney film and I think it works as a series of short comedy cartoons, but it fundamentally fails at capturing Alice as a character.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

One of the problems any adaptor has to face is that the books are so very verbal. There's not a lot of action. Mainly the characters just talk (and recite).

Also they're infused with a deep melancholy- which is not what is wanted in a kiddy's film.

I agree about the Disney version. It looks marvellous, but that's just about all it has going for it.