Alice in Wonderland is a mixed bag of nuts

Derek Wall

A&E Editor

There is much to like about the film Alice in Wonderland, aesthetically speaking; Tim Burton has added his unique flair to all of Wonderland’s inhabitants, including the Queen of Hearts, the Cheshire Cat, and The Jabberwocky to name a few. The Cheshire Cat especially, and the way he vaporizes in and out of scenes, is particularly breathtaking. If this was a stand-alone film, I might have been thoroughly satisfied.

However, Alice in Wonderland is not a stand-alone film, it is the sequel to Lewis Carroll’s classic novel from 1865, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

And that was one of the first issues with the script, or rather the title. Despite being entitled “Alice in Wonderland,” the title that Carroll’s novel is often nicknamed and the name of the classic Disney cartoon that is based off of said novel, Burton’s “Alice” takes place 13 years after the original story. This would be like titling Spielberg’s sequel of Barrie’s Peter Pan as “Peter Pan,” not “Hook.”

Speaking of Hook, Burton’s Alice draws many parallels to Spielberg’s film. They are both sequels of classic works of children’s literature, for a start, but they also both feature a protagonist that returns to their childhood fantasy world yet cannot recollect their initial visit.

Another issue with the script is that it feels as though Burton’s Alice has a difficult time remembering what exactly it is a sequel to. Whereas Barrie’s Peter Pan focused on the dichotomy between childhood and adulthood, as did Hook but added the additional layer of adult Peter struggling to remember his childhood and the importance of it. Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland” is primarily about language.

Aside from the episodic and often unrelated experiences Alice has in Carroll’s novel, the story offers young readers insight into limericks, wordplay, puns, riddles, and fables. However, none of that was present in Burton’s adaptation. I am not suggesting that the scenes in the film should have been detached and episodic like the book, as I understand that a film needs to have an arc and complete story in order to appeal to an audience, but none of the wordplay found in the original novel was brought forward to the film.

The movie was also plagued by the formulaic staleness that seems to have been haunting Tim Burton lately. Many have commented on the repetitive qualities Burton’s movies have taken on lately. Johnny Depp has appeared in the last four consecutive films by Burton making a grand total of seven appearances in Burton’s entire filmography. Depp is also scheduled to appear in the next film directed by Burton, Dark Shadows. Helena Bonham Carter (also Burton’s wife) has been appearing a bit too regularly in Burton’s film.

Speaking as one who considers himself a true Burton fan, the repetitive nature his films have taken are quite saddening. While growing up, the prospect of a new Burton film being released was akin to being invited to meet with an old insightful friend. The magic and morbid curiosity that was Tim Burton’s trademark was something that I felt spoke to me directly. I recall the sense of wonder that washed over me after completing Edward Scissorhands, the sheer horror that surged through me during Sleepy Hollow, and the dark morbid side of my own sense of humour that Beetlejuice wrung from me.

I still consider myself a Burton fan and I do still look forward to his upcoming features. I hope that Burton returns to a method of experimentation rather than sticking to a successful (or not so successful) formula. The future also foretells that next year Burton will be directing an animated feature film entitled Frankenweenie based on the short film Burton created in 1984.