Spring Break Blog: Issues of Ownership
March 8, 2010
It was a Friday evening and I wanted to catch a flick with my boy. Being a fan of the original Alice in Wonderland (and the book itself) I was interested in the new Tim Burton version that was released that day. Instead, I was excited to see Shutter Island that was playing at 6:00. Upon arrival at the ticket office they sadly told me that that specific showing time was canceled and that, get this, I could go into any movie I wanted for FREE due to the inconvenience. Interestingly, Alice in wonderland was playing at that precise time, so I decided to take up the nice movie clerk’s offer. Besides, I had a blog to write on a full length animation which I had specifically intended NOT to write on this movie.
What I want to discuss in this post is the question of ownership. I’m going to argue (and am expecting many of you to disagree) that Tim Burton had no right in spinning this classic into a royal mess. Firstly, Alice (in the original) never had nightmares of Wonderland, but rather created the characters as quirky and amusing alternatives to the world she resided in that consisted of banal lessons and lectures. I think to show Wonderland as a literal nightmare to the children in the audience is twisted and will taint their further perception of the book narrative and original animation.
To go further, I thought that this self-indulgent showcasing of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, and thus giving the Mad Hatter a substantial character that serves as a hero/martyr archetype that may not actually be mad was bothersome. The door mouse was articulate and surprisingly sober, the Chester Cat benevolent, and most dishearteningly the Caterpillar was intuitive and masculine rather than being frantic and flamboyant.
I feel like that if Burton really wanted to create his own world where these character developments and plot lines exist that is fine. But don’t take down a classic while doing it. I know he’s made Disney a lot of money with Pirates of the Caribbean, but I feel like he’s bringing down a classic cell animation just to do one of his typical warped films. I know in class that the original film was “too scary” for children; but this remake was done in frighteningly poor taste.
Commented on Corey (number 15) and Alissa (number 38)
March 10, 2010 at 1:29 am
I think Disney got what they paid for with Burton. The minute you see Tim Burton’s name slapped on a movie, you know what you are getting. Things are going to be twisted, warped, and bent into generally uncomfortable positions. Burton’s forte seems to be turning classics (or I suppose I should just say well known stories) into horrors. It’s what he does, and if anyone expected different, they were asking to be let down.
March 10, 2010 at 1:33 am
[...] commented here and here [...]
March 10, 2010 at 1:37 am
[...] commented here and here [...]
March 11, 2010 at 4:41 am
I was going to watch this movie but haven’t gotten the opportunity yet. Mostly I just wanted to watch the 3D version! I definitely agree with you that when people decide to make movies based off of books they should STICK TO THE AUTHOR’S STORY. They don’t realize that there is a REASON certain stories become bestsellers and classics, the reason being that people actually like the ORIGINAL storyline and characters. Therefore, taking the title for the story and making fans of the story believe that it is coming into movie format–only to completely change the storyline will benefit no one. I was extremely frustrated when this was done with one of my favorite stories “Ella Enchanted,” where the whole plot was pretty much changed, villains were added that weren’t even in the original story, resulting in the story being almost unrecognizable to me. Having said all that, I’m sure Disney’s cel animation also strayed in some aspects from the original novel of “Alice in Wonderland,” or more specifically, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” originally written by Lewis Carroll. I wish authors had more control over the havoc movie makers break over their original stories.