The Rape of Alice in NBC-land
barrett john erickson
The Rape of Alice in NBC-land
The production of "Alice in Wonderland" aired by NBC last night (2/28/99,
Produced by Robert Halmi and adapted for the screen by Peter Barnes)
offers yet another example of how the processes which assure the stability
of the existing order work to counteract anything with the potential to
provoke a dangerous awakening in the sedated masses.
One reason this is especially worth commenting on, is that it is also a
perfect
example of how this process of neutering a potentially radical text happens
without the need of an overt conspiracy. Just not recognizing or caring
about
this potential is sufficient.
The director of this production, Nick Willing, has been quoted as saying: "I
saw this as the first time the story was able to be done properly, because
I've
never been satisfied that the earlier movies were true representations of
the
book..."
In this example, we also clearly see how something may _appear_ surrealist
while serving anti-surrealist ends.
If we allow ourselves to be dazzled by the (very well done) special effects
applied to this falsified "Wonderland" we might easily be blinded as to how
the story has been subtly modified in ways which serve the interests of the
existing order.
Most glaringly, in turning Carroll's story into an instrument of corporate
greed -- the imagination as commodity -- its sense of irreverent (and
surrealist) rebellion, was neutralized by the use of an old cliché from the
bag of screenwriting tricks. By altering what might be called the prolog,
the
entire adventure was reframed from a willful search for the marvelous
(Alice's revolt against boredom), into a reactive attempt to escape the
responsibilities imposed by a reasonable (if frightening) adult world. The
epilog was also changed so as to show her rehabilitated acceptance of that
responsibility. Various other alterations within the script reinforced this
new framework. Even her final "rebellion" (the changing of the song she
sings) fulfills the demand that she submit to her elders (by performing),
thereby wining the acceptance of that adult world. This kind of sanctioned
resistance is no threat. The adults become less odious -- not because they
have changed, but because Alice has accepted her subservient role and
become a "good girl" (within the limits of tolerance they have established).
Contrast this with the original text:
There is no "reasonable adult" presence in Carroll's text -- authority _and
submission to authority_ is invariably portrayed as arbitrary and absurd,
worthy only of contempt. Alice explores boldly, defying authority
wherever encountered and integrating everything her imagination discovers
into an enhanced experience.
And perhaps most important: in what might be called the epilog of Carroll's
text, when Alice retells the adventures of her dream, it provokes in her
sister
a similar, but even more surrealist experience (since she apparently dreams
while awake) of an enhanced reality (which she intuitively prefers over
"dull reality") and positing further such provocations in the future.
In other words, Carroll envisions the beginning of the revolution of the
mind.
Now, imagine how a surrealist might have emphasized _this_ in a screen
treatment.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
elag
to mention 90% of literary films). Another good example of TeeVees
bowdlerization of a great text was the recent "Brave New World", which
was squeezed into the mold of a love story! Anyone who's read it will
realize how ludicrous THAT characterization is.
As for ALICE... I'll stick w/ Svankmajer's version. Come to think of
it... I'd like to see Jane Campion (Sweetie, The Piano) try her hand at ALICE.
Burn Hollywood Burn,
e
barrett john erickson wrote:
> The Rape of Alice in NBC-land
>
> The production of "Alice in Wonderland" aired by NBC last night (2/28/99,
> Produced by Robert Halmi and adapted for the screen by Peter Barnes)
> offers yet another example of how the processes which assure the stability
> of the existing order
(...)
Perceptor
Fascinan
I'm glad I wasn't the only one clenching my fists through the version, and
during the barrage of commercials. I was thinking it was a "directing" of the
imagination. Such re-direction of a childrens' classic is a socializing
process that is very subtle, surreptitious, and quite frankly, deadly to the
spirit of creativity.
Dale Houstman
I watched and while as usual seduced by the "profoundly" effective
(i.e. pandering) effects, I could not agree more with your assessment
without becoming you.
Only Richardson (as the Queen) appears to have noticed that the
adult figures in the tale are either supposed to be dim-witted or
frightening; usually both. There are also insertions of "original"
material (all inferior and attempting in a desperate manner to
heighten the fun); I was leery when the director was quoted as
saying thet had added new material, and that the result was both
"funnier and more frightening" which is (in its own way) true.
The added wackiness in the caucus race scene almost entirely
obscures the point: that political actions won't dry your
tear-stained dress. This scene was unrecognizeable to me. Again
a crippling facility (in this case a technological ease) has overcome
a piece's mindfulness and left us only a decorative animal hide.
Also the reformation of the intent into Alice's learning to perform
is anti-thetical: this approach is seen throughout (at the Tea Party
they suddenly burst into a music hall routine, the Mock Turtle
teaches Alice about show biz); but Alice (in the book) is trying
to escape mere facade, and the restraints of social expectation.
This is probably the greatest failing of the production.
However I felt the lead actress was quite charming, with just
the right amount of level-headedness and brow wrinkling. One
only wished a person closer to the bone would do something
with the material. Or hands off!
DMH
barrett john erickson
>As for ALICE... I'll stick w/ Svankmajer's version.
i haven't had the pleasure of seeing Svankmajer's "ALICE". it did come to
mind as i wrote the last line, but then i forgot to acknowledge it and add a
link:
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank/films/alice/alice.html
it sounds like what one would call a "poetic", rather than a "faithful"
adaptation.
[the entire site is excellent: http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank/ ]
barrett john erickson
>I watched and while as usual seduced by the "profoundly" effective
>(i.e. pandering) effects, I could not agree more with your assessment
>without becoming you.
sounds like another film to me: "Persona" meets "Taking Care of Business"
in "The Bed-Sitting Room".
>I was leery when the director was quoted as
>saying thet had added new material, and that the result was both
>"funnier and more frightening" which is (in its own way) true.
i hadn't heard this. i would've been more prepared if i had (it had been 25
years since last i read Carroll). still, the awareness of something being
very wrong (even beyond the intrusive commercials) was immediate.
i reread the book this morning, but i have a poor memory for TV things
(well, ok, most things) and i'm sure many of the "internal" changes
slithered past me unnoticed. what stood out were the added remarks that
reinforced the false framework of escape/responsibility and a comment made
by the chesire cat (about the croquet match) that struck me as a typically
post-modernist style dismissal of Alice's concern for fairness.
"fairness" is an odd concept to begin with, but as i remember it, the cat's
remark was closer to an assertion that it didn't matter what people do since
they're all cheating.
>Also the reformation of the intent into Alice's learning to perform
>is anti-thetical: this approach is seen throughout (at the Tea Party
>they suddenly burst into a music hall routine, the Mock Turtle
>teaches Alice about show biz); but Alice (in the book) is trying
>to escape mere facade, and the restraints of social expectation.
>This is probably the greatest failing of the production.
indeed. and this also strikes me as the result of a post-modernist
influence.
Brandon J. Freels
As with the rest of the responders I am in complete agreement with you. I
couldn't even watch the whole thing. I wonder if the creators ever "really"
liked Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, because it seems more as if they were
trying to transform it into the Wizard of Oz. Lewis Carroll would have puked
up his boots!!!
---BJF
elag
better suited to material like "Madame Bovary". Basically, he was a
realist colored by his father's impressionism.
Filmmakers (some dead some living) who I'd like to see treat this book:
Melies
Cocteau
Gilliam
Campion
note that all but Campion have used animation and various cinematic
effects extensively in their films.
Once again I implore you to contrast the TeeVee version with
Svankmajer's "Alice". As mentioned by bje, it is not a "faithfull"
adaptation, but rather inspired by Wonderland. Literal adaptations of
literature always seemed rather pointless to me anyway. If the book is
a great book I'd rather read it again than see some hack do an injustice
to my imagination.
Cinema is Cinema and Literature is Literature.
The only Literary films that I generally bother with use the book as a
springboard for an independent vision which is wholly cinematic. A
really great director can pull this off without insulting the work which
inspires him. A recent example is Greenaway's "the Pillow Book" (flawed
as it is) which really strives to expand literary ideas by means which
are uniquely cinematic.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Perceptor wrote:
> I think what it boils down to is that all we needed to make it work as a film
> would be a Jean Renoir to make it in the first place.
Perceptor
Perceptor
> > I think what it boils down to is that all we needed to make it work as a film
> > would be a Jean Renoir to make it in the first place.
I did write Renoir, that was my mistake.
I was thinking of Cocteau's imagery and somehow Renior
poped out. This should serve as a warning not to write while taking codine. Or
maybe it is just me. I'll know better in a few days.
thank you for the correction, I was wrong.
don........
PK
>
> I don't think Renoir could handle this kind of thing. He was much
> better suited to material like "Madame Bovary". Basically, he was a
> realist colored by his father's impressionism.
>
> Filmmakers (some dead some living) who I'd like to see treat this book:
>
> Melies
> Cocteau
> Gilliam
> Campion
Peter Jackson?
Dale Houstman
These are all fine choices I think, if the task must be pursued. Though
(of course) it is too late, another choice would be Welles, who always
was a bit of a child himself. He wouldn't do it of course (too busy not
being allowed to finish "Don Quixote"), but he wouldn't have turned it
into a plea for "on with the show old boot."
But then I'm partial to the poor bastard, and he too would eagerly
join us in saying "Burn Hollywood Burn"...
Unfortunately, if there was to be another version (and there shall
be!) most likely Spielberg would give his "inimitable" touch to the
proceedings. Is is kosher for a Jewish man to be ham-handed?
DMH
elag
>
> elag wrote:
> >
> > I don't think Renoir could handle this kind of thing. He was much
> > better suited to material like "Madame Bovary". Basically, he was a
> > realist colored by his father's impressionism.
> >
> > Filmmakers (some dead some living) who I'd like to see treat this book:
> >
> > Melies
> > Cocteau
> > Gilliam
> > Campion
>
Well, if were going that far afield... why not Tobe Hooper?
rbush
that adaptation. I couldn't quite put a finger on why it was that, though
based on one of my favorite books, using a good cast, effects and actual
dialogue from the book , it had been such a dissappointing show. Thanks for
pointing out the conformist message, which the producers injected,was the
polar ooposite of what the whole view of the book was!