Although, perhaps, not surprising for an adaptation that begins by misspelling the pen name of "Lewis Carroll," Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" is radically different from Charles Dodgson's Alice books. They share many of the same episodes, but their logic, or lack thereof, for them are contradictory. Classified as part of the literary nonsense genre, the Alice books don't lack in meaning; to the contrary, they're replete in allegory, parody and symbolism--so much so that they continue to bemuse and amuse readers. Even, if you're like me, or the titular Alice, for that matter, you're quite sure you don't grasp all of it. The puns and play with language in itself is a marvel and part of this turning of logic on its head. Even the "Lewis Carroll" pseudonym is a translation and re-translation of Dodgson's name reversed between English and Latin and back. The characters and story of Alice's adventures are secondary, at best, to this nonsense. Then, as if looking at the Alice books through his own looking glass, Walt Disney and company reversed this dichotomy: placing character and story, as well as their presentation, as paramount.
And they did fairly well at it. Despite the misspelled credit, Disney already had a long track record with reworking "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass." In the 1920s, Disney's Alice Comedies featured a live-action girl who entered an animated world inspired by the Wonderland and mirror fantasy land from Carroll. These short films were as much a product of Disney's world, including the reflexivity of Alice visiting a cartoon studio in "Alice's Wonderland" (1923), as the books were of Dodgson's world of mathematics, Oxford and the Liddell family. There are also a couple short cartoons featuring two of Disney's better-known brands bookending the production of this feature: "Thru the Mirror" (1936) with Mickey Mouse and "Donald in Mathmagic Land" (1959) with the duck. Unfortunately, Walt was long-since deceased by the time his company would regurgitate the same material twice over in the 2010s.
Nonetheless, in this version, some of the more-intriguing characters from the books are well developed as humorous personalities instead of mere mouthpieces for Dodgson's riddles. There remains a strong sense of childhood confusion towards the world, the mixing of fantasy and reality, and of growing up (or down, as the case may be). Moreover, it's a pleasantly colorful cartoon--some claim even psychedelic. From the blonde and blue of Alice, to the diverse garden of flowers, and the red-painted white roses, it's a vibrant palette. Some of the imagery is lovely, too, including Alice lying in flowers, reflections in a pond, and her floating exit. The songs, much of them derived from Carroll's poems, are pleasant, too. There's a stronger sense in the film as opposed to the source of plot progression, as Alice follows a Dorothy-esque path through a topsy-turvy world until she wishes to return home, à la "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). And, still, some reviewers absurdly bemoan the lack of character development and pacing.
But, all of that makes for a shallow transmutation of two of the greatest works in literary history--and I'm not talking about L. Frank Baum. It insists logic upon nonsense. There's nothing of Carroll in some of the lyrics, which are entirely superficial (i.e. Alice, or whomever, sings about where she wants to go or how she feels in a straightforward manner). Even those adapted from the books are oft largely rewritten to make more sense for characterization and plot. The nadir is Alice singing while lost in the woods, which has nothing to do with what Carroll wrote. Most of the fun from wordplay is lost. Consequently, the ultimate nonsense here is that by making sense of Alice's adventures, they undo much of its meaning.
And they did fairly well at it. Despite the misspelled credit, Disney already had a long track record with reworking "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass." In the 1920s, Disney's Alice Comedies featured a live-action girl who entered an animated world inspired by the Wonderland and mirror fantasy land from Carroll. These short films were as much a product of Disney's world, including the reflexivity of Alice visiting a cartoon studio in "Alice's Wonderland" (1923), as the books were of Dodgson's world of mathematics, Oxford and the Liddell family. There are also a couple short cartoons featuring two of Disney's better-known brands bookending the production of this feature: "Thru the Mirror" (1936) with Mickey Mouse and "Donald in Mathmagic Land" (1959) with the duck. Unfortunately, Walt was long-since deceased by the time his company would regurgitate the same material twice over in the 2010s.
Nonetheless, in this version, some of the more-intriguing characters from the books are well developed as humorous personalities instead of mere mouthpieces for Dodgson's riddles. There remains a strong sense of childhood confusion towards the world, the mixing of fantasy and reality, and of growing up (or down, as the case may be). Moreover, it's a pleasantly colorful cartoon--some claim even psychedelic. From the blonde and blue of Alice, to the diverse garden of flowers, and the red-painted white roses, it's a vibrant palette. Some of the imagery is lovely, too, including Alice lying in flowers, reflections in a pond, and her floating exit. The songs, much of them derived from Carroll's poems, are pleasant, too. There's a stronger sense in the film as opposed to the source of plot progression, as Alice follows a Dorothy-esque path through a topsy-turvy world until she wishes to return home, à la "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). And, still, some reviewers absurdly bemoan the lack of character development and pacing.
But, all of that makes for a shallow transmutation of two of the greatest works in literary history--and I'm not talking about L. Frank Baum. It insists logic upon nonsense. There's nothing of Carroll in some of the lyrics, which are entirely superficial (i.e. Alice, or whomever, sings about where she wants to go or how she feels in a straightforward manner). Even those adapted from the books are oft largely rewritten to make more sense for characterization and plot. The nadir is Alice singing while lost in the woods, which has nothing to do with what Carroll wrote. Most of the fun from wordplay is lost. Consequently, the ultimate nonsense here is that by making sense of Alice's adventures, they undo much of its meaning.