Warning: May contain spoilers
Three reviews for the price of one.
The 3D
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is the first of the new generation of 3D movies that I've seen and I decided to see it to its best advantage at the local IMAX cinema. Now I know that the live action was shot in 2D and then digitally enhanced to match the full digital rendering of the animated world in which it takes place. What I don't know is whether this accounts for the failings of the presentation. Some bits of the 3D are stunning. The panoramic shots as we race through or soar over Wonderland are terrific and some of the set pieces - falling down the hole, battling the Jabberwocky - are extremely well done. The trouble is that when it's good it's very, very good but when it's bad it's terrible. There are two major things and one minor thing wrong. The minor thing was completely predictable. Time after time action takes place into or out of the screen which would be easier to follow and dramatically better across the screen. It's the use of 3D just because it's there. The other problems are more basic and relate to the actual technique. The digital rendering of the live shots frequently leaves the actual actors looking like 2D figures in a 3D background, where there are multiple depths of action the overall effect is akin to the cardboard cutout Alice puppet theatre that I have in my collection. The final problem, also especially noticeable in the bookend "real world" sections, is that part of the process has been to sharpen the focus of the bit of screen you are supposed to be looking at and blur the focus in any other plane so that you get a foreground of out-of-focus bushes, a hyper-sharp middleground of two people talking and another out-of-focus background of fuzzy, unidentifiable figures. Flickering your eyes to another part of the screen is like looking through a frosted glass window.
So overall, while sections of the 3D are stunning, I can't help thinking it will be better when I get to watch it in good old flat screen 2D.
The film
But is it a good film? Well I will say this, it's quite remarkable how one man's virtue is another vice. Tim Burton has been doing the interview round promoting the film and has said, over and over, that all the previous versions suffer from a lack of narrative, that Alice wanders from one random encounter to the next without any rhyme or reason. He, of course has "put this right" by adding a narrative base to the story. He might actually have got away with it too if the narrative he'd chosen wasn't so familiar and trite that cliché is too inadequate a word. It's a standard good versus evil story with a climactic battle that could just as easily be from Narnia as Wonderland. Bolting on a narrative could only ever have worked if it was something as unusual and quirky as Wonderland itself.
It isn't all bad news though. Against all my expectations everyone puts in a good performance - even Matt Lucas as the Tweedles. The wealth of excellent characterisations culminates in Johnny Depp's brilliantly bonkers Mad Hatter - a character full of wild madness but with moments of great pathos. The ensemble as a whole almost manages to save the film from the weight of it's dull plot and the screenplay's ponderous "be true to yourself" moralising.
Almost but not quite.
The adaptation of the book
It is of course, as Burton keeps endlessly pointing out, not an adaptation of the book. It uses elements of the book to create a sequel of sorts, albeit a sequel to a version of the book that doesn't actually exist. In some respects it is truly excellent. Visually it may be dark but it's certainly in tune with my vision of Lewis Carroll's world. The characters are deliberately not based on previous renderings, showing instead all of the trademark Burton quirkiness which is completely suitable. I loved the look of the film. The problem is that while Burton is good at psychotic quirkiness he doesn't here pull off the whimsy that is required for Carroll. The use of a kind of gibberish German to name Wonderland items - upelkuchen for the cake that makes you grow, fairfarren for "safe journey" and so on - is contrived rather than whimsical. The humour is unforgivably clunky and Carroll's devious and cunning wordplay is entirely absent. Considered as an adaptation it misses the point by a country mile.
So the overall verdict isn't all that favourable. The movie has its good points but the bad points more than balance them out. I enjoyed it but not a much as I should have. The definitive version of Alice still remains to be made.
One last thing
Dear Mister Burton, can you tell Linda Woolverton, the screenwriter, that it's not "borogroves", it's "borogoves".
Three reviews for the price of one.
The 3D
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is the first of the new generation of 3D movies that I've seen and I decided to see it to its best advantage at the local IMAX cinema. Now I know that the live action was shot in 2D and then digitally enhanced to match the full digital rendering of the animated world in which it takes place. What I don't know is whether this accounts for the failings of the presentation. Some bits of the 3D are stunning. The panoramic shots as we race through or soar over Wonderland are terrific and some of the set pieces - falling down the hole, battling the Jabberwocky - are extremely well done. The trouble is that when it's good it's very, very good but when it's bad it's terrible. There are two major things and one minor thing wrong. The minor thing was completely predictable. Time after time action takes place into or out of the screen which would be easier to follow and dramatically better across the screen. It's the use of 3D just because it's there. The other problems are more basic and relate to the actual technique. The digital rendering of the live shots frequently leaves the actual actors looking like 2D figures in a 3D background, where there are multiple depths of action the overall effect is akin to the cardboard cutout Alice puppet theatre that I have in my collection. The final problem, also especially noticeable in the bookend "real world" sections, is that part of the process has been to sharpen the focus of the bit of screen you are supposed to be looking at and blur the focus in any other plane so that you get a foreground of out-of-focus bushes, a hyper-sharp middleground of two people talking and another out-of-focus background of fuzzy, unidentifiable figures. Flickering your eyes to another part of the screen is like looking through a frosted glass window.
So overall, while sections of the 3D are stunning, I can't help thinking it will be better when I get to watch it in good old flat screen 2D.
The film
But is it a good film? Well I will say this, it's quite remarkable how one man's virtue is another vice. Tim Burton has been doing the interview round promoting the film and has said, over and over, that all the previous versions suffer from a lack of narrative, that Alice wanders from one random encounter to the next without any rhyme or reason. He, of course has "put this right" by adding a narrative base to the story. He might actually have got away with it too if the narrative he'd chosen wasn't so familiar and trite that cliché is too inadequate a word. It's a standard good versus evil story with a climactic battle that could just as easily be from Narnia as Wonderland. Bolting on a narrative could only ever have worked if it was something as unusual and quirky as Wonderland itself.
It isn't all bad news though. Against all my expectations everyone puts in a good performance - even Matt Lucas as the Tweedles. The wealth of excellent characterisations culminates in Johnny Depp's brilliantly bonkers Mad Hatter - a character full of wild madness but with moments of great pathos. The ensemble as a whole almost manages to save the film from the weight of it's dull plot and the screenplay's ponderous "be true to yourself" moralising.
Almost but not quite.
The adaptation of the book
It is of course, as Burton keeps endlessly pointing out, not an adaptation of the book. It uses elements of the book to create a sequel of sorts, albeit a sequel to a version of the book that doesn't actually exist. In some respects it is truly excellent. Visually it may be dark but it's certainly in tune with my vision of Lewis Carroll's world. The characters are deliberately not based on previous renderings, showing instead all of the trademark Burton quirkiness which is completely suitable. I loved the look of the film. The problem is that while Burton is good at psychotic quirkiness he doesn't here pull off the whimsy that is required for Carroll. The use of a kind of gibberish German to name Wonderland items - upelkuchen for the cake that makes you grow, fairfarren for "safe journey" and so on - is contrived rather than whimsical. The humour is unforgivably clunky and Carroll's devious and cunning wordplay is entirely absent. Considered as an adaptation it misses the point by a country mile.
So the overall verdict isn't all that favourable. The movie has its good points but the bad points more than balance them out. I enjoyed it but not a much as I should have. The definitive version of Alice still remains to be made.
One last thing
Dear Mister Burton, can you tell Linda Woolverton, the screenwriter, that it's not "borogroves", it's "borogoves".
1 comment:
Here's my comment again, Bob. I just wanted to compliment you on the cogent analysis of the movie. I particularly loved the way you separated the story from the technical aspects of the movie.
I suspect I will not enjoy the technical 3-D aspect of the movie as much as some because that just doesn't grab me like it does others. Besides, you report inconsistency problems with it. However, I do think I will enjoy the creativeness of the movie. You say it isn't as whimsical as it might have been, and that is too bad. Still, I think I might like it more than you seemed to.
This second comment is so much different from the one I wrote yesterday!
Post a Comment