ALICE IN WONDERLAND

New Zealand Listener, Volume 26, Issue 656, 1 February 1952, Page 18

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

(Disney-R.K.O.) O be honest, I dread the thought of reviewing Disney's Alice in Wonderland. I feel I shall certainly be shot at, and probably from more than one direction at once, There are so many ways of looking’ at a film like this. There are those who insist that a film based on this well-known, well-loved book must be a good translation of both Carroll’s story and ‘Tenniel’s illustrations, and there are those who would be satisfied if it were true to the letter and spirit of the story only At the other extreme are some who think the only test is whether or not it’s a good film. I confess I have some sympathy with all of these points of view, though I think the last is this time harder than usual to maintain. What has Disney done about it? Well, for a statt he has taken. some characters and incidents from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and left out others, added something from Through the Looking Glass, and presented the whole in a new order-a sort of Lewis Carroll medley. This will, of course, offend those who believe it impossible to improve on perfection. The second point is that there seems to have been little attempt to follow Tenniel’s idea of Carroll’s creations. Because of the universal popularity of the book and the wide distribution the film is sure to have, I think, a good case could be made out for following Tenniel, though it’s very doubtful, to say the least, whether his drawings ate as well-known today as they used to be. Since seeing the film I’ve browsed through a large bookshop and found a number of different illustrators of Alice. Children seeing the film might already have a mental picture of: the characters, but it’s not at all certain that Tenniel would be its author. * If, going even further, you try to look at this film as a completely new creation from the story up, as I suppose some children will see it, you may get a good deal of amusement from it. It obviously isn’t possible here to take the film: to pieces scene by scene; but I'll admit that I enjoyed some of the characters, like the Caterpillar (the Eastetn music helped) and the Cheshire Cat, The fact that the Tenniel illustrations aren’t the only ones I’ve lived with may account for this tolerance-or lack of taste. | I don’t feel the same big-hearted fellow when it comes to the translation of the story (and specially the spirit of the story) into film. (I see an apparent flaw:in the argument here which sonieone will be quick to point out.) I was irritated from the outset by the songs, which, anyway, fail far short of the best Disney has done. I baulked at some of the spectacular effects and at the passages at dizzy speed. Both of these were part of a strong dream effect, which I frequently felt when seeing the film, but don’t recall from reading the book, It’s trué there were pleasing moments, but I’m sure that even if I had never read Alice I wouldn’t have felt that this was one of Disney’s best. I don’t like to use the word vulgar, though I’m afraid it’s true of parts of the film. Certainly

there isn’t the peculiar charm that I’ve always found in Alice in print. I had thought this film might raise again the query about Disney for Children, and, though I’ve heard no discussion of this, I’m still not completely satisfied that it doesn’t. I’ve heard of one child who, apparently from fear, cried during the screening. My own reactions of horror here and there (for instance, at the baby-like oysters with wrinkled faces climbing out of their shells to be eaten by the Walrus) were probably not of a kind that children would. share. But I’d be interested to hear that I’m wrong. »»