
Congratulations Disney, You Failed.
November 16, 2009I am certain that many a Disney fan boy or fan girl only opened this post to disagree with me based on the title of the post, but you should keep in mind that this post is more factually oriented than the title suggests and is not simply my ridiculous opinion on why Disney failed in making a decent reproduction of Lewis Carroll’s beloved Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Keep reading fan boys and fan girls, you may find out some surprising things about that movie you loved so very much as a little child.
Almost everyone has heard of, if not seen, at some point in there lives, Disney’s 1951 production Alice in Wonderland, heavily based on Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. It was produced by the famous Walt Disney himself, and that brings me to my first little fact. When the film was first released, it suffered heavily at the box office. This isn’t something that unique, seeing as how many a film fails to meet monetary success. However what is unique is Walt Disney’s reaction to the films monetary failure, as he was quoted saying that Alice was a poor choice for a lead movie character because Alice had no “heart”. I for one, would have to completely agree. If there is one thing about Lewis Carroll’s tale that really puzzles me, it’s the fact that Carroll really left Alice devoid of personality. Personally, I have never really become attached to Alice as a character. In books such as Golding’s Lord of the Flies one feels attached to the boys on the island, especially the protagonist Ralph, and it feels as though he is an actual character, not just a vessel to show us a wonderland. However when one looks at Alice, it seems as though Alice as a character is 90% symbolic of obscure things in Carroll’s personal life and 10% developed character that is just there to show us the quirky oddities of wonderland. Would you, as a viewer, really like the protagonist not to have a fully fleshed out personality? Of course not, and Walt Disney realized this, albeit a little too late. It seems to me as if Alice is an incredibly hard protagonist to feel connected to, even for little kids, and that was possibly one of the reasons the movie was a flop back in its time.
The fact that the movie didn’t make very much money and received ridiculously critical reviews brings me to the second reason why I would deem everyone’s beloved Alice in Wonderland somewhat of an overrated production. When it was initially released at the box office, the film performed horribly, but admittedly later picked up ever so slightly. The movie at the time, frankly, was a flop. In addition to monetary failure, the movie was highly criticized for being an over “Americanized” version of one of the great literary works of England. It was also criticized for being overzealous at times in certain scenes and failing to appeal to two different audiences, something that the book manages to pull off absolutely stunningly.
There are also many animation and technical errors in the movie. Admittedly the movie was made in 1951, but the technology to make these errors non-existent was definitely there, as Walt Disney did not become a success with movies littered with shoddy animation. To start things off, when the movie was first made, Lewis Carroll’s name was misspelled in the opening title scene, which you may realize is quite the mistake. There were also many instances of mis-synced audio, such as the musical number in which Alice sings with flowers, as the flowers would be singing at the time Alice’s mouth would be moving, and this happens once again when Alice is going through one of her infamous size changes, as she can be heard talking to herself, but her mouth isn’t moving. In addition, when Alice first talks to the cards in the garden, the numbers on there persons appear and disappear at random times.
The only reason I am even doing this post is because I was under the impression that Disney’s Alice in Wonderland was a movie that was a mega hit, along the lines of Disney movies such as Peter Pan. When I found out the movie was not the giant success that I had first imagined it to be, I was curious as to why. If you were to ask me, the answer would be based heavily on the fact that Alice isn’t really likable. It’s not that Alice is a unlikable character. It’s just that it seems to me that Carroll seemingly never puts any effort into making the reader feel attached to Alice, and that she is more of a way to show how fantastic wonderland is, which is perfectly fine for a book. However, for a movie, not having a protagonist you want to cheer for often leads to monetary failure, but to give credit where credit is due, the movie has somehow managed to become a classic in the hearts of many, despite the flaws that it brings to the table.
Great initial point with Alice being ultimately hollow and unrelatable; she’s meant to be a ‘mirror’ of the child reading/watching the story, and she’s rather one dimensional and devoid of personality as a result.
I don’t agree with your assessment of the film, however, which I feel is an admirable attempt at transforming Carroll’s twisted tale into a film that retains some of the original’s charm without sacrificing marketability (But it DID indeed flop, as an ‘admirable job’ doesn’t equal perfection; it was still a little too weird for the mainstream culture of the 50s). Disney does make an attempt at making Alice more relatable, evidenced by his choice to use an opening muical number to develop her love of the irrational, but, frankly, it’d be hard to alter her character entirely without violating the source material (Which is arguably often the best choice of action for an adaptation).
Your other quibbles are somewhat frivolous; go onto IMDB (As long as you promise to stay far away from the horror show known as their forums), look up any film, and you’ll be greeted with a myriad of continuity and sound issues. No film is free of problems, be they minor or major. I’ll concede that if it’s TOO prevalent, it can certainly ‘break the illusion’, but Alice is a largely solid effort on the technical side.
So, I love your comment on Alice at the beginning, and I’ll have to agree to disagree in regards to the movie.
I hate to go against anything Disney, but I completely agree with your first point. Throughout the entire story of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland I have never felt any real connection with Alice. If anything she has just frustrated me to no end through the story. The stuff that she does just gets under my skin and makes me mad sometimes. I never really understood why Carroll would create such a character. You would think he would want the main character of his story to be well-loved by everyone.
I also like your second point about how the book can relate to different audiences at the same time where the Disney version is more focused on one age group at a time. It is quite difficult to appeal to many different age groups at a time, but Carroll was definitely able to do that. I will say that a little kid might not want, or be able, to read Alice, but it can be related to by all other ages.
I think a big reason the movie was a success was that it was something new and weird and something no one had seen before. Most people that originally saw the movie (i.e. little kids with their parents)had probably not read the book by Carroll. I think the reason I liked it as a little kid was because it had cool songs in it.
Wow!! You are totally right! I ususlly do feel “attached” to a character, but not Alice.Is it possibly because we never got to see inside Alice? As readers we never really got to know much about her or what she was thinking. She was just a girl who went down a hole and ask a lot of questions. Bad choice on the writers part. I guess that is why it wasn’t a big hit. I love the title of your blog. Although I am a Disney fan, I have to agree with you. It doesn’t seem like Alice in Wonderland was as famous as Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty. I know I saw the movie when I was little. But, I do not remember it. But I do remember seeing other Disney movies. You have a lot of really good points!
Good point. I in no way feel attached to Alice. If she were to be eaten by a buffalo, it would be of no emotional consequence to me. I feel this is sort of a shortcoming on Carroll’s part concerning character development. I agree with Hersh though, because I don’t think Carroll would spend a lot of time describing the reader of the book unless he wanted to seem creepily over-flattering. Could you imagine reading a book where you are the protagonist, and the Author just kept going on and on about you? It would seem creepy to me, knowing what I do about Carroll being a type of semi-pedophile.
That’s something that was on my mind but I couldn’t fully bring it to the forefront of my mind. Alice truly does not have something that stands out as hers. We know from the annotation that Lewis Carroll was in love with the real Alice but what about the Alice he made up? Maybe, because this was a book designed specifically for her, Carroll did not have to give Alice personality for the readers as Alice knows who she is, doesn’t she? Carroll utilized the fact that Alice knew herself to put all these inside jokes and puns that the common reader does not understand, causing the need for the annotation. This does not take away from this rather astute observation. Congratulations