The Wrong Alice

20 Mar

Through the Looking Glass? Not Quite.

I love it when a movie reviews itself.

Throughout the vast majority of its first three quarters (or possibly even longer), Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland tells you exactly what’s wrong with it. Characters constantly referr to relative unknown Mia Wasikowska as “the wrong Alice”, which is true in more ways than one.

I’ll start right off and get the hyperbole out of the way. Alice in Wonderland is my favorite book; its sequel Through the Looking Glass (which more often than not is bunched together with the original in various film/TV adaptations) is also pretty high up on my list. So, needless to say, my expectations were high. Especially considering the people involved. So when I first heard Burton and crew were not doing a direct adaptation of the novel, but rather a “several years later, Alice returns” sort of story, first pangs of disappointment started creeping through.

Honestly, I don’t get it. It’s been almost 60 years since the Disney Alice, and 11 years since the Hallmark adaptation (the last “loyal” version I can recall). Why are people obsessed with the “Alice returns” storyline? Both Tim Burton’s movie and the recent SyFy channel’s attempt have told this storyline, as well as American McGee’s video game retelling (which is getting a sequel… soonish) and the Frank Beddor’s Looking Glass Wars series of novels. While McGee’s re-imagining of the Alice universe is an exception, the other two fall short of the real deal. I can’t say I’m having problems picturing why. Lewis Carroll’s original story was published over 150 years ago, and it is still one of the most beloved children’s novels to have come out. Why constantly try and break it? Why not put the technology and money to use, recreating a faithful Alice for the 21st century?

There is another problem inherent in writing an original story set in the Alice universe. There are the Alice fanatics (such as myself) who will want all sorts of little references and hints that show that while this is a different story, this is still the Alice world we all know and love. There is also the matter of billing the movie as Alice in Wonderland and not Random Girl in a Weird-as-Shit Place. So the director (or author or whoever) is obligated to put in all these winks and nods to the original, most of which are shoe-horned in and feel forced. So in Tim Burton’s latest you have the Dodo or the talking flowers which show up just for the sake of showing up. TweedleDee and TweedleDum are also a walking, talking plot device, meant to inspire “hey cool, it’s TweedleDee and TweedleDum” thoughts, but really, their part could have been done by anyone.

The other thing relating to the original Alice and an original story in the world of Wonderland is the language. Carroll was clever, damned clever. This movie in no way recreates the witty feel of the original. Occasionally you’ll have character spouting off lines from the original, but they lack context and the delivery is lacking. Depp’s recitation of “Jabberwocky” (one of my all time favorite poems) as a creepy, ominous prophecy just doesn’t work. As well as the myriad of other times bits and pieces of the original’s dialogue make it into the film (“Twinkle, Twinkle Little Bat” and the whole “Queen of Heart’s Tarts” fiasco are special offenders).

So, that is one way in which Tim Burton gets “the wrong Alice”. An original tale, however, can be good (as proven by American McGee’s rendition). However, the entire movie falls apart if your Alice is, well, wrong. Mia Wasikowska is most definitely wrong. Her acting is truly horrible, and I don’t think I spotted a single moment in the movie when she conveyed a single emotion. It’s frustrating, as most of the rest of cast are quite good, in the limited capacity they are offered. Helena Bonham Carter is fantastic as the Queen of Hearts Red Queen (honestly, what’s up with that?), Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter had a couple of great little quirks to it that made the character unique to any other portrayals I’ve seen. Additionally, unlike the latest Burton/Depp/Carter travesty – Sweeny Todd, Depp did something unique to this character. I found his Sweeny Todd to be very much a recycling of Jack Sparrow/Willy Wonka, so I was pleased that he brought something new to the Hatter.

My absolute favorite was Stephen Fry’s Cheshire Cat, who brought something truly special to the character. The cat is often overlooked in Alice, but it really is the character that ties the book together, and Alice’s guide in Wonderland the first time she visits. It’s nice to see Fry give the cat (for some reason, all the characters were given names, but I don’t think anyone really remembers them) both its wild, crazy, mischievous qualities, as well as its more caring and considerate side. All this with only the use of his voice. I really expected to like Alan Rickman’s caterpillar because, let’s face it, it’s the Metatron, but it really wasn’t all that special. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t particularly good, either. It was a standard “wise sage who throws out cryptic shit that turns out to have been the right answer all along” routine. And by-gods if I have to sit through the “caterpillar turns into a butterfly” schtick again, I’m going to throw something at the screen. It’s getting old people, and it’s no longer clever.

Lastly, I saw the movie in 3D, despite my desire. I tried looking for a non-3D version, but there are only two places in the entire country showing the non-3D variety, and those would have been filled with little kids. I honestly don’t see any reason for this movie to be in 3D, as there was utterly nothing unique or special about it added by the 3D. There is this recent trend to stick 3D to any movie that’s coming out, and I really wish it would stop. Those glasses are uncomfortable (especially considering I already wear glasses) and it makes the ticket price higher. I don’t want to sound like a miser, but I’m on a student-budget, I can only afford to go see a movie when it’s a special movie I’ve been looking forward too, so having the ticket cost nearly twice as much, sure isn’t helping.

So, to sum things up, I was not impressed with this lates Alice in Wonderland. I liked the visual design of the movie, Burton always has that going for him, but I would have rather seen this design used for a real Alice movie, rather than some excuse to put all these characters together.

And it’s because Poe wrote on both, Hatter. Because Poe wrote on both.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Mark Your Calendars

6 Mar

December 23rd, 2010.

This is my day. And by “my” day, I mean that I am slotted for that day on the3six5 blog.

The blog is a year-long project, from writers all around the world. Each day is post written by a different person, culminating for a year long exhibition of points of view.

I’m December 23rd. It’s a long way off, but I’m already getting psyched.

Seven Fifty

4 Mar

I signed up for 750words.com.

For those unfamiliar, which included myself up until two days ago, 750 Words is a site which is sort of an online, private journal. It really goes out of its way to encourage you to write everyday (you can guess how much you need to ride to be able to mark a day as “done”). It sends you e-mail reminders (well, you can set it to that), and it tracks your progress, giving you little trophies and a running score. The longer you maintain a streak, the higher your score goes in increments (kind of like bowling, where if you get a strike, it adds your previous scores). The interface is also really clean, there’s no fancy buttons or anything to distract you. Just white space and a blinking cursor. With a word count at the bottom.

Secondly, it’s private. Which means you won’t ever be able to see what I wrote (unless I share it) – there’s plenty of other places online you can go to see my writing (mainly, Writer’s Ink and Half a Picture, if you’re interested). This is for me, it’s a thought buffer, an emotional dump, anything I want to be without the fear of prying eyes.

Thirdly, and probably the best incentive to join is the funky stats they give you over time. The site uses all sorts of sophisticated text analysis tools to give you information about what you write. Besides typing speed, word count and time spent writing, which is standard, it tells you things like what themes you discuss most or what sense you make use of. Do you talk more about the past or the future? About yourself or other people. I’m sure that as the site develops (it’s still pretty new) these things will get even more sophisticated. If the explanation wasn’t clear, here’s an example of a statistic page for my writing yesterday (without the actual writing).

If you’re interested, check the website out. Sign up. It may take a few days, as the website is still fledgling.  Here is the link again, for those who don’t feel like scrolling.

Tags: , , ,

From the Ashes

27 Feb

Those of you who know me, or have been following this blog for some time will be familiar with “Half a Picture”, my old flash fiction blog. About one year ago, I killed “Half a Picture” for a variety of reasons that don’t really matter for the discussion at hand.

The point is, “Half a Picture” is now back, with a facelift. The new fiction-blog will include flash fiction, as before, not exceeding 500 words. The twist is that this time, I am not alone. To start things off, the site will include fiction by myself (posted around the weekend) and the always wonderful Ahuva Goldstand (her stories will be posted around mid-week). We might be joined by others, we might not.

Anyways, my first story, entitled “Tap”, is now up. You are welcomed to check it out, leave a comment, tell your friends.

Enjoy.

Tags: , , , , ,

Writer’s Ink #3

25 Feb

A new issue of Writer’s Ink has been published.

You can find the short story by me, “On Matters of Corruption“, there, along with a plethora of other fantastic short stories and poems.

Did I Fall Asleep? For a Little While…

31 Jan

Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, TINK

The irony, I must say, is delicious.

Little did Joss Whedon know that his little catchphrase will become such an apt description for his latest breakaway hit/flaming wreckage of a show. But Dollhouse can be perfectly described using that little snippet of clever dialogue. The show, which aired its final episode last week, had a bumpy, uneven, harrowing ride through the world of broadcast television suffering threats of cancelation, actual cancelation, resurrection and a final cancelation once more.

I first heard of Dollhouse, back when its inception was first announced, as any other Whedonite would. By stalking Whedon with a telephoto lens reading about on a website. We all know the story, two old friends have lunch, catch up, one gets up to take a leak, thinks of a brilliant show starring the other while answering nature’s call. The rest, is history.

This is where Magic happens

The concept, and this is something I still believe, is brilliant. People wiped of their personalities, for whatever reason, are imprinted with fake yet full personalities complete with abilities as custom made to order what-have-yous. The show was set to explore what makes us us, the true meaning of “personality” and “identity” in a way Buffy could only scratch. Does a person who is a different guy (or girl) every week truly have a self? What happens when the different personalities start clashing (as glitches in the system are the bread and butter of sci-fi tech-oriented shows like this one was shaping up to be). What about the morality of imprinting these living dolls? Is it wrong to people? How would this affect the people in charge? The people being imprinted themselves?

This, too, is a TV actor’s dream come true. I am not a TV actor, but I’m sure playing the same part for several years can get tedious and boring – David Tennant left Doctor Who for these reasons, as did countless others before him. This part, however, lets you be someone else every week. You get to shift things around, you get to completely showcase your range. Unless, of course…

Ahem...

… You have the range of a ferret.

Look, I’m not here to bash Eliza Dushku. I’m really not, I like her and Faith was awesome. But the honest truth is, she has no range. She does one thing. She does it well, but she only does one thing. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Others have made a career out of doing one thing well. The bottom line is – this part was too big for her. The whole point of the Dolls in the Dollhouse was that you become someone else every week. What we were treating to week in and week out is a “someone else” who’s really an ass-kicking bad girl. Sure it may be an ass-kicking bad girl Lawyer, or School Girl or Scuba Instructor, but the bottom line, it was the same character in a different outfit. We basically got Faith/Tru/That chick from Bring It On again.

What makes this so incredibly frustrating is that each and every other actor on the show was good. Especially the other dolls. Take any one of them and put them in the starring role, and this would have been a show worth tuning into. Each one of these actors has proven themselves on more than one occasion that they are capable of shifting personalities, of doing exactly what it is that the show’s concept dictates. This shows, as the show’s best episode were the ones with minimal to no appearances by Eliza Dushku, and you can clearly see that towards the end it wasn’t really about her anymore.

All in all, Dollhouse was a brilliant concept. We got to see that throughout the show, in snippets in between the more mundane “engagement of the week” episodes. The last several episodes, once the show had already been canceled, showed you exactly what kind of toys Whedon had to play around with, and I, for one, would have loved seeing each of these get its due time and space, rather than the rapid-fire burst we got to see them in. Dollhouse will forever be remembered as just that – a fantastic concept that suffered a horrible execution due to a main actress that simply could not hold the show together. It’s a shame, but live and learn I guess.

So long, Dollhouse. I will say you will be missed, but that’s not really the case, is it. Here’s hoping the remake in 25 years will be better.

Tags: , , , ,

How I Learned to Love a Doctor

9 Jan

Doctor Who was never a show that would fare very well under heavy scrutiny. I mean, the show tries to sell us the above tin can with an egg beater and a plunger as the most terrifying thing in the known universe.

But we love it, with all our hearts.

I got into the Doctor Who game pretty late. When I started watching, the fourth season (or “series”, as those zany Brits call it) had just wrapped up, and that year’s Christmas special was right around the corner. Suffice it to say, I had to wait for the Christmas special. I swallowed up those episodes faster than you can *obscure Doctor Who reference* at. The show is just full of so much energy, so much zest, that you take the ridiculousness of some of the episodes and just run with it. It’s show in which you can accept a tin can as a deadly, genocidal being.

Case in point, the episodes which worked best, were always the more low-key ones. The ones not being bombarded with special effects. Episodes like “Midnight” or “Blink” (by far the best episode in the current run), where the Doctor is not facing an army of Cybermen or alien invaders. The grandiose episodes, in particular the finales of each season were always such an over-the-top, hold-your-breath-til-its-over experience, that my initial reaction after watching each is “that was awesome”. Once I calmed down, and started thinking things over, I saw the gaping plot holes, the nonsensical chain of events, the handy coincidences. That doesn’t bother me, though. You’re not supposed to take the Doctor that seriously. The show is fun, it’s always an entertaining 45 minutes, even if the plot doesn’t make much sense. And, most importantly, it’s always energetic. In large part thanks to this guy:

Yes, thanks to Hamlet.

You see, David Tennant is a talented actor. He played one of the toughest Shakespearean roles, in the Royal Shakespeare Company, and had one of the most prominent performances of our time. This is a little known secret in the TV-making community, so don’t go repeating this, but in order to have a good show, you need good actors (I’m looking at you Heroes and FlashForward). Tennant’s sheer energy brought so much to the part, that, while Christopher Eccleston deserves credit where credit’s due, Tennant will go down in history as the man who brought Doctor Who into the mainstream. It’s his ability to convey both the wild-eyed wonderment as well as the sombre, serious, no-nonsense Doctor that made the role perfect.

Alas, Doctor who as we know it is over. David Tennant and Russel T. Davies (showr-unner of the show from it’s return) are off to better pastures. The TARDIS and fate of time of space are left in the hands of Matt Smith and Stephen Moffat (actor and show-runner, respectively). I don’t know enough about Smith to make a prediction, as the only acting of his I’ve seen is the last several seconds of “End of Time” (Tennant’s were better). Moffat, on the other hand, is a different story. I am beyond psyched to hear that he would be the big man calling the shots. Should Smith’s acting be up to par, I daresay we are in for one hell of a ride. Moffat’s Who-writing credits include some of the best episodes the show has seen to date – “The Girl in the Fire Place”, the “Silence in the Library”/”Forest of the Dead” two-parter, and, my personal favorite Doctor Who episode, the afore-mentioned “Blink”. I, for one, am interested to see what a Moffat-penned finale looks like, as I am pretty certain it will be a spectacle to behold. My guess would involve weeping angels, but that’s the topic to a whole different post.

Doctor Who, despite what others may say, is a thrill ride of a show. It proves that you don’t have to be dark and gritty to tell quality stories, and sometimes it is ok to just have fun. I hope the show continues to enjoy a long successful run. All that’s left is to see what lies ahead. So…. Allons-y Geronimo!

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers