Alice: Go Through the Looking Glass... and Stay There

I recently watched the new film, Alice Through the Looking Glass with friend of mine, and I thought I'd share some of our insights with you guys.  I mean, near everybody has been talking about this film for a long while now, and probably not everybody has seen it yet, so why not help you guys find out if it's actually worth a watch?

This is a great film!  Disney used his own
sense of creativity, while maintaining a tone
similar to Carrol's books.

Going into the film, I knew it would not be like the Lewis Carroll book, nor would it compare to Disney's 1951 version of Alice's story, which was actually a combination of two of Carroll's tales--Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Personally, I've read Carroll's Wonderland, and after so doing, knew I'd be greatly disappointed by anything that did not properly represent the mystery and intrigue of Carroll's magical land of wonder.  I'll be completely open here: the book just contained so many memorable, silly and absurd poems and jokes that I loved, and is honestly one of the best books I've ever read.  This may make me a bit biased towards the book, though I still appreciate any attempts to recreate the magical world Carroll invented for Alice in Wonderland, as you can't go completely wrong with such well-thought out absurdism.  :)  The fact that I like and appreciate Disney's 1950s version of the story is living proof of my willingness to accept other interpretations of the stories Carroll told.  Then, there is Burton's new version of Through the Looking Glass though...  And I can safely say that it was not because of my biased for the book that I was not a fan of the new film...

In general, the new Tim Burton films about Alice's world really intrigue me because they were clearly filmed under Burton's personal creative license, without a lot of consideration for the integrity of Carroll's original storyline.  In effect, the films separated so much fundamentally from the original books that they seemed like a mere fan fiction that used only some elements of the story, but took advantage of nearly all the characters.  This sort of made the new films a different dimension of their own, or a sort of warped version of Carroll's books.  I don't necessarily think this would offend Carroll, but it does disrupt a lot of the English-ness and the artistry of Carrol's stories, making them more generic Hollywood and completely compliant with American film standards.  

Illustration from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

*SPOILER ALERT!*

If you pay close attention to the premise of Alice Throgh the Looking Glass, you will notice that, rather than having its base in the original book, it chooses its own storyline completely.  In fact, basically the only similarities are the title and the concept of the looking glass.  Okay, normally, I'm not a very intense critic, but I feel this movie merits a great deal of criticism for its need to borrow Carroll's characters and conveniently ditch his story.  This is actually pretty sad because Carroll, I believe, is one of the most talented story tellers in the history of the English language. Even so, I gave Tim Burton's version of Through the Looking Glass a chance to prove itself as a story equal in greatness to Carroll's.  Unfortunately though, the movie just did not have a great storyline; it was cheesy overall and extremely typical of Hollywood storytelling.  That is, it was predictable and so generic that it fell flat.

Interesting that Hatter was the center of so much of the film...  
Burton really went crazy with this one, didn't he?

I'll explain myself a little more here.  You see, the beginning of the film was an unrealistic portrayal of Alice as a ship's captain in the mid-late 1800s, which is not a probable circumstance of that time period. As much as I wish women could have done more to lead things like ships and cities in the 1800s, it was unfortunately and undeniably a man's world. Occasionally, I can live with anachronisms if they're done tactfully and/or they are self-aware, but this was so clearly an unrealistic plug for feminism it was embarrassing to watch... Don't get me wrong, I love me some feminism. However, if you want to have a strong female lead, don't force it, just allow her to be strong in her circumstances and rise above them on her own.  I want to see how women overcame actual cases of oppression in the 1800s if you want to show anything about 1800s feminism!  I know for a fact that many women of the 1800s proved to be strong enough to rise above at least some societal limitations, so why not portray something of that nature instead?  I wasn't quite sure what to make of that part of the film.

I haven't seen this film yet, but I hear from many
sources that it is also an example of Hollywood's 
tendency toward Trend Feminism in film.

In the same breath, the whole ship's captain thing was not even in Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. So, did it even need to be there at all?  Granted, it could possibly be in one of the other short stories Carroll wrote, but why abandon the original story line soooo much that it isn't even Through the Looking Glass any more?  With that, by adding that part, the Burton film played in to what I call "Trend Feminism," which is becoming more and more prominent in films (especially by Disney) today.

What Trend Feminism in Hollywood does is it repeatedly tells us "Look, she is a strong female character! We are feminists and therefore cool!" A disastrous outcome of Trend Feminism is that it does all this without actually allowing the character to excel on her own. Apparently, Hollywood assumes that audiences have become so passive in intellect that we need to be told something rather than shown.  This should not be the case though.  The story should allow the audience to think on their own and draw their own conclusions; it should also give the female lead the opportunity to be a strong woman by her own right and merit.  I mean, every woman has the power to do so! Long story short: I as a feminist see the feminism in the film as trivialized Trend Feminism that was only that--part of a current trend.  

Then, there is the overall story of the film, which I thought was very poorly written.  You see, all it does is scramble itself to pieces while Alice runs from place to place and is often told, "Alice, you are the only one who can save us!"  Seems way too coincidental to me.  Then, there are those two words: "only" and "save."  Is Alice really the only  person who can save the "Underlandians?" Or do they say "only" to make Alice as convenient to the plot as possible?  On that same thread, there were far too many conveniences surrounding Alice for the story to have seemed plausible at all.  Or entertaining for that matter.  The word "save" is also significant because it marks the numerous clichés that build the movie's plot.  I'll talk more about this in a moment.

Illustration from Carroll's Through the Looking Glass

Burton and crew, as artists with creative access to some of the best English literature of the 1800s, could have created a film that was thought-provoking, wonderful, and captivating all at the same time.  That was not the case for this movie though... What had actually happened was Burton unfortunately leaned on Hollywood's crutches of, "Let's just create a hero that everyone must depend on.  Then, let's have them save the day and give the film a happy ending."  I've got two words for you: BOR-ING.  Is another version of "you're the only one that can save us!" particularly necessary or even enjoyable to watch?  In my opinion, this cliché caused the potential for wonder to be robbed from what Through the Looking Glass should have had as a film.  Why is that?  Well, because the movie fell into Hollywood's cookie cutter mold for a generic story.  So, I'd say I agree with the Guardian when they say that this film is deserving of only two stars at most.

Okay, I kiiiinda love this guy, no matter the version of Alice!
I think he raises the cool points of the movie at least a tiny bit.  ^_^

Sure, the film was kinda pretty, interesting to look at, and featured a star-studded cast. At the same time though, it contained pretty standard Computer Generated effects (and I'm getting that from my friend, who is a Computer Science major...) on top of all the other failures of the movie... Gah, so much potential just wasted...  For me, this just speaks further to the fact that, even where the film is somewhat good, it inevitably falls... well, flat.

To sum it up, I really really really wanted to like this film and have it be a staple in my diet of movies that I re-watch.  I mean, the books and the 1950s Disney film are sooo good that I wanted (and actually almost expected) this film to join those works in my own personal "Hall of Fame." After seeing it for myself though, I decided that it was acceptable to see once, but I don't plan on watching it again any time soon.  So what is my recommendation for you? I'd recommend watching the movie once in the cheapest way accessible to you, just for the experience. Who knows, perhaps you will like it better than I did? But, to me, it simply does not have longevity when it comes to great films I want to watch again.  And it certainly was not thought-provoking enough to generate future interest for me as a viewer.

Thanks for reading, Pragmus fans!  Keep rocking our socks and please subscribe to the blog!

Corey Cherrington

(Pragmus Sigma)

Blog and Social Media Administrator

P.S. Here is another good review!  

<<Did you see Burton's version of Through the Looking Glass? Let us know what you thought!  Feel free to leave your comments below.>>