MovieChat Forums > Neco z Alenky (1990) Discussion > This movie is dark, the book is not.

This movie is dark, the book is not.

posted 19 years ago by watchitman
51 replies | jump to latest

I would like to clear up a bit of the nonsense some people have stated in some of the reviews. A couple posters claimed this version of the book is "scary and dark" just like the original Lewis Carroll story. It's clear they haven't actually read the book because there's nothing dark in it – it is a whimsical look at how children perceive the world of adults. How can people, who claim to know what the book is all about, make such incorrect remarks? My guess is that they haven't actually read the book. Here is some evidence that they don't know what they are talking about:

One of the posters mentions Tweedledum and Tweedledee as key elements of the plot. These character are not in “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,” they appear in “Through the Looking Glass.” Whether the sword fighting cards in this movie are supposed to be Tweedledum and Tweedledee is open to debate. He is further confused when he states that the Frog-Footman is supposed to be the Cook from the original story. There was a Frog-Footman in the the book but it is in fact the White Rabbit who steps in for both the Cook and the Duchess in this movie. The poster goes on to state that Alice was arrested and put on trial in the book – this is flat out wrong. The Knave of Hearts is the one on trial and Alice was never arrested.

For people claiming to know what Lewis Carroll really intended, they evidently know very little about his book. The irony is that one of those posters lamented that most people are exposed to "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" through the various movie and T.V. adaptions rather than through reading the story. I think these gothy, pseudo-intellectual types need to stop looking for "darkness" in every piece of art they come across and get their classic literature from the books instead of American McGee.

[–] lilamandas 19 years ago

You show that nonexistant opposition.

[–] markos_seraphim 19 years ago

He showed them who's who and whats what alright.

[–] samshipstone 19 years ago

Right. I take your points.

Now I wish to disagree that there's nothing dark in in the Lewis Carroll story, but in essence (having read the book) I fundamentally agree with you, so in a way i'm defending the opposition. Alice's Adventures In Wonderland is riddled with satirical attacks and humorous logic games, but was NEVER intended to be a dark story. However ...

... much of the book can be read in such a way that they become disturbing. I mean, there is the entrapment in a bewildering and absurd nightmare of sorts, with no "comforting" characters. Instead, the often distressed Alice (see her tears in the room of growing/shrinking) is confronted with individuals who try to destabalise all that is stabalising, through language, through argument, through the warping of her physical reality.

[–] Aidan_Mclaren 18 years ago

You summed up completely what this adaption was trying to do, well done.

[–] wunderzirkus 19 years ago

I have read both "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through The Looking Glass". It is true, I don't think the author wanted to make it a "gothic" story. BUT... I don't get the point... I don't think Jan Svankmajer intented to respect the exact original story... This is his own reinterpration of Carroll's masterpiece. Let me ask you : why do you want it be just like the book?

[–] apatheticagnostic 18 years ago

I don't think he does - I think he just doesn't want other people making false claims about the novel.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] strawberryicecream 19 years ago

I don't know... I was pretty young when I read the book (about 7) and parts of it freaked me out a bit. Especially the woman tossing the baby and the mad hatter. (I might have just been a tad high-strung, though). I guess if he wants to make the film darker, it's fine, definatly better than the syrupy disney version.

[–] davidrulesyou 16 years ago

Is that the reason Hot Topic people and those obsessed with goth and emo stuff like that story, because of those dark elements in the story?

[–] kikyoCE 15 years ago

Whoever thinks Disney Version sucks and this version is better is retarted.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dj-anon 19 years ago

Certainly the book its not scary and dark. Also "Alice in Wonderland" its not the typical story for childrens.
American McGee Alice, was gothic. Neco z Alenky is surrueal and clever, when I saw it with my mom, she laughed because she tought it was cute but twisted, when I saw it with my cousin he tought it was surreal and dark.
Sure the book can be cute or scary for kids, but for adults you realize there is something more on this books, that lets you approach it in so many different ways.

By the way, the statements of those people reviews are obviously wrong. And I understand your point.

[–] Jaco9251 19 years ago

I have yet to see this movie, seeing I was just given word that it's out there, but I have to disagree on one thing. You forgot that words are spoken in ways that you, the reader/viewer/listener, are able to comprehend to the point of which it is your definition they are using throughout.

Simply put, so I don't run on some rant no one wants to look back on, is that Carroll may have not intended the book to be "Dark" but it is in the way it is seen, the perception of the viewer, does it change.
This debate can be easily compared to the original Adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory; Regarding whether or not the movie as a whole was rather "dark" or "twisted".

As I've said, to put it simply, to you it may not be "dark" (then again, this word is defined by yourself, proving the point much more definitive) but to someone else with a slightly different definition of such things may find it as so.

And just to add, if you're writing and wish your story to be portrayed in one way and that way to be "Correct"...you shouldn't, really, be writing at all.
--Personal Opinion, I guess.--

"I have Fought this long for life...To only find Death comes from it..."

[–] wazlthescapegoat 19 years ago

i read both wonderland and looking glass and would say overall i would call looking glass dark, personal opinion, but wonderland still has some cynical, manipulative and violent characteristics, not to mention the drugs, not that there is anything wrong with that. human opinion is subjective, what one person sees as blue and round another could see as red and square. life is what you make it.

[–] ladyoflithium 19 years ago

I've read both Alice's adventures in wonderland AND Through the looking Glass, and I would say that I do find both books a tad on the dark side, though, I have friends who have read both and don't find it in the least bit dark. So I would say, wether Carroll intended it to be dark ( I did a report on the man once. He did have a bit of a dark side to himself) or not, it depends on who's reading it. Your veiw on things and possibly even state of mind may effect wether or not you veiw things as "dark" or not.

[–] joannacdavis 19 years ago

Essentially, this debate is pretty pointless, and it's entirely missed the point. It doesn't matter if the book is scary or if the book is crazy or if the book is "whimsical" or if the book is a gentle lullaby sending children off to sleep pleasantly. I mean, in the first place, we're talking about a novel and a film. These two mediums, however similar they might be in the popular imagination, are really quite unlike one another. One can't expect them to be, in many cases, even successfully compared. As such, "Alice" is a reimagining, if you will, of Carroll's tale; the film's "dark"-ness, or, in more delicate terms, the film's aesthetic has more to do with the director's cultural position than anything else.

Carroll's Alice is an upper-class, over-priveleged school girl, who's got a nanny and a tutor and absent parents (who, we imagine, are too wealthy and droll to be bothered with the life and mind of their child) and her only sibling, that person who typically shares the child's experience with them, is much older than her; in this way, Carroll's text examines that unique subject identity and, as a result, his text encompasses a pretty limited social experience. The kinds of philosophical and intellectual questions that book brings to bear cannot possibly be relevant for everyone in the way they're presented in that text. Anyway, at the core of Carroll's text is an urgent plea for the reader to interpret the meaning of the text in whatever way that reader sees fit -- it really defies summation in that respect, and defies any real understanding. Svankmajer's "Alice" is an attempt to break away from that; the film obviously examines Alice from a completely different social context, and brings a completely different world to bear in so doing. The same core theoretical issues are at stake in both of these texts, but they're explored, of course, in entirely different ways.

Let's just say that the Czech Republic is VASTLY different than Merry Ol' and leave it at that, shall we?

[–] shuvcat-1 19 years ago

I want to buy this movie, purely because of the fact that I'd love to see a version of Alice that *was* a little bit dark, a little bit scary-- just like the book is. Carroll's book has more in common with the less-gruesome Grimm's fairy tales than it does with the Disney version (which in itself is ok, on a purely fluffy level).

I'd still love to see someone, Burton or Gillam or somebody who has never seen the Disney version to come up with an adaptation of Alice that kept all its eerieness, its warpedness, its perversion. No, that doesn't mean making a NC-17 rated version-- just one that doesn't rely wholly on singing and dancing cartoon characters.

[–] gldupre 17 years ago

Tim Burton is, actually!

Well, ça c'est 'The Meaning of Life'.

[–] sbull 19 years ago

I agree with you that the literature is not overtly "dark and scary", but Carroll's critique on language and education is portrayed in such a surreal and chaotic way that, in a sense, I would say that Through the Looking Glass and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland are two of the most disturbing pieces I've ever read. You can call other people's ideas nonsensical, but I definitely see the validity behind their opinions.

As far as the film is concerned, I would say it's a modern and eerie update on the idea that so much in the world is completely arbitrary (much as language, names, titles, are meaningless to many characters in Wonderland or in the Looking Glass world). In my opinion, that sense of complete chaos is the thing that scares me most in this world, more so than special effects or disturbing images on the screen. Those are merely a vehicle for conveying the very dark ideas that originate from Carroll's work.

[–] suchomimus1 19 years ago

watership down now that's a quite freaky film, not the book nor the animated series but the film.

[–] markaragnos 19 years ago

When I saw this flick with my buddy about a year ago, I found it to be a pretty enjoyable piece of cinema. But, when it was over, for a reason we couldn't put our fingers on, we both felt kind of depressed. I think it was the overall bleakness of the film that really differentiated from the books and caused the sort of disturbing aura about it.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] heresymail 19 years ago

Man, talk about hitting the nail on the head. I can't stand the jokes who worship American Mcgee for being "original."

Also, who in the hell would want Tim Burton to touch this story? What is the cliche fascination with defiling innocent stories to mold them into something gothic? American Mcgee did nothing original when he worked for id Software, and he's done nothing since. When have you heard the guy's name besides in a conversation with Alice? How many years ago did that game come out? Nothing else he's done has been a success; Scrapland wasn't even released in the US. lol, and how about his Oz game, right? An evil Wizard of Oz. There's another inventive masterwork. How could the guy even call that game "AMERICAN MCGEE'S Alice"?

Formula for anything American Mcgee: Take one part classic fairy-tale. Add Hot Topic liberally. Mix until you've inspired ten million corny drawings on DeviantArt.

[–] arunningriot 18 years ago

i haven't played the alice game, so i can't comment on it (i don't even know who american mcgee is). however it seems like you interpret darker remakes as novel (as in novelty), gothic, defilement. i personally wouldn't want tim burton to remake this, but i can understand why people would want him to direct his own version. let me reiterate what everyone else said...literature is open for interpretation. many people (including myself) consider this a dark and heavily surreal story. and i guess some people think that tim burton would be able to convey this perfectly.

any piece of literature is open for interpretation. movies create moods, however when you read a story, you create the moods and settings for yourself. that's the beauty of books. david lynch's dune is a great example of this. some people hate this movie because it was too surreal and...dark. i personally love it, and think his adaptation was unique. the lion the witch and the wardrobe is another example. i HATED the movie with a passion, because the book is something far more surreal, violent, and grandiose to me.

movies based on books are always going to piss someone off, because everyone interprets literature differently.

[–] ftomasi 16 years ago

Wow, you seem to know awfully a lot about someone you supposedly despise?Sorry, but I'm an Alice in Wonderland fan and American Mcgee's Alice fan. I'm not saying it's terribly original, but I'm in love with the game's atmosphere, music and yes - Alice. She had a temper of 1966's Alice, opposite of what we're all used to seeing(think Disney). I can see why people are annoyed by"different"Alices, and even if general audience of American's version seem to be 15 year old emo kids, I could care less. I like it, and that's what matters.

Personally, I think Alice books are morbid. Not dark DARK, but morbid. I love Tim Burton too, and believe that he will make a great movie. People should stop being so damn close minded. Not all movies made by books copy them to every single detail.

[–] davidrulesyou 16 years ago

The one thing I'm not happy about Tim Burton's upcoming version of Lewis Carroll's book is that Disney will be releasing it, and I like their 1951 animated cartoon version (it was that film that I started reading Lewis Carroll's two books). I just think Tim Burton for his version wants to do something similar to what he did with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. For your signature there, heresymail, for on American McGhee's Alice will be very much the same with Tim Burton's adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. The book has been gothic ever since American McGhee released his Alice game back in 2000. In fact, a lot of people say that the original books are gothic itself. Tim Burton I have heard in one interview said he hated all other versions (including this 1988 version) because "they are a series of weird events with strange characters and Alice is going through them like some sort of observer." I thought at one point, "isn't the original book similar to that, even though it was written as a political satire?" It's just I do read the book a lot. That's all I have to say.

[–] Eumenides_0 16 years ago

How lucky for us then that Burton has cast a 18-year-old girl as Alice! She can now participate in fascinating, unpredictable activities such as falling in love with Johnny Depp. That's so much closer to Carroll's vision.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] davidrulesyou 16 years ago

Those two look more like they could be father and daughter, because Johnny Depp happens to be the same age as my father, and the girl who is going to be Alice is only one year younger than me. Another thing, Lewis Carroll never really wanted his Alice character to grow up, that's why when he published Through the Looking Glass six years after Alice in Wonderland, Alice is six months older than the previous book.