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.

[–] popemyparts 19 years ago

I agree, & I reread both stories recently, it doesn't seem like it would be very hard to just read them so you can get your facts straight. I still very much enjoyed this film though, I think it was a very interesting interpretation. If it were just like the book, I don't think it would have been as interesting, it was very original & I respect that a lot. :)

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Awkward_Dumpling 18 years ago

That is one of my favorite Alice adaptions, and its "darkness" is far from the mass-produced, hot-topic trash that we see so often today. Miller took the social context of the book, and its author, and used them to create a commentary on the Victorian view of childhood. Lewis Carroll was obsessed with childhood. He felt it was a time of clarity and innocence, and mourned the loss of it to his dying day. Miller's minimal use of costumes, his almost complete lack of special effects, and his seltection of black and white film instead of color was groundbreaking in its simplicity. He strayed from the exaggerated, "Disney" mad-ness, and instead created something melancholy, beautiful, and much more subdued. Something very original yet still essentially Carollian.

[–] gldupre 17 years ago

I agree with you. I've just been reading the reviews on here, and a lot of them are going on about how it was "how Carroll intended." The book is full of whimsy and nonsense, and things that could be interpreted as dark by some people(the queen, mostly. But Carroll even treats beheadings a bit silly in the book). The book never becomes out-and-out dark like this movie is. The movie does have the same attitude towards fantasy and surreal goofiness, and it even shares some of satire that the book overflowed with, but it takes it in a completely different direction. The reviewers have already watched the "art film," though, so they might as well go all the way and try to sound like they know what they're talking about. Because only intellectuals watch art films

Don't get me wrong, I like this movie - I love the animation! Hate the lips...but a good, freaky movie overall. And both Wonderland books are two of my favorites of all time. I just don't understand how people can say this is what the original author intended. It demeans Carroll, too. If it's what he intended, don't you think it would have come across in the text?

Well, ça c'est 'The Meaning of Life'.

[–] immortalbeloved0 17 years ago

While in general, The book(s) are light-hearted and a much more fantastical look at the world via the view of a small girl. I do feel there where SOME elements that where a bit 'dark'. However the majority of the book(s) where not. It is VERY easy to take them as dark if you read them already having the preconceived notion that they ARE horribly dark and depressing.

Just like a friend of mine who had read the books BEFORE hearing the rumor of Carroll being a Pedophile, and the other who heard it FIRST was pointing out all these 'overtly sexual themes' with Alice. Which the other friend had not. I had heard of such a rumor before reading the books and still didn't find some overtly sexual theme for the record.

I do not remember exact little details as it was...at least 3-4 years ago I read these. But I agree that the books are over-all lighthearted.

If you go into something, with a preconceived idea of how it will play out, you will automatically find dark and sexual themes. If you go into it without any idea as to how it will play out, you will be able to make a more judgmental opinion then if someone told you "Hey Alice, it's SOOOO dark and emo!"

I do however quite enjoy the darker, and more surreal takes on the book(s) such as this, and the mentioned Alice video game X] though I take them being totally based on the books with a grain of salt and enjoy my entertainment.

[–] ChantsdeMaldoror 16 years ago

I haven't read the books, so I may not be "qualified" to comment on them, but it should be noted that Andre Breton, one of the founders of Surrealism, was inspired enough by Carrol to include excerpts of Alice in his Anthology of Black Humor. I've only read Jabberwocky and the excerpts included in that anthology, but based on the bizarre word games and silly situations it should come as no surprise that those books inspired a lot of Surrealist and Absurdist literature. Anyone familiar with those styles of art will know that the writers/artists/filmmakers generally understand the way the absurd - even things that are goofy - can be made cause unease. I guess my point is that the books were not supposed to fit this superficial "gothic" mould that exists in pop culture, but Carrol evidently understood that that style can create a mood that is jarring and out of control, hence the reason why many readers have walked away with a "scary" interpretation of it.

But joannacdavis hit the nail on the head: Svankmajer wasn't trying to make a faithful adaptation of Wonderland in any way, as a look at any of his other literary adaptations will attest. Svankmajer's films must be understood in the context of both his Czech background and his interest in Surrealism and avant-garde theatre. Plus the fact that relevant film adaptations are rarely completely faithful to source material, especially the older that source material is.

[–] Eumenides_0 16 years ago

André Breton, as founder of Surrealism, is entitled to consider whatever he wants as surrealist. But I think this has led many people to focus solely on Carroll's weirder elements. Svankmajer's clearly one of these people.

But did you know Carroll was a mathematician? His novels show an understanding of logic and self-consistency that far defies the disorder of the surrealists. A lot of people love the weirdness of the novels and draws inspiration from it, but people seldom notice how much sense this novel actually makes.

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

[–] ChantsdeMaldoror 16 years ago

I understand what you mean. There's a lot of focus on what's irrational and disturbing about Carrol's novel, but there are underlying mechanisms based on logic. True indeed.

I think it's rather inaccurate, however, to characterize the work of the Surrealists as simply "disorder." Ultimately, however irrational or dreamlike Surrealist works tended to be, the heart of the matter was to expose the subconscious "reality" behind human behavior. In Breton's mind, Carrol's identity as a mathematician would be all the more important to the appropriation of his works as Surrealist. And not all of the actual Surrealist works were purely irrational: Raymond Roussel's and Marcel Duchamp's writings both feature clever puns and bizarre codes to construct their "madness."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c_demon0 16 years ago

i have read both through the looking glass and wonderland in excess of 300 times. if you think that alice is without darkness then you have read it with the blinkered view that comes from having little to no contact with children. the book represents the way children look at the world and so is blood curdling and cold, stark, bitter, and maddening. just as children see the world.

i work with children and i have heard them construct characters such as "the creepy feet stealing monkey" etc. that really is the world they live in.

there are countless refrences to drugs, death, madness and cruelty throughout the book. it is also filled with goodness and light, but that light is nothing compared to the darkness. your unwillingness to see the darker side of this piece says much more about your own attitudes and mental landscape than that which takes place in the book.
Sankmejer seriously messed with the plot of the book/s, but for my money produced the best adaptation in terms of tone and texture.

perhaps you should judge the book by the book itself, not the works of walt disney?

"I've seen your light. It burns bright forever. No more blue tomorrows... you on high now."

[–] Retinend 15 years ago

[[[QUOTE]]] "i have read both through the looking glass and wonderland in excess of 300 times." [[[ENDQUOTE]]]

Trying a bit too hard, there.

[[[QUOTE]]]] "the book represents the way children look at the world and so is blood curdling and cold, stark, bitter, and maddening. just as children see the world." [[[ENDQUOTE]]]

You are like a parody of the people the OP was talking about. Could you state a single example of cold, stark, bitter, bloodcurdling horror which exists in the Alice books, since you've read them 'in excess of 300 times'?

[[[QUOTE]]] "perhaps you should judge the book by the book itself, not the works of walt disney?" [[[ENDQUOTE]]]

I think that you read the books expecting them to be like this film, and therefore misinterpreted them entirely, which makes this statement quite hypocritical. I also think that you should purchase a book on English grammar.

[–] Eumenides_0 15 years ago

the book represents the way children look at the world and so is blood curdling and cold, stark, bitter, and maddening. just as children see the world.

I don't have any empirical reason to believe that; that doesn't reflect my childhood nor the childhood of anyone I know intimately.

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

[–] Xcalat3 16 years ago

this movie is very dark, that's a good thing

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

[–] MovieMn1982 15 years ago

The books are horrifying.

[–] d-dmytro 15 years ago

The book and the film are both masterpieces - it`s the same.