By Nina Kouprianova | 1 Comment |
Print
Through a Feminist Looking Glass
My earliest childhood literary experiences involved the likes of Brothers Grimm, Alexander Afanasiev, Charles Perrault, Astrid Lindgren, Hans Christian Andersen, and, of course, Lewis Carroll. Nowadays, these books are customarily shoved to the back of the children’s section at the bookstore (if they’re stocked at all). (I checked. Many times.) They’ve been displaced by unoriginal self-esteem-building manuals in various literary styles (or lack thereof) and print formats. So, any attempt by pop culture to pay homage to classics is noteworthy.
I also like Tim Burton. He has been accused of “doing the same thing over and over again.” But Burton unique aesthetic always works well with his limited subjects and actors.
Sadly, my optimism about this one was misplaced. Burton’s Alice in Wonderland was a visually stunning shell with mere remnants of the myth at its core. Of course, Walt Disney Pictures has been doing this sort of thing for years. Their mermaid, for instance, has none of the original’s tragedy, while classic Disney films like Bambi are rarely shown, because they do.
Wonderland is a sequel: now 19, this young lady is brought to her surprise engagement party. Confused and unhappy with her suitor, she runs off into the garden to think things over, falls down a rabbit hole, experiences many adventures in Underland, and returns to the party to set things straight.
Visually, Burton maintains all the dark aspects of his other films, whether it comes to the heads floating in the moat around a castle or Jabberwocky’s cut-off tongue. And, there are many references to the mishmash of Wonderland and Looking Glass. The fabulous Queen of Hearts yells, “Off with their heads!” repeatedly and plays croquet with flamingos and hedgehogs. Johnny Depp — the Mad Hatter — is quite good when it comes to Carroll’s tongue-twisting linguistic games. The psychedelic feeling of the books is very believable in the case of the hookah-smoking caterpillar and magic forest mushrooms alike, enhanced by 3D.
And, most important, the Cheshire cat is simply GLORIOUS.
The film does presuppose a prior knowledge of the original texts, which, much like one of the White Queen’s magic potions, is wishful thinking. However, all similarities are, by and large, superficial.
As far as essential content is concerned, the filmmakers use the fact that the original Alice was a brave child and warp it into a Hollywood version of feminism. Many characters in Underland do not recognize Alice, not only because she grew up, but also because she lost her “muchness.” Thus, they insist that she assert her independence, make her own choices, and stop pleasing others, on and on and on. As a result, Lewis Carroll’s stories lose their muchness. (Luckily, Good and Evil are clearly defined in Underland, and Alice’s decisions do end up helping the former side.)
In this attempt to display commercial “girl power,” this project ends up contradicting itself. In the beginning, the filmmakers go out of their way to show the supposed decadence of Victorian society underneath the prim and proper veneer. Young Alice does not want to wear constricting stockings or corsets, let alone be married to a stuck-up nerd, whom she does not like one bit. She is turned off by the idea of marriage further by the fact that she catches her own sister’s husband cheating. And, she is threatened with becoming just like her half-crazed old-maid aunt, lest she accept. Yet in the end, her deceased father’s business partner (and the father of the man whom she just rejected!) invites her to become an apprentice in a sweeping anachronistic move. Emmeline Pankhurst would be jealous. Thus, 19-year-old Alice sails off into another cinematic Happy Ending in order to work on a business venture she herself pioneers — an expansion from Hong Kong into the rest of China.
Seriously?
Disney’s Affirmative Action for girls is not surprising: the film’s audience is predominantly female. This was certainly true of the screening I attended. And, Alice is quite the cash cow: there already exists a proven market for Alice-themed consumption. In Tokyo, one of the most popular attractions for us, North American tourists, is the Alice-meets-Gothic-Lolita cafe. This weekend, tearooms all over town are booked back-to-back. (We called!) Recently, Swarovski unveiled the Alice in Wonderland jewelry collection..
Girls love jewelry. But as a friend of mine aptly noted, she would have preferred to see this movie starting and ending with the rabbit hole, with none of this social commentary.
Alternative Right, March 6, 2010


This is admittedly off topic, but I cannot resist noting that in Symbolic Logic, Lewis Carroll presented premises for sortites, of which one reads:
(1) No Gentiles have hooked noses;
(2) A man who is a good hand at a bargain always makes money;
(3) No Jew is ever a bad hand at a bargain.
The conclusion: “No one with a hooked nose ever fails to make money.”
It goes without saying that no contemporary author on logic would dare to pose such a problem. Jews are extremely sensitive to comments on topics such as their noses and their sharp business practices. Consider this excerpt from the obituary for R. W. Burchfield, an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, in the New York Times:
“In the early 1970′s, a Jewish businessman sued Oxford University Press, seeking an injunction against publishing the derogatory definition [of the word 'Jew']. The suit raised fundamental questions about the lexicographer’s job: should the dictionary-maker be a warder, protecting the public from offensive words? Or should he be a watcher, recording language as it is really used?
“Mr. Burchfield, despite having received a death threat during the trial, argued strenuously for the second position. The British High Court concurred.
“The words stayed in, with Mr. Burchfield ensuring their pedigrees were carefully documented. ‘Jew’ as a term of opprobrium, denoting ‘a grasping or extortionate person,’ is traced in meticulous detail to the early 17th century.
” ‘If you look at the entry in the supplement, it’s enormous, much larger than most entries,” said Jesse Sheidlower, the O.E.D.’s North American editor. ‘And the reason was, he wanted to make absolutely clear that it was not something that was put in because they were anti-Semitic or because they thought it was funny, but that they had a lot of evidence for it.’ “