In the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland, the tone and mood is entirely different than the two texts I analyzed prior to this. In the Disney version, not only does the dialogue create a more friendly tone, but the tone and mood are reflected in the costumes, facial expressions, and overall scenery. Because of the nature of the movie and its animated creation, a kid friendly, softer tone is reflected.
Take for instance Alice’s dress. Unlike Funkmeyer creation of Alice, where she is wearing a dull white, lace like collared dress, the Disney Alice is wearing a bright powder blue and white gown that shines through. The bright dress is then also illuminates Aiice and the other characters larger then life expressions. Juxtaposing this to Funkmeyer’s Alice, there is a clear divide. For instance take the backgrounds of still shots. In a still shot of a character in any scene, the background is made of shades of dark grey and black. The mood that is created is one of solitude and fear. Dissimilar to this, in the Disney version is Alice, any still shot provides contrast, color, and excitement. For instance, in many of the images of Alice, her blue dress is put against another bright color and/or white. This makes the image pop and allows for a more pleasant, happy image. Lastly, the difference in mood is created through the exaggeration of not just the expressions, but the costumes as well. In Funkmeyer, there is very little expression and in the costumes, there is no volume. They are just boring and flat. In the Disney version, most of the costumes are fluffy, bold, and bright. This automatically creates a perpendicular view and feeling for the viewer.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
New Media Alice -Jackson and Noah project
In looking at New Media in relation to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, there is clearly a tradition within music in how it relates to Alice. Throughout many different genres and styles of music, Alice in Wonderland has been used as a blueprint for the expression of many different things for many different artists, including GWAR, Three 6 Mafia, The Beatles, and Pogo. Some artists use media examples of Alice to accompany their own or other people’s music, but in the end, there always is an aim at a desired effect. It would seem the criteria for each example would be that they have honed in on the experience of Carroll’s Wonderland, and furthermore ideas of being lost within it. All artists mentioned have taken the imagery and text of Alice in Wonderland to suit a new story. For example, the metal band GWAR uses the framework of a place like wonderland, a surreal world, for their narrative film “Phallus in Wonderland”. The Beatles had included Lewis Carroll on their album cover for Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club, in order to site an influence for the imagery their music was evoking. A more modern example, Pogo, an electronic musician who uses samples from kids films, utilizes the technology of youuutuuube.com and the Walt Disney film in order to create a experience of Wonderland through different forms of media. It is clear that Carroll’s idea of Wonderland is profound enough to impact those in different mediums to want to create an experience.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Paul - Alice updated
Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland is such a seminal text, it is no wonder that it has been adapted numerous times. Perhaps the most famous adaptation is the 1951 animated feature from Disney. This version combines scenes from Wonderland and its sequel, adding in some musical numbers. There was also a fairly faithful British film adaptation released in 1972. In the 1980s, Czech director Jan Svankmajer released his grim take on the story. Each version features more or less the same events as the others. However, they differ in the way the stories are told. One significant shift between the different versions of Alice in Wonderland is the way the story is framed in reference to reality and also what that reality is.
For instance, the Disney version of the story it is not clear when Alice is awake and when she is asleep until the end. At the beginning of the film, Alice runs away from her sister and chases the white rabbit down the rabbit hole. Because the change is seamless, assuming that a viewer has not read the book and is not familiar with the story, this would be taken as “reality.” Because the bounds of reality within the work have not yet been established, it would be reasonable for the viewer to assume that the events which unfold are real.
The 1972 British version is unique for incorporating some nonfiction elements into the story. This version is framed by Charles Dodgson taking the Liddell sisters out for a picnic. In a voiceover, he talks about telling Alice the Wonderland story. You also hear Dodgson reciting the beginning of the story as Alice lies on the ground. At the end of the film, we see Alice waking up, suggesting the whole thing was a dream. So not only is the fantasy world of Wonderland present along with the film’s reality, it is also shown with the historical reality.
In Jan Svankmajer’s adaptation, it is clear from the beginning that the story is a work of Alice’s imagination. The film begins with Alice and her sister sitting on the bank of a river, with Alice tossing rocks into the water. We then find out that Alice is actually sitting in a dingy apartment with a doll for a sister and a cup of tea instead of a river. Throughout the film, we see Alice’s mouth speaking the non-dialogue portions of the story. The elements of the original Alice in Wonderland are retold in the film using the objects in the room around her. The message here is that the film is the little girl’s reading of Alice in Wonderland filtered through her everyday life.
The Disney and Svankmajer versions have one storytelling element in common, though. At the end of the Disney Alice in Wonderland, the fantasy world that we have accepted as being real is revealed to be a dream when Alice sees herself sleeping. Conversely, the end of Alice, where the white rabbit is missing, causes the viewer to question whether what they just saw actually happened. The 1972 version attempts to do something like this, but the effect is greatly diminished because of the storytelling techniques. Dodgson starts telling the story at the beginning of the film, but it ends with Alice waking up. It is not clear whether the events of the film were the story or Dodgson’s story. Because the events are fantasy either way, we never question what was real. This makes the twist much less effective.
The differences between the reality/fantasy framework speak to the aesthetics of each film. What is interesting about Alice in Wonderland is its blending of real and imaginary. We take the fantasy elements for granted in the Disney adaptation because it is a children’s animated movie that gives itself entirely to the fantasy. One of the most striking characteristics of the 1972 version is its devotion to the original story. This explains why it was framed within historical reality rather than its own fantasy world, eventually leading to the confusing ending. Because it stays faithful to the story, Alice has to wake up at the end, but that conflicts with the reality that the film has laid out. The Svankmajer version asks us to reevaluate what we know about fantasy and reality in ways that the other two adaptations do not. The Disney and 1972 versions seem to be more concerned with telling the story and moving between musical numbers than they do with making the audience think. This is because the first two films were made to be viewed widely by children, not the cineastes that will probably end up seeing Svankmajer’s version.
For instance, the Disney version of the story it is not clear when Alice is awake and when she is asleep until the end. At the beginning of the film, Alice runs away from her sister and chases the white rabbit down the rabbit hole. Because the change is seamless, assuming that a viewer has not read the book and is not familiar with the story, this would be taken as “reality.” Because the bounds of reality within the work have not yet been established, it would be reasonable for the viewer to assume that the events which unfold are real.
The 1972 British version is unique for incorporating some nonfiction elements into the story. This version is framed by Charles Dodgson taking the Liddell sisters out for a picnic. In a voiceover, he talks about telling Alice the Wonderland story. You also hear Dodgson reciting the beginning of the story as Alice lies on the ground. At the end of the film, we see Alice waking up, suggesting the whole thing was a dream. So not only is the fantasy world of Wonderland present along with the film’s reality, it is also shown with the historical reality.
In Jan Svankmajer’s adaptation, it is clear from the beginning that the story is a work of Alice’s imagination. The film begins with Alice and her sister sitting on the bank of a river, with Alice tossing rocks into the water. We then find out that Alice is actually sitting in a dingy apartment with a doll for a sister and a cup of tea instead of a river. Throughout the film, we see Alice’s mouth speaking the non-dialogue portions of the story. The elements of the original Alice in Wonderland are retold in the film using the objects in the room around her. The message here is that the film is the little girl’s reading of Alice in Wonderland filtered through her everyday life.
The Disney and Svankmajer versions have one storytelling element in common, though. At the end of the Disney Alice in Wonderland, the fantasy world that we have accepted as being real is revealed to be a dream when Alice sees herself sleeping. Conversely, the end of Alice, where the white rabbit is missing, causes the viewer to question whether what they just saw actually happened. The 1972 version attempts to do something like this, but the effect is greatly diminished because of the storytelling techniques. Dodgson starts telling the story at the beginning of the film, but it ends with Alice waking up. It is not clear whether the events of the film were the story or Dodgson’s story. Because the events are fantasy either way, we never question what was real. This makes the twist much less effective.
The differences between the reality/fantasy framework speak to the aesthetics of each film. What is interesting about Alice in Wonderland is its blending of real and imaginary. We take the fantasy elements for granted in the Disney adaptation because it is a children’s animated movie that gives itself entirely to the fantasy. One of the most striking characteristics of the 1972 version is its devotion to the original story. This explains why it was framed within historical reality rather than its own fantasy world, eventually leading to the confusing ending. Because it stays faithful to the story, Alice has to wake up at the end, but that conflicts with the reality that the film has laid out. The Svankmajer version asks us to reevaluate what we know about fantasy and reality in ways that the other two adaptations do not. The Disney and 1972 versions seem to be more concerned with telling the story and moving between musical numbers than they do with making the audience think. This is because the first two films were made to be viewed widely by children, not the cineastes that will probably end up seeing Svankmajer’s version.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Paul, Alice Comparison
Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland is such a seminal text, it is no wonder that it has been adapted numerous times. Perhaps the most famous adaptation is the 1951 animated feature from Disney. This version combines scenes from Wonderland and its sequel, adding in some musical numbers. Nearly four decades later, Czech director Jan Svankmajer released his grim take on the story. Both versions feature more or less the same events as the other. However, they differ in the way the stories are told. One significant shift between the different versions of Alice in Wonderland is the way the story is framed in reference to reality.
For instance, the Disney version of the story it is not clear when Alice is awake and when she is asleep until the end. At the beginning of the film, Alice runs away from her sister and chases the white rabbit down the rabbit hole. Assuming that the viewer has not read the book and is not familiar with the story, this would be taken as “reality.” Because the bounds of reality within the work have not yet been established, it would be reasonable for the viewer to assume that the events which unfold are real.
In Jan Svankmajer’s adaptation, it is clear from the beginning that the story is a work of Alice’s imagination. The film begins with Alice and her sister sitting on the bank of a river, with Alice tossing rocks into the water. We then find out that Alice is actually sitting in a dingy apartment with a doll for a sister and a cup of tea instead of a river. Throughout the film, we see Alice’s mouth speaking the non-dialogue portions of the story. The elements of the original Alice in Wonderland are retold in the film using the objects in the room around her. The message here is that the film is the little girl’s reading of Alice in Wonderland filtered through her everyday life.
The two versions have one storytelling element in common, though. At the end of the Disney Alice in Wonderland, the fantasy world that we have accepted as being real is revealed to be a dream when Alice sees herself sleeping. Conversely, the end of Alice, where the white rabbit is missing, causes the viewer to question whether what they just saw actually happened.
The differences between the reality/fantasy framework speak more to the aesthetics of the Svankmajer version that to the Disney one. What is interesting about Alice is its blending of real and imaginary. We take the fantasy elements for granted in the Disney adaptation because it is a children’s animated movie that gives itself entirely to the fantasy. It asks us to reevaluate what we know about fantasy and reality in ways that the Disney version does not. The Disney version seems to be more concerned with telling the story and moving between musical numbers than it does with making the audience think. This is because the Disney film was made to be viewed widely by children, not the cineastes that will probably end up seeing Svankmajer’s version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)