Awesome letter and excellent response! This email / blog exchange is the Armando Galarraga / Jim Joyce reconciliatory hug of film criticism (although I don’t know who pitched a perfect review or who blew a call in this case. The metaphor doesn’t really hold up that well under intense scrutiny, but you get idea).

Tolkien would likely have ridiculed your wish that he had used Eowyn more, but that should remain between you and him. He was a crotchety old man when all’s said and done.

“1. I said Alice “repeatedly winds up nearly or even entirely naked, and spends much of the film in ill-fitting, rather revealing makeshift garb,” which is accurate.”

Sorry, but since when have bared shoulders qualified as “nearly naked”?

“Sorry, but since when have bared shoulders qualified as ‘nearly naked’?”
 
On one occasion, Alice grows to gargantuan proportions, bursting out of her clothes. While she is shot from angles that show only her shoulders, she is entirely naked, as the Red Queen explicitly (and curiously) notes. On at least one other occasion, Alice shrinks away to nothing, leaving her naked amid tent-like heaps of cloth.
 
Several critics noted the undercurrent of sexualization in Alice’s characterization. “The nubile girl is often in an unself-conscious but unmistakable state of dishabille” is a pretty typical comment, from the village Voice’s J. Holberman. Here’s a rather lengthier discussion from Hollywood & Fine’s Marshall Fine:
 

“Alice herself is surprisingly sexualized – not that she’s a naked hottie, but she’s got a nymphet look (with off-the-shoulder gowns barely staying up), when she’s not got up in something that looks like a Fashion Week reject. Again, there’s nothing overtly sexual – and Alice is nearly 20 – but you can’t help feeling that Burton is playing to the dirty old men in the audience.”

 
As regards Alice’s characteristic dress throughout most of the film, I’ve added a second photo above (showing her from the hips up; I don’t have a leg shot). Readers, judge for yourselves.

Dear Mr. Greydanus,

I’m glad we’ve agreed to disagree. I will not withdraw my comments either.
I’m sorry if it appeared that I was giving “rash judgment.” My intention was never to attack your character. I’m sorry you saw it that way. I was merely stating my opinion of your opinion. (Albeit in a very passionate way)
Thanks for your critique on my e-mail’s structure! I will try to work harder on my punctuation! :)

Mary

P.S.- For what it’s worth, my mom is in her mid-forties, and loved the movie too!

Dear Mary,
 
I didn’t think you actually meant to cast aspersions at my character. If I had, I wouldn’t have bothered to respond in this fashion.
 
Whether you (or your mother) and I agree or disagree about this particular movie is not, in my opinion, very important. Every review I write will find some readers who agree and others who disagree. No review in the world will “please” all readers in the sense of reaffirming for them what they already think about the film in question, or would think if they saw it. That’s not what a review is for.
 
Much more important than agreeing or disagreeing with a review, or with anyone’s point of view on anything, is how we encounter other points of view. That’s the more important point of my comments above. Whatever you think of my Alice review, I hope you find something worth considering here.

Alice was a wonderful movie! Johnny and Tim did it again!! Anyone finding fault with the movie has some issues, it was not dark, there was no sex, nudity and barely any violence.  I saw it twice and bought it, kudos to Tim and Johnny~

What do you mean by “has some issues,” Darlene?
 
It sounds like you’re saying “There is only one healthy response to this film, and that’s mine. Anyone with a different take must be unhealthy” (which is what we usually mean by “having issues”). Do you really mean that? Or were you just joking, or had you not thought it through?
 
My objection to this kind of language, which is part of the point of this post, has nothing to do with this one movie or whether anyone liked or disliked it. It could be any movie—it could be one of my favorite movies, A Man for All Seasons, Spirited Away, The Kid Brother, whatever. If someone said, “Anyone finding fault with A Man for All Seasons has issues,” I would object.
 
I won’t say I’ve never indulged in this sort of language myself—but it would have to be a pretty unusual case. I have recently, only half-jokingly, said things like “Everyone should see Babies; if it doesn’t appeal to you, there’s something wrong with you.” But that’s because Babies is pretty much just babies, and human beings are hard-wired by God to love babies. If you don’t enjoy Babies, there’s a good chance you have a problem with babies, either because something is wrong with your hard-wiring, or else because you’ve been infected by the culture of death.
 
But even then I was half joking. If someone said, “I’m pro-family and pro-children, I love babies, but I find fault with Babies for these reasons,” I would give him my thoughtful attention. I would not declare peremptorily that he “has issues.”
 
That kind of rhetoric, if seriously meant, is itself unhealthy. A movie is too big and complicated to declare that all healthy people will find no fault with it. There may be movies that all healthy people will find fault with (an obvious, extreme case being porn), but there are vanishingly few if any movies that all healthy people are bound not to fault.

I guess I didn’t mean it in the literal sense, I just used the phrase, sorry if i offended you.  I myself only enjoy movies that have no sex, nudity or violence in them and this fit the bill.  With all the horrible movies and tv programs today it makes me wonder why some find fault with an innocent movie such as Alice. 

In blogs before today, writers referred to Alice as a feminist and it annoys me.  The movie is just a light hearted version of Through the Looking Glass.  Burton said it would not be dark and Johnny Depp did it for his kids.  I just think it is a refreshing movie and good clean fun.  Not to mention the fact I admire Depp.~

I do not think people who don’t like the movie have issues, but those who look at Alice as a feminist I think do have some problem, shall I say.  I for one am a total non-feminist, totally conservative and 100% pro-life.

I agree that this young person may change her mind about the movie, once she’s an adult. By wait 10, 20 or 30 or more years.  When she’s only 17 she may dislike the movie, or view it from a different mindset. I know myself, even some of my all-time favorites (and that goes for movies AND TV shows) bore me to distraction if I’m not “in the mood”.

As to regard to Alice’s dress-or lack thereof…have you ever noticed that those slinky evening gowns in movies from the 1930’s are VERY revealing (if the actress had the shape that is).  And the violence?  All those “gangster” movies?

My point being, movies haven’t changed THAT much in 70 years…only the degrees of which they provide.

Steve, After rereading your last 2 paragraphs again, I guess u r right, my verbiage on issues and problems may be too cut and dry.
I just wish a lot more attention was given to real problems, like movies that promote drugs, sex, violence etc….

Darlene, no worries, I wasn’t offended! Trust me, I don’t take offense that easily, or even easily at all. :) I’m just trying to promote thoughtful discussion, that’s all.
 
As for movies that promote drugs, sex and violence—I think most Register readers can spot obviously offensive or problematic films without my help. :) I consider my job to focus on movies that Register readers would have some particular interest in, either because of its target audience (e.g., family audiences), or because of its general cultural interest, or because of a particular sort of problematic content that Register readers would be interested in (e.g., anti-Catholic content in movies like Agora.
 
We can disagree about whether Alice is problematic, and that’s fine. But I think it’s more important to try to think thoughtfully about movies like Alice than to warn Register readers about Hot Tub Time Machine. :)
 
LRoy: “As to regard to Alice’s dress-or lack thereof…have you ever noticed that those slinky evening gowns in movies from the 1930’s are VERY revealing (if the actress had the shape that is).  And the violence?  All those “gangster” movies?”
 
True—but did parents back then think of those gangster movies, with their slinky dames and violence and such, as family-friendly fare? Alice in Wonderland is a modern-day counterpart not to, say, The Roaring Twenties, but to The Wizard of Oz (to pick two movies from 1939). Compare the innocence of the portrayal of Dorothy with the understated but definite sexualization of Alice (“I like large women” and all that).

It’s funny that I should happen upon your movie review this morning, since my kids (teenagers) and I (mid-40s) just saw the movie last night.  We all loved it, but you make some valid points that I hadn’t necessarily noticed.  Being a “reformed” feminist (I used to take womens studies classes in college, go to N.O.W. meetings, and work at the women’s resource center on campus), I see the lies that that whole movement is trying to shove down young women’s throats (including now my neices’), and it really angers me.  That said to give you background: I really didn’t see much of a “feminist” in Alice’s character in this movie; just a strong, intelligent woman, but not a particularly defiant one.  I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend this movie to teens, but perhaps if my kids were little, I would feel differently about it.  (I’ve discovered in my “old age” that I really have to have a potential audience in mind while I’m watching the movie in order to judge its appropriateness for that audience.  If I’m not thinking about a movie’s being watched by, say 7-year-olds, and my sister asks if it is appropriate for her 7-year-old daughter, I really would not know because I wasn’t watching it through that lens to begin with.)

Thanks, Amy. Your response to my essay is almost the ideal response I would hope for in a reader who liked the film.
 
Part of my job as a critic, of course, is to think about the appropriateness of a film for all different audiences. Another factor that comes into play here is replay factor. What I mean by that is this. What I consider the feminist agenda of the film is obviously much more evident to a fortysomething critic like me than to a ten-year-old, and it’s quite possible that a ten-year-old who sees the film in the theater will be quite unaffected by it (to the pure all things are pure, and that). But a young girl who owns the DVD and watches the movie a couple dozen times or more as she reaches and goes through adolescence ... I have to say I would worry about that.

Aaaahhh so true Steve, so true about the old time movies! I just bought Alice and I am going to watch it again tonight and look for her dress and the feminist thing going on and I will write back, but I must warn you Steve I am in love with Depp, so my opinion might be a bit slanted. lol

I have to admit that I’m curious enough about “Alice” now reading the positive reviews to check it out at some point (especially if Burton really is pandering to the dirty old man in the audience—Hey! Who are you calling “old”?). It can’t be any worse than the Syfy miniseries, “Alice” which at least featured Colm Meany as the King of Hearts.

Steven,

I appreciate this exchange very much, but ... you wouldn’t take back “one syllable” of your reviews?  You’re an excellent writer, but I’m sure you could finetune your thoughts with further editing and discussion if you had the leisure.

Not that I’d want you to delay posting articles ... I’m just commenting…

Incidentally, there’s a series of young adult novels called “The Looking Glass Wars” that re-imagines the story of Alice and Wonderland as a realistic fantasy in which Alice (or Alyss) is actually from Wonderland (daughter of the White Queen).  But it presents itself as a re-imagining (Peter and the Starcatchers is a similar series), not the original.

This give and take is an excellent example of what comment sections should be.  The comments were all made with clarity and respect even when disagreeing.  The follow-ups were as enlightening as the original post and clarified some issues.  Well-done by all and especially by Steven who took the time to teach, read and teach some more - not just post and walk away!

John M, thanks for this:
 
“I appreciate this exchange very much, but ... you wouldn’t take back “one syllable” of your reviews?  You’re an excellent writer, but I’m sure you could finetune your thoughts with further editing and discussion if you had the leisure.”
 
Yikes! That was a typo. What I meant to write—and believed I had written until I double-checked and discovered that I hadn’t been misread—was “I also would not take back one syllable of my review” (singular, not plural!).
 
That is, the appreciation of some readers for Alice in Wonderland has not caused me to rethink this particular review. It’s certainly the case that I’ve rethought some reviews, and that discussion with others and feedback from readers has contributed to my understanding of many films, and has even at times persuaded me that I was wrong—as I noted in this very blog post.
 
I’ve fixed the typo.

My son just turned 14; I wish he would show some passion about SOMETHING like this young lady has….

Mr. Greydanus, you’ve made several good points in this post but I feel morally obligated to point this out. The book “Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls” is not an “angry feminist work”. It was written by a clinical psychologist, Dr. Mary Pipher, about working with girls who struggled with anorexia, depression, suicide, etc. To compare it with the reimagined dragon-slaying Alice makes no sense; to call it a work of “angry feminism” is grossly inaccurate and misleading. Some parents might have been considering reading the book to learn what their daughters are suffering, until they read this post labelling it an “angry feminist” book. Thank you for allowing me to respond to this article.

Sarah, thanks for your comments. If you reread the paragraph in question, you’ll see that I didn’t call Pipher or her book “angry.” My impression of her work, from what little I know of it (mainly a few references in Christina Hoff Sommers’ The War Against Boys), is that it claims too much in the way of a gender-specific “girl crisis” on too little evidence.
   
Pipher speaks of “girl-poisoning” and a “girl-destroying culture,” citing changing suicide rates among adolescents that she claims demonstrate that “something dramatic is happening to adolescent girls in America.” Sommers argues that Pipher’s statistics are misleading: that whatever suicide rates tell us (and the rates are small) is cause for concern more for boys than girls.
   
But gender feminists (and it’s not just Pipher here, although her book is the most successful), some of them angry, have succeeded in creating an atmosphere of alarm about girls being “short-changed,” “silenced,” driven “underground,” etc.—the “Squelched Girl Syndrome” of movies like Alice in Wonderland and Monsters Vs. Aliens.
   
Boys, meanwhile, are shuffled to the sidelines, presumed to be “privileged” by a patriarchal system, in spite of being more likely to fail at school, less likely to attend or graduate from college, more likely to commit suicide, etc. (Of course, when gender feminists do turn their attention on boys, often their goal seems to be to reeducate them to be more like girls, so perhaps it’s best that they leave them alone. But that’s a whole ‘nother subject.)
   
P.S. See TMC’s comment above, almost eerily apropos. Thanks, TMC.

I appreciate all of this. You know who I am, and I am proud of you. Thank you for your dialogue.

First things first: I have not seen the movie.  From all I have read, both here and elsewhere, and all I have seen of the previews, this movie is to Lewis Carroll what Yoko Ono was to music.  This theme of the “Squelched Girl Syndrome” could not possibly be more tiring.  From shows like Charmed to movies like Monsters vs. Aliens, it seems that Hollywood has zero imagination when it comes to portraying good strong female characters (a la the REAL Alice in Wonderland).  Angry feminism has been overtly on display for years and is now being marketed as product to kids at younger and younger ages. Is it really any wonder why young boys have no sense of direction with this sort of claptrap being shoved in their faces?

Perhaps someone could fill me in. Who is Phil, and why is he so appreciative/proud?

Who I am is of no importance. The person to whom I wrote will understand.

“As iron sharpens iron,
    so one man sharpens another”
      -Proverbs 27:17

This is why I am appreciative/proud.

Phil was writing to me. We are far, but close. Phil, the next time you’re close and close, let me know. It’s been too long. Cheers.

Didn’t mean to stick my nose where it didn’t belong there. I rather thought Phil was a very creative and interesting troll. Sorry. :)

(P.S. - the terrible “fill/Phil” pun wasn’t intended either).

No sweat, Tyler. He was being intriguingly mysterious. FWIW, I can vouch that he’s not a troll ... he’s a giant. :)

I myself enjoyed the movie, but I’ve always been a fan of the sort of kitchy, steampunk feel of Wonderland (and Tim Burton definately nailed that bit). On the hotly debated topic of the movie’s “Society vs. Alice” aspects, I’d argue that a lot of Tim Burton movies are like that. Or at least “Corpse Bride” was (except that movie was terrible). Plus, this *is*, technically, a Disney movie, and the “I don’t fit in and everyone expects me to do/be insert thing here” shtick is almost standard when it comes to female protraginists in said movies. Sad, but true.
Two further thoughts: First, having read the book, I can say that, aside from the whole “going into the battle” thing, I think they casted and scripted Alice almost perfectly; she was (for the most part) the same Alice that first fell down the rabbit hole. Second, I really think the whole “saving Wonderland” thing was less creative liberty, more that the scriptwriters read a LOT of fanfiction before they started working on things. There are so many of these fan-written stories where Alice has to save Wonderland from SOMEthing or another. It’s almost like, “Okay, we’re going to find out how other people thought the book should have gone to make them happy.”
The one thing that really annoyed the heck out of me about the movie (aside from the fact that it’s JabberWOCK not JabberWOCKY) is how the Doormouse was written. Someone seemed to have forgotten that he was narcoleptic and veritably drunk every time he showed up in the book. All I saw was a Wonderlandian Reepacheep. What is up with that?!
But that’s just the writer’s opinoin.

Though I haven’t seen Alice, I’ve read your review, so thanks for your response to Mary.  It’s easy for fans of a film or series, no matter our age but especially when we’re young, to struggle with peaceful, constructive dialogue.  You shared a difficult, but valuable life lesson.

(ironic pedantry with a friendly grin)
@Screech The Mighty: “... it’s JabberWOCK not JabberWOCKY”. Ahem. It’s DORmouse, not DOORmouse. (And, for what it’s worth, it’s REEPIcheep, not REEPAcheep).

@ Tim Golden, the ironic pedantry is totally justified. I thought Reepicheep had an I in there somewhere. And I guess I wasn’t paying as close attention in the book as I could have, of course “dormouse” only has one “o”. *suitably chastised smile* Thank you for pointing out my spelling errors, I guess I stand corrected.

The idea of an arranged marriage in middle or late Victorian England, among genteel but not noble persons, is pretty unlikely. Parents were more likely to forbid a girl to marry X or Y than to command she do so. Heck, that kind of thing was rapidly becoming passe back in Regency days. The Liddells’ section of society never really got into that sort of thing, anyway.

I would say a great deal more, but this commenting system keeps refreshing to a blank page before I can post.

Don’t give me Prince Leopold, either. Having somebody that much higher in social status interested in you pretty much was the kiss of social death, unless you were somebody crazy like the Gunnings. Either you were destined to become his mistress and be cast aside; or you’d be the isolated pawn of everybody in court, because your family wouldn’t be connected enough to help you.

And Leopold in particular was not somebody any self-respecting mama would want connected to her family, hate to say it. And look how he ended up. In the Liddells’ world, where gossip would be the kiss of death to the usual family careers, they would be particularly unlikely to encourage his attentions.

After watching most of Alice again, with the feminist thought in my mind, I didn’t see it. I am used to Victorian novels and many young women do not conform to arranged marriages.  I think some are over thinking Alice.  It was just a Tim Burton-Johnny Depp movie, nothing more.  I think kudos should be given to Burton for not making it dark and keeping it clean.  Alice’s clothes were never scanty, there was no vulgarity i the movie, just good clean fun. 
Alice just seemed like a girl who didn’t want to marry that nerd, hooray for Alice, neither would I. I would have followed the rabbit also.
She was pressured into killing the jabberwock, it was not her idea and she didn’t really want to do it, she just wanted to get home. I can compare this movie to the Wizard of Oz, and she was like Dorothy, just lost and trying to find her way back home.
Again, light entertaining movie, NOTHING feminist. I don’t think we need to over think this particular movie, there are others that would be well worth criticizing.

@screech the mighty, I LOVED ‘Corpse Bride’...Tim Burton is an *Artistic genius*.

SDG, I really love the dialogue you have going here. It’s been fun to read it all, and Alice in Wonderland always sort of annoyed me….(thought the Disney version is tolerable,) I admit I actually never even liked the book all that much, which I always thought was strange on my part, because I really do love fantasy, but AIW was the exception.
But now reading this lively discussion, I HAVE to see Alice.
;p

Great blog!

@mary: I was never able to get into it. I was a fan of “Nightmare Before Christmas”, if it’s any consolation. And I guess “9” TECHNICALLY counts as a Tim Burton movie, even though Shane Ackner created it. I guess anything Tim Burton is either hit or miss for me. BUT that’s just my opinion.

“SDG, I really love the dialogue you have going here.”
 
That’s the best comment I could hope for. That’s exactly what I want to be doing here.
 
FWIW, I very much admire Corpse Bride, and really like The Nightmare Before Christmas as well.
 
While I wouldn’t count 9 as a Burton film, since if you watch Shawn Acker’s original short you see it’s really his film, Burton’s weaknesses as a filmmaker do affect the film, which suggests to me that Acker needed a producer other than Burton to help him flesh out the story.
 
Maureen, thanks very much for your comments. And Darleen, thanks for watching again and commenting again! Cheers.

Ho you are welcome Stephen. I am a huge Tim Burton/Johnny Depp fan, it was no problem for me.
Did you know that Burton is doing “Dark Shadows”, remember the soap it ran in the 60’s and 70’s?  Guess who is playing Barnabas Collins?
You got it Depp!!! Now that I can’t wait for.
Not that I like these vampire movies at all, but Dark Shadows was so cheesy and ridiculous, I loved it.
I hear Burton is going to keep it true to the soap and Depp wants to as well, so it shouldn’t be dark and Depp usually never does any racy scenes.

It kept us all out of trouble because we never wanted detention because it ran at 3:30 and we didn’t want to miss it.  Oh what a trip down memory lane!

Thanks for your article, keep writing and I’ll keep reading and responding~D.Dunn

@Mr. Greydanus: “While I wouldn’t count 9 as a Burton film, since if you watch Shawn Acker’s original short you see it’s really his film, Burton’s weaknesses as a filmmaker do affect the film, which suggests to me that Acker needed a producer other than Burton to help him flesh out the story. ” Agreed. I loved 9 visually, and the idea was sheer brilliance, but the movie was much too short and rushed. It needed another half-hour, and more in-depth explanation. But I still really enjoyed the movie.

SGD and commenters:

Do you think ya’ll could give some lessons in how to comment charitably in the Catholic blogosphere?

I haven’t seen the movie and probably won’t though SDG has been my movie guide for quite some time even if I don’t always agree with him, I do always find something different to think about.

I just had to say what a good conversation!

We just watched this last night and would recommend it for older children.  I can see why Steve would have a problem, or point out, her clothing - he is a man after all.  We did wonder why on earth her clothes didn’t shrink with her but that was it.
Regarding feminist agenda - I saw in the Red Queen a feminist agenda or totalitarian agenda.  I saw in the white queen - to be in her service you had to want to - to love.
There was a reason why I said, let’s wait til your daddy leaves, to watch this as I would place it under a girls night out but there is nothing wrong with that.