criterionforum.org

Crispin Glover has been cast.

More casting news including Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar and Michael Sheen as the Chesire Cat.

If they cast aging male actors in ALL of the Wonderland roles, this film is going to have some very creepy undertones.

(I read Michael Sheen as Martin Sheen at first, which made it worse.)

karmajuice wrote:If they cast aging male actors in ALL of the Wonderland roles, this film is going to have some very creepy undertones.

That's an odd thing to say. Have you read the books? If the characters in the film bear any relation to their literary counterparts, there are probably several more "aging male actors" yet to be cast. I don't know Michael Sheen very well, but Crispin Glover and Alan Rickman are very appropriate casting choices for the roles they're playing.

I am very familiar with both books. I'm not saying the actors are badly cast, and probably it's my own sick imagination, but upon hearing about Lee and Rickman and Glover and Sheen I envisioned Rickman looking very phallic as the caterpillar, leering down at Alice, or Sheen in a skin-tight catsuit prancing about, peeping down from trees (this image was considerably more frightening with Martin Sheen occupying the catsuit).

Mostly I was joking. But I don't understand your assertion that the Wonderland roles would require aging male actors. With rare exception (Mad Hatter), the only human characters in Wonderland are the royalty (Kings and Queens, Knights) and characters from poems (Carpenter, Father William). The Caterpillar and Cheschire Cat are just a caterpillar and a cat, so why couldn't an actor of another description play them? The Cheschire Cat in the stage adaptation I mentioned before was a girl. Traditionally, some of these roles are perceived as older men, but there's not necessarily anything in the original text to suggest such a reading.

karmajuice wrote:I am very familiar with both books. I'm not saying the actors are badly cast, and probably it's my own sick imagination, but upon hearing about Lee and Rickman and Glover and Sheen I envisioned Rickman looking very phallic as the caterpillar, leering down at Alice, or Sheen in a skin-tight catsuit prancing about, peeping down from trees (this image was considerably more frightening with Martin Sheen occupying the catsuit).

Mostly I was joking. But I don't understand your assertion that the Wonderland roles would require aging male actors. With rare exception (Mad Hatter), the only human characters in Wonderland are the royalty (Kings and Queens, Knights) and characters from poems (Carpenter, Father William). The Caterpillar and Cheschire Cat are just a caterpillar and a cat, so why couldn't an actor of another description play them? The Cheschire Cat in the stage adaptation I mentioned before was a girl. Traditionally, some of these roles are perceived as older men, but there's not necessarily anything in the original text to suggest such a reading.

Don't discount that Charles Dodgson was himself an old man fond of young girls.

Don't discount that Charles Dodgson was himself an old man fond of young girls.

Yeah, which lends credence to an interpretation of exceeding creepiness.

Although really, I find discussing Dodgson/Carroll (and how his life relates to his work) troublesome, because so much of his life became mythologized over the years.

Mr_sausage wrote:Don't discount that Charles Dodgson was himself an old man fond of young girls.

Stephanie L. Stoffel might disagree there.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:Don't discount that Charles Dodgson was himself an old man fond of young girls.

Stephanie L. Stoffel might disagree there.

I don't know who that is. What would she disagree with, specifically?

She wrote a book called "Lewis Carroll in Wonderland: The Life and Times of Alice and Her Creator" in which she disputes the popular opinion concerning Carroll's relationship with Alice Liddell. Apparently, Carroll's family created some myth of the two to jibe with Victorian child worship. Carroll was actually capable of adult relationships and not some arrested development sort. (A lot of this is also covered more extensively in the book "In the Shadow of the Dreamchild: A New Understanding of Lewis Carroll" by Karoline Leach.) I found it rather interesting because Cohen's biography never really answered my questions about the two and also because Carroll never struck me as a Ruskin sort. I saw that film "Dreamchild" (Ian Holm as Carroll) and it didn't seem like Carroll to me. I know about the photos and those indeed are strange, but like I said the guy hardly comes off like Ruskin. Sausage, you seem like the English Lit guy here so that's why I felt a need to respond. Carroll just seems too eccentric to me to be some sort of deviant.

karmajuice wrote:Traditionally, some of these roles are perceived as older men, but there's not necessarily anything in the original text to suggest such a reading.

I was referring mostly to the notion (which I generally agree with) that many of the characters are parodies of the older, stuffy academics that both Dodgson and the Liddell children would have been mutually familiar with as Henry Liddell's associates. It's true that there's nothing in the text that makes this obvious, but I think it's highly suggested by the way the characters interact with Alice (this is truer of the first book than the second, obviously, because of its origins). I was also thinking of the traditional perception you mentioned.

Nevertheless, I didn't mean to suggest that other roles should be given to aging male actors or that they couldn't go to anyone else, only that I expected they would. Personally, I prefer when filmmakers break from such preconceptions when adapting these works. What I found odd was the suggestion that filling the other roles with aging male actors was somehow unusual. I think I understand your meaning better now, though.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:She wrote a book called "Lewis Carroll in Wonderland: The Life and Times of Alice and Her Creator" in which she disputes the popular opinion concerning Carroll's relationship with Alice Liddell. Apparently, Carroll's family created some myth of the two to jibe with Victorian child worship. Carroll was actually capable of adult relationships and not some arrested development sort. (A lot of this is also covered more extensively in the book "In the Shadow of the Dreamchild: A New Understanding of Lewis Carroll" by Karoline Leach.) I found it rather interesting because Cohen's biography never really answered my questions about the two and also because Carroll never struck me as a Ruskin sort. I saw that film "Dreamchild" (Ian Holm as Carroll) and it didn't seem like Carroll to me. I know about the photos and those indeed are strange, but like I said the guy hardly comes off like Ruskin. Sausage, you seem like the English Lit guy here so that's why I felt a need to respond. Carroll just seems too eccentric to me to be some sort of deviant.

In all fairness I used pretty neutral language. It's indisputable that he was fond of a number of young girls (beyond Liddell), and that he had polite social relations with them and their families. Biographers seem to agree his relationships with them were chaste, and I feel no need to question that. As to his actual sexual proclivities, I don't care to dispute them with anyone.

The subject is probably best left alone; let's keep this thread for discussion of the upcoming movie and/or the books themselves.

Maybe Johnny hadn't gotten into costume yet.

domino harvey wrote:Oh dear God

I hope that was posted in the wrong thread.

domino harvey wrote:Oh dear God

There is not an expression strong enough for such horror! Was that a zombie? I don't remember zombies in the book.

So the old cronies at the Disney board meeting had a first look at footage at the film and it caused them to ooh and aah. Apparently, the early leaks of Johnny Depp in costume are pretty accurate.

Here are the first official stills scanned from the latest issue of Disney magazine.

As much as I love Burton, what I was REALLY hoping for finally were legitimate big-screen adaptations of both Alice's Adventures in Wonderland AND Through the Looking Glass...and What Alice Saw There (as 2 separate films, of course) instead of yet another mash-up of both books as one film. Oh, well. :-k

Do you really think two separate adaptations are necessary? Both books are plotless, meandering mash-ups of random events, organized in a totally arbitrary way. The second book has the semblance of a plot -- Alice's journey to become a queen -- but that's only a loose context that allows the nonsense to unfold. I'd say adaptations are better off fusing elements of each, because the books mesh so well, because neither book has any substantial structure, and because both books have a lot of elements that simply aren't worth exploring.

I won't pass judgment until at least a trailer comes out, but that is horrible. Did I read that right and are they actually trying to put a narrative on this?

ohnotheydidn't wrote:The actor also employs an accent that Zanuck can only describe as indescribable.

Great.

domino harvey wrote:No No No No No No No No No No No

On the plus side, that link just saved me the cost of admission.

.