Movie: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

[amedia]

There were some parts of this movie that I liked extremely well, and others that I didn't - overall, I would still say that I enjoyed it quite a lot despite the flaws. Some curious feminist issues going on. (SPOILER ALERT)

Comments

[mellifluous_ink]

The costuming dates the movie pretty precisely, actually. The men are only a little past Regency--maybe a generation or two at most--and the women are not in the bustle era yet, but not quite in the hoop-skirt era either, which puts this before Victoria by a few years. Combined with the fact that trading with China is considered a far-fetched idea, that puts the film squarely in the 1830s, before the First Opium War and Victoria's ascension to the throne.

As far as exploitation, I assumed that being a dreamer, having been to Underland, and also fighting back an oppressive regime in Underland, Alice would of course be more empathic to other cultures.

In re the Jabberwocky--I thought the Jabberwocky itself was a metaphor, not a creature in the sense of having evolved and having a life cycle. It seemed, from the fact that it was a statue come to life/encased in stone, that it was perhaps a personification of the malice and violence and distress produced by Iracebeth's reign, and perhaps shows up whenever there is enough negative energy/emotion around, much like a poltergeist.

[amedia]

As far as exploitation, I assumed that being a dreamer, having been to Underland, and also fighting back an oppressive regime in Underland, Alice would of course be more empathic to other cultures.

So it could be Alice's participation in the introduction of England to China that results in an alternate universe that is more appreciative and less exploitive of diversity.

I have a friend here who does research on trans issues (she's the one who came and talked to my class last semester). I bumped into her yesterday and shared your suggestion for reading the character as a transboy and how much I liked that perspective. Turns out she hadn't seen the movie yet, but now she's planning to!

part 1/2

[mellifluous_ink]

So it could be Alice's participation in the introduction of England to China that results in an alternate universe that is more appreciative and less exploitive of diversity.

I am all about alternate universes. Hell, I've even come up with a whole history of Underland, from Triassic to the present, culturally, naturally, etc. etc. I absolutely agree this makes an alternate universe.

I have a friend here who does research on trans issues (she's the one who came and talked to my class last semester). I bumped into her yesterday and shared your suggestion for reading the character as a transboy and how much I liked that perspective. Turns out she hadn't seen the movie yet, but now she's planning to!

I was really worried about my interpretation, and thought about deleting my post. I just always get scared of saying it, I alwyas think people are going to say 'no it's not!' like they do when I try and tell them I'm a boy. I just get scared to say that, to get excited about 'omg Alice is a boy-like-me!' because... it's just so important to me, the idea that after all these years, after my whole life, there is finally a character--a main character, the hero--who is my gender. I can't even describe it to people, because it's... imagine growing up without your gender ever represented. AT ALL. Not represented negatively, but completely ignored. NO role models, no villains, nothing. You feel invisible, and in my case I didn't even know why I was so distressed and felt so... wrong. And then, to have this just show up? Not only a transboy, not only a fierce and pretty and strong and imaginative warrior--but also Alice? THE Alice, of my childhood? The hero of a fairy tale? It's huge.

I was so relieved when I opened up your reply and realised I wouldn't have to defend what I couldn't find words to explain. Alice just is a boy, I just looked at him and knew that this was a coming-of-age story for a young male warrior, not a woman. This... this story was about someone like me, someone who had been raised not just being someone they're not, but being the wrong gender.

Re: part 1/2

[amedia]

I was really worried about my interpretation, and thought about deleting my post.

I'm SO glad you didn't! Because I hadn't thought of it myself, and it enriches the movie for me.

a fierce and pretty and strong and imaginative warrior [...] a coming-of-age story for a young male warrior

Alice is so *beautiful* in armor, with that golden hair rippling freely over the silver metal - it's a gorgeous, liminal image, and you've helped me find a meaning there that works.

I've been collecting odd editions of Alice in Wonderland since junior high school. At first I picked up anything unusual, including non-Tenniel illustrations, then, as I began to run out of room/money, I decided to focus on unusual texts: adaptations, abridgements, parodies, pastiches, etc. I love to see how people play with and reinvent the story; so often, they'll reinvent Wonderland, but it's not that often they do something radical and exciting with Alice. I enjoyed this movie, but I enjoy it even more now by looking at it through your lens.

edited for HTML fail

[mellifluous_ink]

And on another note, to have the coming-of-age be that of a warrior, with respect and care given to the warrior ethos, the particular attitude of that culture, that was also really encouraging to me. That was telling me, as a small pretty boy, that even boys like that can be a warrior, can take up a sword and slay, and still be the hero. So often it is pounded into your head that to fight at all, against anything, is wrong and makes you a bad person--and heaven forbid you actually take up a sword to do it! And even when it is knights and armour and dragons, it's always the big strong boys that do the fighting, the pretty boys spat upon and told to stay home and just write about the adventures of others, because they're too weak to hold a sword or fight. Alice is a very pretty boy, and dresses in pretty clothes, and yet also learns that wielding a sword is not a bad thing, not a thing left to other 'stronger' people--that's what I saw, not that he was being forced into something else he can't do. He simply kept saying 'I can't, I can't' without any real conviction, because he was raised to think he was weak for... well, whatever reason: being a girl, being a dreamer, whatever it was.

I thought the prophecy thing was more about, 'but we know you can, it is written that you can, that you ARE this strong, and that you ARE a hero that can save people, and stand up against adversity and evil.' and through the story, Alice comes to realise that slaying is not about violence or hate, it is about honour, and love, and that fighting, slaying, being a warrior, going to battle and war, is not always a terrible thing. It is necessary, and it is not just the lesser of two evils, it can be an honourable thing, to have prowess in war. It's an old idea, and one that a modern world usually does not bother to understand any more, so to see it in a film, like this, treated not as something to mock and belittle, but something shining and heroic once more--it was like hearing tales of my friends who are warriors, or stories of Camelot or the heroes of ancient Greece. And more, as I said, it was about a boy like me, and a pretty, delicate boy who did not think he could take up a sword to fight, but found he could and that all his fierceness, boldness, the strength of his character--not physical strength, not a love of violence--was the strength a warrior needed.

I hope when you and your friend see the film again, you'll maybe have a better time, and I can only hope you see the wonderful, positive, encouraging fairy-tale magic that I saw.

[amedia]

all his fierceness, boldness, the strength of his character--not physical strength, not a love of violence--was the strength a warrior needed.

I love this point you make about the strength being strength of character. And the idea of the film depicting battle as something shining and heroic is something I hadn't thought of.

I hope when you and your friend see the film again, you'll maybe have a better time, and I can only hope you see the wonderful, positive, encouraging fairy-tale magic that I saw.

I'm pretty sure she will, now that the idea has been planted - and I definitely know that I will, thanks to your courage and generosity in sharing your insights.

edited to clarify final sentence

further ponderings!

[amedia]

Hope I'm not talking your ear off at this point, but it occurs to me that your reading of Alice also throws the Queens and even the Dormouse into much greater prominence!

If we look at Alice as being cisgendered, it's pretty obvious that she doesn't fit into the role that her mother and social circle are trying to push her into, and it's understandable that she's looking for another way to actualize herself. The movie makes it clear that the choices available to her are all unattractive. Once she's in Underland, though, she encounters powerful women like the Red Queen, the White Queen, and Molly - and she *still* chooses to be actualized as a male instead of finding a way to be powerful as a woman. Hence my disappointment.

BUT - if we look at Alice as a transboy, then the existence of powerful women in Underland helps Alice to recognize, "Hey, wait a minute, it's not just that I don't fit into the meager feminine roles available up there; there are lots more female role models here, and I still don't feel like I fit into any of these patterns. Maybe I need to rebel at a deeper level, not just against the limited roles open to my apparent gender identity, but against that gender identity itself."

Re: further ponderings!

[mellifluous_ink]

OH MY GOD YES THIS IS IT EXACTLY. And is also why I get so frustrated when feminists have told me 'but girls can do anything!' because that is not what it's about at all.

Speaking of gender and roles, whomever is paired with Alice is submissive to Alice, in my head. With Tarrant, or with Stayne, or with anyone--Underlandians see Alice as The Champion, there is no desire, sexual or otherwise, to have the Champion submit. One wouldn't even think of it. With Stayne, it's... well, when Alice is posing as Uum, he's posing as a girl, and my Stayne is super submissive with girls. Especially large ones, due to the macrophilia thing... aaand I could go on and on about sexuality in Underland but anyway, yes. I think Alice posing as a girl was really cool, but he could have--god, my one frustration with Alice is that he didn't take that opportunity to just grab Stayne by the cock and twist him into an ally. I FIND THIS TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE HERO BEHAVIOUR. XD I'm sure no one else does, though.

[amedia]

the 1830s

Hey, this might explain at least one and possibly two other things that I was wondering about...

The original story was published in 1865 after being told to Alice Liddell in 1862. I was wondering why the movie made such a point, early on, of establishing that this movie's Alice was *not* Alice Liddell. Making Alice a different Alice enables the movie to change the timeframe.

Early in the movie, Alice's mother scolds her for not wearing a corset. I was astonished that a young woman of marriageable age would even own a dress that could be worn without a corset. Would this be less of a problem in the 1830's than the 1860's?

[mellifluous_ink]

Early in the movie, Alice's mother scolds her for not wearing a corset. I was astonished that a young woman of marriageable age would even own a dress that could be worn without a corset. Would this be less of a problem in the 1830's than the 1860's?

I would think so, because the Regency, while still corset-wearing, did not have the silhouette so based on the corset. I mean, the dresses looked like nightgowns, one couldn't really tell if a corset was being worn at all. It certainly added to my clue-list of 'this is only shortly after the Regency'. The really insane amounts of prudishness that the Victorians were known for had not quite kicked in, since Victoria came to the throne in 1837 at the age of 18. The 1830s are a sort of grey area, not really the height of the Regency but before Victoria. There was still some of the excess and uncertainty of the Regency, but since there was a definite monarch at this time, there was not as much worry as there had been when mad King George was alive in the 1811-1820 era, which is considered the Regency Proper, if you will.

I''ve grown to like the 1830s for this reason--fashion had not got into hoopskirts and crinolines, and men were still wearing lovely colour and breeches and things, and morals and society still had remnants of the Regency's excess and bawdiness--but the Victorian rigidity of social structure was starting to come forth. I like the dichotomy of the grandparents and parents having grown up during this time of great excess and then struggling to raise their children the opposite. There's layers and layers of stuff you can do with that.