Alice in Wonderland (BBC)

Almost all people are familiar with Walt Disney's take on the Lewis Carroll novel Alice in Wonderland along with the live-action films it inspired. However, BBC created their own version of the story in 1966, just fifteen years after Disney.

The black-and-white film is a faithful adaptation of the novel with one unique twist: humans play the supposedly animal characters (the white rabbit, the dormouse, etc). One problem, though, is that their animal names appear in the credits. Because of it, I could not easily picture all the "animal" characters in my head.

One character who remained an animal, though, was the Chesire Cat. He even spoke to Alice through a mist in the sky during one scene. Plus, Alice carried a baby out of a cottage only to watch it flee as a pig. The woman caring for that baby brags about spanking him, so the pig's escape gave me a sense of relief. I also remember these scenes only from the book; they did not appear in the Disney version.

I appreciate how this version tells Alice in Wonderland in a more realistic manner by making the animals humans; in Disney's live-action version, the animals all look more fit for Dreamworks films. 

Another highlight of the film are the scenes showing typical English country parties. It was also pleasant to watch Alice and her sister walk into the meadow wearing fairy tale-esqe farm girl hats. The hymn that plays during the court scenes is another pleasantry, but it's obviously better played in a church.

Alice, seemingly a preteen or young teenager, has minimal speaking lines; she mainly watches events unfold and switches locations. The Mad Hatter also has a memorable performance, especially when repeatedly chanting "no room" and dancing front-and-back in court. However, the other characters are more forgettable. The only notable thing the Queen of Hearts does is exclaiming "Off with her head!"

Most of the surreal situations Alice finds herself in are fairly entertaining. It was especially fun watching Alice follow the "rabbit" down several hallways and stairways. It was also interesting when Alice gets called "Mary Ann" while inside a house. 

The problem with the story, though, is one common in older movies: the pace can slow down. I found it difficult to retain my interest when Alice had to give a speech, for example. This has to do with the film's faulty faithfulness making it predictable, but high engagement and surprises always make up for it. one of the few surprises occurred with the shore story happening late compared to Disney's version.

One more compliment I have to top this review of, though, are the illustrations that accompany the credits. They look like actual book illustrations, the type I usually find in classic novels. 

While not as memorable as Disney's version (no colors, no songs), the BBC's take on Alice in Wonderland is a short and surreal alternative that will enthrall fans of Gothic Victorian England and classic literature. 

Have you seen the BBC's Alice in Wonderland? What do you think about it?

If Disney's Belle had a Different Story...

Image source: https://wallpapers.com/wallpapers/cartoon-disney-princess-belle-9ovok98aiva8bhoq/download.

I find it fun to think about different directions in which a story could go. Recently, I was thinking up the following scenarios had they happened in Disney's animated Beauty and the Beast:

What if Belle had already moved away from home before the film starts?

The film would have a different opening song. Had there been no patriarchy to hold Belle back, she would've already been living a glorious adventure-walking the streets of Paris, owning a mansion and writing books in it, or even attending a college with a grand library (even though I don't know how likely that would've been).

Meanwhile, her father Maurice would devote his time to his inventions without having to care for Belle. Yet, he would've still gone to the fair and, possibly even, gotten lost at the Beast's castle. Besides, nobody would've come to save him.

If she were to live her adventure, Belle still would visit her father all the time. She would still help him with his inventions and ensure his safety. Even if she could not visit her father, Belle would write letters to him every day, except was there a way to send long-distance letters in eighteenth-century France?

What if Belle told her father she wanted to leave the village?

Belle did not seem to have the courage to tell Maurice about leaving the village due to her fear of patriarchal restriction. If she did, though, her father would've offered to bring Belle to the fair with him. But what about the chickens and goats? Maybe Belle could promise to feed the animals (and fulfill it) before they leave home. 

The fair could've been Maurice's first step in taking Belle on her desired adventure. If his invention won first prize at the fair, Maurice could ask Belle where she wanted to go and take her there. 

Maurice could also give Belle the money to travel on her own. However, it was probably unusual for an unmarried woman to go out alone in eighteenth century France. Even though she would escape Gaston, Belle could face other abusive men trying to restrict her. 

Either way, Belle and Maurice still could've gotten lost at the Beast's castle. In that case, the Beast would capture both of them at once. Her father's presence would comfort Belle while she stayed in a scary environment, but how would it affect her growing relationship with the Beast, who would have no chance to exercise sacrificial love?

Image source: https://wallpapers.com/picture/beauty-and-the-beast-pictures-ic32pmwxps4ka46c.html.

What if Belle lost her father and/or had to live alone?

It depends on how it happens. If Maurice died from an accident on the way to the fair, Belle would have to live alone (at least for a while). She could work at the bookshop to make money for travel, but she still would have to face Gaston. Besides, since Belle wanted acceptance, living alone in a patriarchal village would not be good for her. Prolonged loneliness can lead to serious physical and mental health issues.

Or else, Belle could sell her cottage and run off to Paris for work. Except did women sell property in eighteenth century France? 

If the Beast sends Belle home before she could take her father's place, she would've walked back. Maurice could've died before Belle's return. In that case, Belle would tell the Beast to take her in as revenge for killing her father. Of course, she would also sell her cottage, never having to return to the patriarchal village again. Belle and the Beast could've still fallen in love in that case, but the Beast would begin as a captor and a murderer. God forgives all sinners, but the relationship would be even more controversial.

Either way, Belle would not want to live alone. That is why she was protective of her aging father. Besides, Belle had to speak up for her father whenever the villagers mock him, along with rescuing him from danger. Hence, I like that Belle initially still lived at home; father and daughter needed each other.

What do you think about these theories?

Disney's "Progession" Problem

Once upon a time, movies were praised for their storytelling, artistic innovation, and touching characters. Almost one hundred years later, though, everything changed.

Movies are now primarily praised for female representation and/or racial diversity. This is especially the case with Disney, whose princesses were once criticized for romantic orientations and lacking diversity. Hence, since Tiana in 2009's The Princess and the Frog, Disney has continued to update their princess formula. 

Tiana was Disney's first black princess who opened her own restaurant. Rapunzel had several hobbies and wound up in a realistic romance with Flynn Rider (for this reason, many would consider them to be Disney's best couple). Merida had no love interest, neither did Elsa. Instead, she learned to control her ice powers through sisterly love from Anna, who herself learned not to marry a man she just met. Moana had a realistic body type and saved her people. Warrior Raya was Disney's first East Asian princess. Mirabel was Disney's first female protagonist with glasses. Asha is Disney's first princess with black braids. 

Thanks to all the Disney women mentioned above, their princess lineup has gotten a much better reputation. More people, especially little girls, can see themselves represented in the media and have positive role models to look up to. However, this progression has also created some problems.

For a long time, as previously mentioned, Disney princesses received criticism for giving girls poor role models; they have once presented marriage as a girl's only option. Today, Disney no longer gives their women love interests; the last princess to have one was Anna. Because their princess representation has improved over the past decade, Disney seems afraid to take even the tiniest step back; there are several YouTubers who claim Wish would've been better if Star was Asha's love interest, not just a cute sidekick.

As Disney improved female representation in their animated films, they did the same to a greater level in their live-action remakes. Since Emma Watson made Belle more feminist for 2017's Beauty and the Beast, which also made LeFou gay, Disney remakes inserted politically correct agendas into their once classic stories. Jasmine and Ariel have also become more feminist and Mulan became a perfect "Mary Sue."

For the live-action version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Rachel Zegler made claims about the titular character not being saved by a prince and wanting to become a leader. Not surprisingly, her claims received a lot of backlash from fans. 

That's Disney's "progression problem"; the company now seems to prioritize modeling behavior over high-quality storytelling. I understand why they would: Disney Princess products seem aimed at young girls ages two to six, an age when they cannot separate fantasy from reality. Because a lot of Disney fans are under six, the company seems overly concerned with modeling unacceptable behavior and/or sending unrealistic messages through otherwise high-quality storytelling. 

Here's the thing: while Disney has to market merchandise to make money, do they really need to heavily market to the early childhood set? I think the company would be fine just selling looks of notebooks, clothing, etc. for older kids and up. Plus, children under six should have no more than an hour of screen time, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is best for them not to watch full-length movies so early (at least not often), but the practice is so common I cannot call parents out on it. 

Another problem is that Disney has been praised more for its progressive representation than their innovative storytelling over the past decade; not a single Walt Disney Animation Studios film from the Revival era appears in a general book or list featuring "must-watch" movies. This lack of recognition from the arts department beyond animation and Disney calls for a change.

We live in a fallen world, so it is no surprise innovation has fallen. Many have complained about 3D Disney movies looking "the same" and/or characters having "same-face syndrome" with large eyes. Besides, the reason Wish received mixed reviews is its generic nature (a musical, a sidekick, etc).

Disney has innovated and improved their storytelling throughout its history, from making Snow White and the Seven Dwarves as the first animated film to the Broadway-inspired formula with complex characters that began in The Little Mermaid. The company should definitely continue to improve diversity and female representations, but if Disney makes storytelling innovation their primary priority once again, they can hopefully regain recognition beyond their own company. 

Now I'm handing it over to you: what do you think about Disney's focus on "progression?"