Creativity is like an ocean residing inside everyone, providing an intimate portion of their life force. The whimsy of Alice in Wonderland is an inextricable part of the story that Lewis Carroll concocted nearly a century and a half ago. However, as more adaptions are made from the classic tale this integral element ebbs and flows. The choices made in how images were portrayed, whether music was included, and how certain characters were portrayed compiled to become driving forces in how each version of Alice in Wonderland became more or less whimsical. For every version of Alice in Wonderland, the imagery was carefully produced to convey very specific meanings to the consumers. While the editorial style cartooning that John Tenniel produced
…show more content…
In a sense, Wonderland is very much its characters, but depending on the version of the story presented then Wonderland can be drastically altered. For instance, the 1951 adaptation omits the duchess character and, as a result, her pig/spawn. Without the scene in which Alice receives a baby and later frees a pig, this transformation is lost to the viewer and that layer of fantasy destroyed. In contrast, the 1915 film does include the duchess, but the whimsy of this story is somewhat darker for her presence. This darker fantasy also moves into the visual representation of the characters. As an example, the white rabbit of Young’s film (Figure B) is an imposing costume, larger than Alice, and is almost startling. This costume adds to the somewhat foreboding themes of the film with its drastic presence. In Disney’s 1951 film, the white rabbit (Figure C) is small pudgy and borderline adorable, with a dapper little waistcoat. His persona is in keeping with the generally frivolous nature of the movie. Finally, Burton’s McTwisp (Figure D) looks almost diseased with his red rimmed eyes and lean frame hinting at an animal suffering through no small amount of difficulty surviving. McTwisp’s representation befits the sickly characterization of Wonderland that Burton developed. Each of these representations of the white rabbit directly match the way the fantasy of
In a sense, Wonderland is very much its characters, but depending on the version of the story presented then Wonderland can be drastically altered. For instance, the 1951 adaptation omits the duchess character and, as a result, her pig/spawn. Without the scene in which Alice receives a baby and later frees a pig, this transformation is lost to the viewer and that layer of fantasy destroyed. In contrast, the 1915 film does include the duchess, but the whimsy of this story is somewhat darker for her presence. This darker fantasy also moves into the visual representation of the characters. As an example, the white rabbit of Young’s film (Figure B) is an imposing costume, larger than Alice, and is almost startling. This costume adds to the somewhat foreboding themes of the film with its drastic presence. In Disney’s 1951 film, the white rabbit (Figure C) is small pudgy and borderline adorable, with a dapper little waistcoat. His persona is in keeping with the generally frivolous nature of the movie. Finally, Burton’s McTwisp (Figure D) looks almost diseased with his red rimmed eyes and lean frame hinting at an animal suffering through no small amount of difficulty surviving. McTwisp’s representation befits the sickly characterization of Wonderland that Burton developed. Each of these representations of the white rabbit directly match the way the fantasy of