Alice in Wonderland (Norman Z McLeod 1933)
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Alice in Wonderland (Norman Z McLeod 1933)
Norman Z McLeod's 1933 adaptation of Alice in Wonderland is coming out from Universal on March 2. Edward Everett Horton as the Mad Hatter? Now that's good casting
- Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Fabulous! I never even heard of the film, but with Horton in THAT role it sounds like a blind buy.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Not to mention Cary Grant as Mock Turtle and WC Fields as Humpty Dumpty! This movie sounds insane in a good way
- Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Terrific! I caught this several years ago on Turner Classic Movies (I don't believe they've shown it since), and it's pretty...out there. As many have said before, most of the actors (like Grant) are unrecognizable behind their Disney Land-esqe masks and costumes, but there's a lot to enjoy about this somewhat over-the-top affair.
- Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933)
Tentative artwork, courtesy of ClassicFlix.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
I just hope Universal doesn't find a way to screw this up too.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Hilarious-- they create box art that looks so animated that they're forced to write "the LIVE ACTION classic.."
They way they rendered it it looks like the half-animated, half-live action Czech-Soviet classic "A Deadly Invention."
The film actually looks pretty damned cool:
They way they rendered it it looks like the half-animated, half-live action Czech-Soviet classic "A Deadly Invention."
The film actually looks pretty damned cool:
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
...and Gary Cooper as the White Knight, Charlie Ruggles as March Hare, and a Walrus and Carpenter sequence animated by the Max Fleischer Studios.domino harvey wrote:Not to mention Cary Grant as Mock Turtle and WC Fields as Humpty Dumpty! This movie sounds insane in a good way
With screenplay by Joe Mankiewicz and William Cameron Menzies!
Here's the credits sequence (along with the rest of the film, if you like) at YouTube.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Charlie Ruggles makes me ill. After a long, Ruggles-free stretch, I watched a nice clean print of Murders In The Zoo which I hadn;t seen inna dogs age... and christ the man causes my bones to break out in hairline fractures, and my ears to poof smoke.
"Put down that hatchet NOW, Herr Schreck.. you will NOT run manic up and down 5th Avenue in your bare feet swinging that thing... rather, you will turn OFF the movie NOW."
"Put down that hatchet NOW, Herr Schreck.. you will NOT run manic up and down 5th Avenue in your bare feet swinging that thing... rather, you will turn OFF the movie NOW."
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Any word on whether this will be the original 90 minute version, or the recut 77 minute version?
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
77 minutes version
- Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Wow, what's with all the Ruggles hate? In addition to Bringing Up Baby, I thought he was very funny with Edward Everett Horton in Trouble in Paradise.
- solaris72
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
This looks awesome.
Are remakes our best hope for more classic film releases? We've been seeing a lot of old Sherlock Holmes movies released in the past couple of months. I'm not really complaining, just happy to have this stuff released at all, but it's interesting that that's how things seem to be going.
Are remakes our best hope for more classic film releases? We've been seeing a lot of old Sherlock Holmes movies released in the past couple of months. I'm not really complaining, just happy to have this stuff released at all, but it's interesting that that's how things seem to be going.
- Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Whenever a remake of a classic film appears, you can usually expect the studios to lavish some sort of special treatment on the original to cash in. It's great for those of us who want to see the original, but at the same time it's a shame the originals can't garner equal treatment on their own. Let's just be glad this wasn't relegated to VOD.solaris72 wrote:Are remakes our best hope for more classic film releases?
In addition to this version, Warner Brothers is also re-releasing the 1966 BBC adaptation of Alice. Now if only someone would release a good edition of the 1972 Fiona Fullerton musical...
- Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Makes me really sad to hear that, but good that you at least mention "Trouble in Paradise" (haven't seen "Summer Storm"). But what about "Gay Divorcee" and "Top Hat"? Or "The Merry Widow"? Sure, he's regularly cast as a dolt, but he plays these parts with a visible delight in this doltishness and with such charm that I can't help getting in a good mood everytime he appears on screen (not laughing at him, but rather being delighted by the wittiness he brings to these roles). Have just watched that brief excerpt from "In Caliente" on the Busby Berkeley Collection extra disc... another exceedingly silly but utterly nice moment.david hare wrote:Well, Horton also induces teeth grinding, diarrhoea and skin rashes in me.
- Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
I see what you mean, but I wonder whether this is just our modern reaction to it. Recently I gave the Korda/Powell version of "The Thief of Bagdad" to a friend of mine who had never seen that film (or something like "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "The Sea Hawk") before. While he loved that film, unsurprisingly, he still had the impression that it looked like a postmodern and very camp or gay parody of some other, 'serious' films of the time. Now, he of course knew that this wouldn't be the case, but it somehow made me think about whether the audience of the time really perceived that film or - to come back to this topic - Horton's screen persona in the same way that we perhaps tend to do today. In other words: would the audience of the 30s have perceived Horton as obviously 'nellylike' or even only as gay (in a very general sense) as an audience of our time perhaps would? Or would he rather have appeared more as a 'funny character' or comedian in a less specific way?
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
It may be splitting hairs, but I think Horton's general persona in the 1930s was more "milquetoast" than "pansy" or "sissy," but he does come pretty close in The Gay Divorcee (c.f. "Let's K-nock K-neez"). Compared to some of the more notorious sissies of the day (Pangborn, Ferdinand Gottschalk, Barnett Parker), Horton is practically John Wayne.
But we've already covered a lot of this ground here.
But we've already covered a lot of this ground here.
- manicsounds
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
This film was supposed to be in the Universal WC Fields set but was pulled at the last minute.
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:39 pm
- Location: Lebanon, PA
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
There's a 90 minute version? Is it even still extant?Mr_sausage wrote:Any word on whether this will be the original 90 minute version, or the recut 77 minute version?
Possibly because Fields is so unrecognizable I wonder if it's even him inside that Humpty Dumpty get-up & if he didn't just dub the part.manicsounds wrote:This film was supposed to be in the Universal WC Fields set but was pulled at the last minute.
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
A great director at the very tippity top of his game in his great masterwork (with an incandescent script) can tie a nice bow on just about anyone.Feego wrote:Wow, what's with all the Ruggles hate? In addition to Bringing Up Baby, I thought he was very funny with Edward Everett Horton in Trouble in Paradise.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Apparently the version originally released by Paramount was 90 minutes long. When Universal later bought the television and home video rights the movie was cut to 77 minutes. I have no idea if the earlier cut still exists.HarryLong wrote:There's a 90 minute version? Is it even still extant?Mr_sausage wrote:Any word on whether this will be the original 90 minute version, or the recut 77 minute version?
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
I've seen that (indicating that it was cut by Universal to fit in a 90 minute television block with commercials) at Wikipedia and a couple of other places, but without any sources. It may have actually been cut by Paramount before its theatrical release. The 35mm nitrate print owned by UCLA clocks in at 76 minutes and their AFI catalogs of those years indicate that was the playing time upon general release.Mr_sausage wrote:Apparently the version originally released by Paramount was 90 minutes long. When Universal later bought the television and home video rights the movie was cut to 77 minutes. I have no idea if the earlier cut still exists.
- Noiretirc
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:04 pm
- Location: VanIsle
- Contact:
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
Isn't it though? I saw this only once before, aged 13 I think. I was so intrigued by it's over-the-topness. I never forgot about this film over the last 35yrs. Now that Universal has jumped on the Tim Burton bandwagon, I am extremely happy to be the proud owner of this (admittedly cheap-ass edition) dvd. It's even stranger than I remembered it. An animated sequence too? Everything AND the kitchen sink! They did some wonderful things with 1933 special effects here. And hey, my 22mo old loves it even more than Wizard Of Oz. (That took some arm twisting.)domino harvey wrote:Not to mention Cary Grant as Mock Turtle and WC Fields as Humpty Dumpty! This movie sounds insane in a good way
I was pleasantly surprised at how good this print looks. I don't think we'll ever see a 90min version. And, I may be the only person I know who thinks Charlotte Henry is quite brilliant here. She plays it understated while all the craziness swirls around her. She's impossibly lovely.
I haven't tired of multiple viewings, which my 22mo old now demands. There is obviously great respect for Carroll's work here. This one is a real charmer.
- Tommaso
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
I watched this last night and am pretty unsure what to think of. Perhaps it's just because 14 minutes are missing from this print, but the speed with which the various episodes are hurried through here was a little too much for me. You have no time to get to know and love these characters (quite unlike the book), and while it doesn't lack weird humour, it lacks charme. That most of the actors are hidden away behind masks doesn't make it better, even though it adds to the genuine bizarreness that the film has. It feels like a psychedelic fever dream for most of the time, with almost everyone constantly speaking very loudly or even shouting.
But why have all those great actors when most of them are unrecognizable? Horton is an exception, though even he isn't as funny as the Mad Hatter as I hoped him to be. W.C. Fields' Humpty is a highpoint, however, but basically because of his inimitable way of speaking. And Charlotte Henry is indeed a brilliant Alice, and perhaps the only genuinely likeable character here. Otherwise, the film is even more grotesque than Carroll's book. "Alice in Freak Show Land" wouldn't have been a totally inappropriate title for it.
In terms of set design, this is pretty amazing at the time, and I can't say I didn't like it, but somehow it gave me the creeps more than I suppose it was intended to do. It's hard to imagine that it would have endeared itself very much to a children's audience at the time.
But why have all those great actors when most of them are unrecognizable? Horton is an exception, though even he isn't as funny as the Mad Hatter as I hoped him to be. W.C. Fields' Humpty is a highpoint, however, but basically because of his inimitable way of speaking. And Charlotte Henry is indeed a brilliant Alice, and perhaps the only genuinely likeable character here. Otherwise, the film is even more grotesque than Carroll's book. "Alice in Freak Show Land" wouldn't have been a totally inappropriate title for it.
In terms of set design, this is pretty amazing at the time, and I can't say I didn't like it, but somehow it gave me the creeps more than I suppose it was intended to do. It's hard to imagine that it would have endeared itself very much to a children's audience at the time.
- Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Alice in Wonderland (1933) - Universal in March
I don't know that I would describe the characters in the book as necessarily loveable. The Wonderland creatures' behavior ranges from indifferent toward Alice to downright hostile, and even Alice herself remains somewhat detached (outside of the original illustrations, Carroll never really gives us much indication about who she is, aside from some academic background).
Otherwise, I agree with you about this particular movie. I enjoy it more for its bizarre production design and visual effects than for its narrative or the performances. I can't say that I was as enamored with Charlotte Henry as you were. I give her credit for taking on such a difficult role, especially at a time when the story had not been tackled by a major studio, and she's certainly not bad. I feel that (through no fault of her own), she just gets swallowed up by everything around her. My favorite Alice to this day remains Fiona Fullerton in the 1972 British musical. That film's not great either, and although Fullerton was, like Henry, way too old for the part, she has a likeable quality that is sweet without being cloying.
Otherwise, I agree with you about this particular movie. I enjoy it more for its bizarre production design and visual effects than for its narrative or the performances. I can't say that I was as enamored with Charlotte Henry as you were. I give her credit for taking on such a difficult role, especially at a time when the story had not been tackled by a major studio, and she's certainly not bad. I feel that (through no fault of her own), she just gets swallowed up by everything around her. My favorite Alice to this day remains Fiona Fullerton in the 1972 British musical. That film's not great either, and although Fullerton was, like Henry, way too old for the part, she has a likeable quality that is sweet without being cloying.