MovieChat Forums > Alice in Wonderland (1951) Discussion > "No heart" - that's its problem...and it...

"No heart" - that's its problem...and its enduring success.


When the film flopped at the box office back in 1951, Walt blamed it on the fact the film had "no heart."

He was right. There is no sentimental reason why audiences should identify with Alice: she is not a princess looking for love, she's not even Dorothy looking to get back home (although there is some hint of that in Disney's version.)

On the other hand, Disney's "Alice" is a parade of fantasy and nonsense - which is perfect for the medium of animated film. All the directors involved were trying to top each other off when it came to being "mad" - which is why the Chesire Cat comes off so brilliantly: he's sooooo non-chalant about being KRAZY.

Later audiences - tired of the "Where-is-Prince-Charming?" plots of classic Disney films (don't forget - "Sleeping Beauty" in 1959 lost a TON of money) appreciated the all-out whimsy of "Alice."

The hippies LOVED it - what with Alice ingesting mushrooms and a caterpillar that smoked a hookah that emitted pastel balloon-letters!

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply

[deleted]

I'm very sorry, Jessy-A, but you are clearly quite misinformed about a great many things.

First of all Tarzan was most certainly not "created just for Disney." It was based on a series of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs (1875-1950), and Tarzan's adventures have been the subject of literally dozens of films, long and short, (and even a '60s TV series) dating back to 1918.

Neither was Aladdin "created just for Disney." It's part of an ancient series of West and South Asian stories and folk tales compiled in Arabic during the Islamic Golden Age, collectively known as One Thousand and One Arabian Nights. These were first published in English in 1706.

Finally, to the subject of this thread, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass are novels (not folk or fairy tales as you assert) on which the Disney film was based. They were published in 1865 and 1871 respectively and were written by Charles L. Dodgson, whose pen name was Lewis Carroll. They are widely considered to be bona fide classics of English literature....not just "children's literature." This is why some critics were more harsh in their assessment of this film for taking liberties with the source material. Nobody quotes from the original text of Pinocchio, The Jungle Book, or even Peter Pan in university level literature studies in the same manner as the Alice books.

reply

YOU HAVE NO IMAGINATION, DING DONG!

reply

If that was addressed to me, to what "lack of imagination" are you referring? Are you suggesting that knowing the difference between a folk tale, a fairy tale, and a novel indicates some lack of imagination? Really?

Most would call that simply being literate.

DING DONG.

reply

Not even the "white rabbit" song from Jefferson Airplane made people like the movie ?

reply

Honestly the films lack of sentimentality is a big reason I always liked it.

As a kid I always found it a breath of fresh air after all the mushy lovey-dovey stuff in other Disney films, it was nice to have a movie where the characters aren't really that friendly, they didn't go out of their way to be Alice's friends, they snapped at her and she gave them attitude right back...it was a nice change.

And I always loved how Alice gets angry, she doesn't get scared despite the craziness of the world and the characters she meets she stands up to them all without any fear (except for maybe the Queen of Hearts) she's definetly a strong and brave little girl...nothing timid about her.


reply