criterionforum.org

I didn't mean to say that the characters in the book are 'loveable' (at least not all of them), but it is possible to 'love' them just for being those characters. I also 'love' Shakespeare's Richard in that sort of way. And I found it difficult to reach this same 'understanding' with the characters as presented in this film, simply because they are all played for freakishness in an all too similar way.

Feego wrote:although Fullerton was, like Henry, way too old for the part, she has a likeable quality that is sweet without being cloying.

I would say the same about Henry, but that's probably a complete subjective affair. What I thought of when watching this was how these old productions sometimes had grown-up young ladies play children or young adolescents and how they were doing it in such a way that it's entirely believable. I think of some Mary Pickford or Lilian Gish films here. I somehow imagine this would be next to impossible with the teenagers of our time.

You're probably right about Charlotte Henry, and to be fair, I haven't seen the film in several years (I bought the DVD, but haven't gotten around to watching it), so my memory of her performance has faded somewhat, while my memories of the production design have lingered. And I certainly agree about the freakishness of the film's characters, particularly Cary Grant's over-the-top boo-hooing as the mock turtle and May Robson's strange "blubbering" (for lack of a better word) as the Queen of Hearts.

I finally saw this weird-o movie and all the reactions here are about on-par: it's a mess, but the audacity of its existence is kind of its raison d'être isn't it? For the question of why Universal cast all of its stars and then disguised them in strange outfits and DisneyLand suits, I think the better parallel is animation voice work-- I strongly doubt Fields was in the egg costume or Grant in the mock turtle, but you're getting their voices and that's part of the appeal (unless hideous/horrifying facial makeup is your scene). Also, Gary Cooper is so disarmingly lively in this film that it makes him almost unrecognizable despite the fact that he's one of the few actors to clearly be occupying their get-up!

The "Alice" books are reliable for inspiring messy but whacked-out adaptations. One of my favorites is an obscure 1949 version that combines often grotesque stop-motion creations by Lou Bunin with Gilbert/Sullivan-esque music: Clip 1, Clip 2