User reviews

"Who am I?" asks a shabbily dressed, scruffy-haired incarnation of Lewis Carroll's immemorial little girl lost. Of course, the answer's come in various forms ever since such cinematic endeavors as Cecil Hepworth's "Alice in Wonderland," made in 1903 (at 12 minutes, the longest British film of the day; Cecil, you'll remember, two years later made the world's first "dog star" with his monumentally successful "Rescued by Rover," which was shown so many times that the celluloid literally deteriorated, forcing the filmmakers to completely "re-produce" it two more times; his "Alice in Wonderland," unfortunately, did not boast such a success, and thus all we have today is something that looks as though it tumbled down the rabbit hole one too many times). But enough of this sluice at the bottom of the March Hare's treacle well, eh?

Made for the BBC's The Wednesday Play television series, Jonathan Miller's take on the subject matter is, as is traditionally the case, a unique one. With a budget approximating nothing more than his usual "taped stage plays" for which he previously gained great renown (think preter-PBS), Miller decided to illustrate what Alice would have gone through had all of her nonsensical dreams been steeped in the quotidian reality of her ordinary life. There are no talking birds, no storytelling mock turtles, no dormice living in teacups. In fact, short of a crude cut-out superimposition of a very ordinary looking "Cheshire cat" flying in the sky (a la the Teletubbies' eerily omniscient baby in the sun), there's really no special effects or anything that would evince this one of being the least bit chimerical…

… that is, unless you know the story of Alice in Wonderland already. Ostensibly, what Miller is doing here is showing us the curious, towheaded girl's "adventures" set in a world where people merely sound like birds and look like supine caterpillars sitting loftily back in their Victorian chairs and wondering aloud, "Who are you?" Imagine Wizard of Oz, but without all the costumes, flying monkeys, and mercurial trees pulling at the heroine's hair.

Suddenly, we along with Alice find ourselves in a land where we were already (that is, of course, if we were a haughty 11-year-old girl wandering lackadaisically through our castellated house in the late 19th century). What we see is the "reality" of the dreamworld of Alice's waking life.

And this is exactly what Miller captures in this version of the epic "children's" tale for stoners and mathematicians. In fact, the only real sense of "dreamland" we can extract from Miller's vision is a kind of proto-Gilliam realm of canted camera angles and unsettling juxtapositions of close-up faces in deep-focus environments (think Brazil or particularly Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, which clearly owes both its visual and aural style to Mr. Miller). Truthfully, after watching this late 60's stark, black-and-white opus (if ever so disjointed and flawed), one would have to assume that Terry Gilliam took much of his artistic sensibility from what is definitely far more than a simple made-for-TV broadcast.

With a quadrille of British mainstays—Peter Cook as the Mad Hatter, Sir John Gielgud as the Mock Turtle, Alan Bennett as the Mouse, an uncredited Eric Idle, and the King of Hearts himself, Peter Sellers—Jonathan Miller, with lilting, ethereal score by Ravi Shankar, does what no other director has done to date with this timeless urtext: he shows us what would have happened had Alice stayed awake during her infamous tour through dreamland.

PS: If this one doesn't do it for you, try out Czech filmmaker Jan Svankmajer's nightmarish Alice (1988), which must be the most haunting adaptation of Alice's adventures yet put on celluloid.

First time I saw this was on December 28th 1966 which was its first broadcast on BBC1, the next time was exactly 42 years later on a pristine BFI DVD. I was worried my childhood memories might be shattered by discovering it was simply a trippy '60's cop-out, but I needn't have been. Sure, it's a product of its time same as everything is, but it was and remains a unique filming of the classic tale by Lewis Carroll and imho the best version made so far.

Young Alice is transported by dream one sunny summer day to Wonderland where many adventures befall her. Whether Carroll was attracted or not to little girls ("I like all children, except boys") and whether that explains why his diaries had some ripped out pages at key moments is something we'll never know for sure now - I think he was merely a repressed idealist – but he created a timeless story for children of all ages. His 90 page painstakingly hand written original edition which he gave to Alice in 1864 as "a Christmas gift to a dear child in memory of a summer day" is currently online from the British Museum and well worth a read.

Jonathan Miller's erudite sharp focus black and white production assumed that it was really meant for satirical adults, however it still managed to impress this particular 7 year old and especially his 5 year old wife to be and their counterparts 42 years later. Favourite bits: Michael Redgrave as the Caterpillar and John Geilgud as the Mock Turtle; Alice's walk with Duchess Leo McKern down the path through the woods followed by the camera crew weaving in and out of the trees and forward and backward; almost every scene has something of note though. Maybe I could have done with a bit more of Ravi Shankar's exceptional tunes but no worries. It's a pity John Bird's and Peter Sellers' post Goon Show improvisations were left in - it's no good Miller saying it was in the spirit of Carroll when their obvious inspiration was Spike Milligan, just one eg from 1954's Dreaded Batter Pudding Hurler Of Bexhill On Sea: "Suddenly! Nothing happened! But it happened suddenly mark you!" And I still wonder how much the production influenced the Beatles with their image for 1967? Apparently the finished film was considered too long by the BBC and 30 minutes were chopped off. Off with their heads - all those potential Pinteresque moments lost!

This is something to treasure: an arty BBC film that was genuinely arty, entertaining and still eminently watchable generations later. It almost managed to capture the illusive illusionary qualities of dreams and those seemingly beautifully languid sunny days of the '60's – both 19th and 20th century.

Jonathan Miller's version of "Alice In Wonderland" is at times both very beautiful to watch and somehow mildly boring to sit through. Boring perhaps because of the detached performance of Anne-Marie Mallik who plays Alice. Jonathan Miller has Mallik play Alice as a girl who watches her own dream fantasy of 'Wonderland' from the outside of the looking glass rather than someone who has gone through the looking glass. It's almost as if Alice knows that she's dreaming and is able to control her own dreams, yet is somehow bored and barely amused with the dream world she has created. Mallick walks through 'Wonderland' as a somnambulist chaser. Transitions from scene to scene include drowsy dissolves or close ups of Mallick in all of her hair brushed beauty staring away from the camera. Large sections of Mallik's dialog are heard by way of voice over while the other actors work around her silence acting in the gaps.

One of "Alice's" strengths is in the rest of the compiled cast. There are some very good performances, most notably Wilfred Brambell as the White Rabbit, John Gielgud as the Mock Turtle, Peter Cook as the Mad Hatter and Michael Gough as the March Hare and of course, Peter Sellers as the King of Hearts. It's too bad that with the two most brilliant comedic minds of the mid 1960's, that of Peter Sellers and Peter Cook, that more freedom wasn't given to explore the comic possibilities these two could give to the story. But having this comedic freedom was not to be part of Miller's vision. Miller describes on the audio commentary of the DVD his dislike for two ad-libs provided by Cook and Sellers. Apparently because of the tight shooting schedule, there wasn't any time for lengthy re-shoots of the two ad-libs that made it into the final cut. Thank goodness for small compromises, I would hate to think of anything Sellers or Cook did on film that would be lost to the cutting room floor.

Even though Jonathan Miller's artistic resume up until the release of this film could boast of a man steeped in the comedic tradition of the Cambridge Footlights and the ground breaking satirical group 'Beyond The Fringe', his version of "Alice In Wonderland" surprisingly finds itself mostly miles away from humor. However, what it lacks in humor it makes up for in the haunting sitar backing music by Ravi Shankar.

This isn't a bad movie, just terribly frustrating and surprisingly boring at times. The good news is that it's only an hour long. This is a trip you should take; just don't get your hopes up too high.

For fans of Monty Python, look for Eric Idle in the choir near the end of the film. He appears at around the 58-minute mark.

7/10 Clark Richards

Working with a shoestring budget director Jonathan Miller was able to persuade an impressive cast (Peter Sellers, Sir Michael Redgrave, Sir John Gielgud, Peter Cook, Alan Bennett, Michael Gough, Wilfred Brambell, Wilfred Lawson, Leo McKern, Malcolm Muggeridge, Finlay Currie) to make cameo appearances in his BBC production of "Alice in Wonderland". The results are mixed, with some bright spots (especially the few improvisations Miller left in).

Miller dresses his cast like Victorians, rather than making them look like animals (after all, he says in his commentary, the typical way of doing Alice is to take big stars and then cover them up with animal heads so you can't see who they are).

He takes the book literally. For instance, the Hatter and the March Hare are mad in a real way rather than the typically overblown cartoonish way. Peter Cook's Hatter is soft-spoken, laughing and agreeable, his lines always sounding like non sequiturs; while Michael Gough's March Hare is defensive, suspicious, and genuinely troubling.

The best scene, which probably best captures what Miller was working for, was Muggeridge's Gryphon and Gielgud's Mock Turtle. The fey White Rabbit of Wilfred Brambell ("A Hard Day's Night") is a delight. Peter Sellers, appearing all too briefly, has an amusing bit of business (Miller in his commentary doesn't like it but it suits the scene admirably and in this case Sellers the slapstick authority knew what he was doing better than the director -- the scene cries out for what he does). Michael Redgrave is phenomenal in his all-too-brief turn as the caterpillar, but the scene is damaged by truncating the poem "You are Old, Father William" to the point that it makes no sense on any level. Peter Cook's Hatter is engaging at first but his one-note madness is quickly tiresome. More interesting at the tea party is Wilfred Lawson's Door Mouse (watch his hands -- he knows his business); and Michael Gough ("Batman"), who has an aura of danger.

The pros in the cast all do their best, and no fault can be found with the big-name stars who are doing good work for peanuts.

Miller's concept of Alice is the primary reason the film ultimately doesn't work. The girl he chose as Alice has a very interesting face, and is wonderfully untraditional. Sometimes her delivery (heard half in voice-over and half in dialog) shows promise. But Miller, probably to accentuate the dreamlike fixation, has her walk through the movie like a somnambulist, not becoming involved. The little emoting he does allow is almost always to show Alice's rudeness. For the most part her facial expression is fixed and unengaged, and this is Miller's fault.

The cutting from scene to scene is abrupt. Part of this is probably Miller's continued obsession with the working of dreams, and partly because a lot of transitional material was cut out at the request of the bigwigs to make the show move faster. And because Miller is quite literal with Carroll, he makes the mad tea party actually have the monotonous languor of people trapped in a long afternoon tea that will never stop -- and it becomes tedious.

Oddly, on the DVD, far better than the movie is the director's audio track. Jonathan Miller gives a full 80 minute's description of what he tried to do (and what price limitations left him able to do); and when the movie is seen in that light, it makes a lot more sense. Sometimes Miller explains why things were done, sometimes he desperately tries to justify what was done. In all cases, his commentary is interesting and he never falls into the trap of describing what's going on, but always why it's going on.

The movie looks good, and individual turns by actors are superb, but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

This is an experimental TV-movie from the BBC's "Wednesday Play" anthology. That series was always willing to risk trying something different, and this ambitious, low-budget "Alice" is certainly different. I don't exactly *enjoy* this film, but it's certainly fascinating.

I appreciate it as an experiment in what television could do. I admire the cast of iconic and talented Britons who wouldn't normally coincide in the same project: Peter Sellers, John Gielgud, Leo McKern (in drag as the Duchess), Michael Redgrave, Peter Cook, Wilfrid Brambell, Alan Bennett, Malcolm Muggeridge, etc.

I also admire the creativity it took to imagine this quintessentially British tale accompanied by Ravi Shankar music.

Some viewers may find the film too creepy and surreal, but the original book is pretty disturbing to begin with. This film is fairly incoherent, but then so is the book, which follows the ever-shifting logic of a dream.

The biggest problem (aside from pacing that now seems too leisurely) is that Miller's production assumes you already know what's going on. For instance, it assumes you know that the two men dressed as... um... men are actually the Gryphon and the Mock Turtle.

In other words, this is an "Alice" for people who are already overdosed on adaptations of "Alice," and who might appreciate a weirdly different take on the familiar story. Or to narrow that audience a bit, people age 12 and up who might appreciate a different take on the story.

A fascinatingly, surreal and psychedelic version of the Alice in Wonderland story. Shot in a Gothic black and white style, the cinematography is very well done and still holds up 50 years later.

The cast is very very good, particularly Anne-Marie Malik in her one and only role of Alice. She's petulant and outspoken, but also very reserved and examining. She's adorable, and her delivery of lines add to the dreamlike quality of the movie. She makes the whole movie worth watching.

Filmed as a TV play it's surprisingly well made, thank the BBC for that, they do some exceptional work.

Jonathan Miller's Alice in Wonderland is worth viewing if you can find it.

Not the best, I personally have a preference for the 1933 film, the Disney film, the 1985 version(though it is uneven) and the 1983 theatre production. It is on par though with the 1999 and 1972 versions and is much better than Tim Burton's film and the Burbank Films Australia and Jetlag versions. This Alice in Wonderland is certainly fascinating and is the most unique adaptation of the book, though Anne-Marie Mallick's Alice was too detached and expressionless even for a character that was written in the film to be like that, the film drags in places and the Old Father William poem recitation made little sense truncated and felt pointless. The croquet match sequence is also on the strange side, though in a way it's meant to be. The black and white photography is beautiful though, and the costumes and sets are very charming and surrealistic. Ravi Shankar's music is very hypnotic and dream-like in quality, very ideal for the atmosphere. The story has a much more surreal and darker touch than most Alice in Wonderland adaptations, but it still entertains and the Mad Hatter tea party sequence is truly memorable. The highlight is the Gryphon and Mock Turtle scene, brilliantly done. Jonathan Miller directs with a wonderfully weird style with a touch of subtlety when needed. The dialogue is in keeping with the tone of the film yet doesn't completely ignore Lewis Carroll's writing either. The best line? Personal favourite is Peter Sellers' "they don't have verdicts like that anymore"(or something along the lines of that). The supporting turns are excellent, especially Peter Cook as the maddest Mad Hatter there has ever been- and in a good way-, while Wilfred Brambell's jittery White Rabbit, Michael Redgrave's aloof Caterpillar, Michael Gough's twitchy March Hare, Peter Sellers' hilarious if too brief King of Hearts and John Gielgud's touchingly melancholic Mock Turtle stand out too. To conclude, a good Alice in Wonderland adaptation and very uniquely done. 7/10 Bethany Cox

There have been several films that attempted to bring the viewer into the dream of Lewis Carroll's Alice.. but none have succeeded like Jonathan Miller's 1966 BBC Alice in Wonderland. A legendary cast.. without costumes.. improvises Lewis Carroll's work with an unsettling brilliance. The result is a film that casts a new light.. or shadow.. on a story beloved by millions. A dark environment both in aesthetics and passion.. Jonathan Miller recreates Alice's dream into a nightmare. One that doesn't allow the viewer to get comfortable unless they can accept the evil undercurrent that moves the story forward.. or backwards. The film is cast with many legends of the screen and stage.. all of whom provide performances worthy of the legend accolade. The character of Alice is represented differently than in traditional adaptations. She seems almost removed from the "reality" taking place before her.. even at times when she is involved in the "reality" as much as the characters of her dream-world. Jonathan Miller's Alice in Wonderland for BBC television is a must-see for anyone who enjoyed Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass or anyone who enjoys low budget films that are improvised into timeless masterpieces.

Most critics point out that this version only makes remote sense to those who are already totally familiar with the original book, and can assess what is included and what is omitted. Although I was interested to see what Miller made of the story, I didn't find it satisfying. Wonderland (body) and Looking-Glass (mind) are two of the greatest books ever written, and I don't think Miller here does Wonderland justice. I liked Sellers and Cook, although I believe Miller didn't; but the Queen was disappointing and should have given much more powerful beheading orders. Muggeridge was a surprising actor. I suppose it was entertaining to see this cornucopia of well-known British names. They must have appeared for very little pay, I assume.

Most versions of Alice in Wonderland involve bratty little girls running round a brightly coloured world inhabited by clichéd characters that sing irritating songs, and the film usually has a moral of some sort. The book has been very Americanised. But not this version.

What attracted me most was the way the film was shot. It was filmed on a wide angle lens, which beautifully distorts characters' faces. The scenes in which Alice drinks the 'Drink Me' bottle are cleverly done, with the wide angle lens allowing barely any need to change furniture size.

Also as good is the fact the characters (The White Rabbit, The Dodo, The March Hare) do not wear any face masks or prosthetics. Instead, they are simply dressed in Victorian clothing, which allows the actors to make full use of their acting abilities.

The film consists of long sequences of silence, reflecting that of an endless boring summers day. As well as this, the actors always stare off into space whenever not doing anything which gives a feeling of an old photograph.

The actors are quality. The Mad Hatter's Tea Party and the Court scene are simply wonderful, with Peter Cook as the absurd Hatter and Peter Sellers as an excellent King of Hearts.

Overall, this is the best version of Wonderland that's been made, in my opinion. I highly recommend it to all fans of the book.

Jonathan Miller adapted the Lewis Carrol work for the BBC's Wednesday Play series. Using music by Ravi Shankar and a style that is truly dreamlike he has deconstructed the novel in such away as to have it play as the unconscious ramblings of a teenage girl. Its profoundly disturbing in its way since almost none of the actors are costumed as animals so its very hard to know who is who unless you really know the book, what they say takes on a different sort of weight.Its very well done, but I don't know if I'd show it to any children since I'm not sure what they would make of it. Very much a product of its time the tone and feel of the piece is very much akin to almost any of the films from England from the period (say Richard Lester's Beatles films or Bedazzled, or something with Eleanor Bron). The cast is wonderful allowing for a show case for people like Peter Sellers, Peter Cook, Michael Gough, Michael Redgrave, John Gielgud and Leo McKern. Its a unique and very successful telling of the story, however its so odd I don't know if I ever need to be trapped in Alice's head again.

The struggle to bring "Alice In Wonderland" to screen claims another victim in this slow-moving, joyless BBC telefilm, curiously engaging in moments but on the whole off-puttingly concerned with subtext over text.

We first meet dour young Alice (Anne-Marie Mallik) preparing for a pleasant day's outdoor stroll with her older sister. Falling asleep, she finds herself in one strange place after another, meeting a series of odd characters who engage her in opaque conversations while she alternately stares off into space and tries to make out what is happening to her.

"How queer everything is today," we hear her say in the first of many voiceovers. "I wonder if I've been changed in the night."

She has, and so are you watching this frustrating mindwarp of a movie work its fitful magic upon you between excessive languors designed, as director Jonathan Miller tells us in his director's commentary, to capture the "subliminal oddness" of dreaming and its relationship to childhood. It's an adaptation that presents little actual story (expecting you to know Lewis Carroll's text already) but instead a series of setpieces where notable actors appear and do little odd turns. Michael Redgrave plays the Caterpillar as fusty schoolmaster while Leo McKern half-sings, half-mutters his line in drag as the Ugly Duchess.

"Off with their heads" is one of Carroll's famous Wonderland lines. That's Miller's approach, too, having his actors appear sans animal heads. Instead, they offer distrait representations of Victorian-era human characters. This way at least we can see the actors perform their lines, but something of the magic of the source novel seems lost in translation.

Miller uses the camera to capture distorted close-ups of Mallik's arresting visage, staring off, saying nothing, as if posing for the cover of "Rubber Soul." Action unfolds around her without her reacting much at all. The beauty of the summer's-day scenery enchants, even in black-and-white, but many of the shots, like the famous croquet game played with flamingos, run on with no apparent point except discomforting the actors.

Peter Sellers appears here as the King of Hearts, and along with Peter Cook as the Mad Hatter sneaks in some of the "japing fun and games" Miller says he tried to discourage on set. Cook and Sellers were two of the greatest comedy geniuses of their time, and appeared together on screen rarely. Cook, a former "Beyond The Fringe" partner of Miller's, dances and mugs with annoying vigor, apparently well soused and as disconnected as Mallik, but Sellers does manage some funny moments, like when in a final courtroom scene he leads a jury in a singalong and then sighs: "They don't reach verdicts like that anymore!"

The best scene, as many reviewers here note, features John Gielgud and Malcolm Muggeridge as the Tortoise and the Gryphon reminiscing about schooldays being taught "Laughing and Grief" by a Classics professor before dancing the Lobster Quadrille along a muddy, brightly lit beach. Here, at least, Miller connects with his material and the audience simultaneously. The rest of it, as Eugene Kim put it so well in his October 2004 review here, is more like "Alice's Adventures In Marienbad," twisted and tedious.

The production is worth seeing once for Alice lovers, given its highly individual take on the story. British comedy enthusiasts may enjoy it, too, as in addition to the principals a young Eric Idle can be glimpsed a few times in top hat and swallowtail tie. But seen cold, without reading the book, one is left too often asking why this, why that, and, long before its 70 minutes are up, left like Mallik's Alice not caring much about the answers.

Beautifully filmed in a satiny black & white reminiscent of old photographs, this 1966 BBC adaptation of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" may displease purists for its less than conventional, as well as decidedly minimalist, approach. It's not a traditional rendering of Lewis Carroll, and doesn't pretend to be; there are no phantasmagoric sets or actors encased in over-sized costumes or big musical numbers or fancy photographic effects. The Alice of this production is a taciturn, stony-faced girl who is neither frightened nor fascinated by her experiences in Wonderland, which is mostly made up of the interiors and exteriors of old English mansions and houses. But in its unorthodox way, it brings Carroll's text to life in a way I don't recall experiencing in other adaptations of the Alice books.

It's apparent that in creating this alternative Alice, producer-director Jonathan Miller expects you to be already familiar with its source; he's evidently assuming you will recognize what he's chosen to leave in as well as leave out, as well as his re-imagined settings. Only a few of the actors are made to look anything like the characters in the Tenniel drawings, such as Leo McKern as the Duchess or Peter Cook as the Mad Hatter; you're basically on your own when it comes to spotting the White Rabbit or Caterpillar or Frog Footman, all of whom are dressed "normally" in period costumes. (Presenting the Carrollian characters as real people isn't a new idea; I recall a TV adaptation of Alice starring Kate Burton in which Humpty Dumpty was portrayed by an elderly man in a rocking chair.)

By tossing out entire scenes, characters and exchanges that were in the book, Miller gives us a sparer, edgier retelling of the Wonderland story, but doesn't stray too far from the original. Why such a sullen, passive Alice? My guess is, this is supposed to be an Alice who fully realizes that she's in a dream and treats her surroundings accordingly.

And so this Alice (played by a charming Anne-Marie Mallik) sits looking bored and disinterested during the Mad Tea Party. Other productions customarily play this scene with all kinds of manic energy, but in this film, the tea party is deliberately drawn out with long, open rhythms reminiscent of an Antonioni or Resnais film. (Alice's Adventures in Marienbad, anyone?) And seemingly for the first time, while I was listening to the Mad Hatter, the March Hare and the Dormouse prattle away, their nonsense started to make wonderful sense. It's easy enough for an actor to recite lines like, "What day of the month is it?," but here, the performers sound like they really mean what they say (and say what they mean).

That same emphasis on dialogue is apparent in the beach scene with the Mock Turtle, played by Sir John Gielgud, and the Gryphon, played by Malcolm Muggeridge. The Mock Turtle's words never sounded so delightful to me before, and thank goodness Gielgud didn't have to deliver them through some huge Mock Turtle mask. This scene also provides one of the movie's most striking images, of the Mock Turtle, the Gryphon and Alice walking barefoot along the shore, with Gielgud softly singing the "Lobster Quadrille" a cappella.

For those seeking a more conventional book-to-film translation of "Alice," I would suggest the 1972 British movie musical starring Fiona Fullerton, complete with elaborate sets and costumes and velvety color photography and songs. Although it was slammed by the relatively few reviewers who saw it, I thought it nicely conveyed a dreamlike quality of its own, especially in its transitions - I found it much more enjoyable than the 1933 Paramount movie or the 1951 Disney animated feature.

But if you think you've had your fill of Alice movies and TV shows, then I urge you to try this one - I think it makes Lewis Carroll sound fresh all over again. (There's very interesting musical accompaniment by Ravi Shankar.) And for a wonderfully acted movie about the real- life Alice Liddell Hargreaves and Lewis Carroll, I urge you to see "Dreamchild" - but that's another review.

I agree with the earlier comments that this is a very flawed effort, and that the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts. If a viewer knows the book it is conceivable that they could actually follow the storyline most of the time, but they will still be put off by the wooden performances and the title character's lack of engagement (note that this is the only television or film project she is credited with on the database). In the book Alice was not just engaged, she was usually angry about what was happening to her.

In the book the mushroom changes her size-here everything she eats and drinks seems to sedate her. The absolutely awful editing makes most of the film painful to watch, as cuts from line after line of the book's clever dialogue fail to capture anyone's reactions (were the lack of reaction shots a cost savings thing or was the director/editor simply clueless).

The sound and camera work are generally excellent and obviously some work and imagination went into the production. But I was left with the question: if you can't make an Alice adaptation significantly better than this, then why make one? I got the impression from the commentary that the director was embarrassed by how this turned out but maybe that was because I was embarrassed for him.

While his ideas (no special effects or animals) might have actually worked as an "original" screenplay, this is supposed to be an adaptation so these omissions come across as cheap (duh!) .

Unfortunately the viewer soon becomes as disengaged as the actress and spends the majority of the movie pondering why this mess was not terminated in its pre-production phase. If Wonderland was this boring Alice would have fallen asleep and dreamed she was doing something more interesting, like sitting in a field watching her sister read a book.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

As Alicja (1982) later did, this film opts not to have its actors in animal costumes. They do wear costumes, though, the queen dresses like one, the mad hatter and so on.

The cinematography is very nice, a deep-focus black and white, like Citizen Kane.

One of the odder things about it is how disengaged Alice seems. I would not blame this on the young actress (and whatever happened to her, by the way?), but rather her direction. She is usually expressionless. She is in scenes, but often set apart, either by her being shown in the foreground, and the rest well behind her. Sometimes she's in a scene, but the camera puts her in completely separate shots than everyone else. Sometimes, she is not only apart from others, but behind a window, and looking away from the window. And when she is in scenes with other characters, again she is often looking away from them. Most of her dialog is done in voice-over. Sometimes when she has a conversation, she is speaking in voice- over while the other character actually speaks.

Also odd is how characters will be talking, then simply stop for a while and the camera lingers on them. Eventually they will start to talk again, but the silences feel uncomfortable, even though the characters don't seem to find them so.

These odd factors do lend the movie a sort of dream quality, or perhaps an opium dream quality.

Seeing this again after some years only made me appreciate it the more. It is thoroughly inspired, and a true work of genius by Jonathan Miller, who both produced and directed. His interpretation of the famous Lewis Carroll story is as a summer daydream. As the flies buzz, Alice drifts off to sleep on the grass, perspiring in the sun, and the visions begin. Many of her comments are given in confidential whispers, as befits a dream rather than a real drama. She rarely looks at anyone during the action, mostly tending to stare into space as if she were sleep-walking. This studied approach is successful at conveying the intended unreality of the story. It is set very firmly in Victorian times, with perfect costumes and suitably mannered behaviour by all the actors for the period. Miller uses the film to expose the hidden agenda of Carroll's fantasy, which was to use surrealist humour to attack the pomposities, bigotry, and hypocrisies of Victorian Church, state, manners, and society. (It is not for nothing that the Surrealists of Paris later adopted Lewis Carroll as their direct predecessor and Louis Aragon even translated 'Through the Looking Glass' into French.) Miller, with his wide circle of acquaintance, was able to assemble a huge number of famous actors to play cameos throughout this film. Peter Sellers was content to be the King of Hearts, Michael Redgrave was a haughty caterpillar, Leo McKern was dressed in drag as the Duchess, with a pig wrapped in swaddling clothes in his arms, and Miller's former colleagues in 'Beyond the Fringe', Peter Cook (as the Mad Hatter) and Alan Bennett (the latter of whom is still his neighbour directly across the street), were drafted in, ably supported by John Bird, old character actor Finlay Currie (as the Dodo), and a brilliant appearance by Wilfred Lawson as the Dormouse. Michael Gough is a very fine March Hare. Particularly inspired is the sequence at the seashore with Sir John Gielgud and Malcolm Muggeridge as the Mock Turtle and the Gryphon respectively. Muggeridge was not an actor, but a noted broadcaster and author, and his choice was especially inspired. At the time this went out during the Christmas season of 1966, the viewers were divided between those who loved it and those who hated it. The latter mostly had their expectations disappointed, because they thought 'Alice' should be portrayed in a more conventional way, and that what Miller did was some form of sacrilege. (A hysterical over-reaction, if ever there were one!) Miller has always had a tendency to be shockingly innovative in his interpretations (perhaps most of all in his television version of Shakespeare's 'Timon of Athens'). Miller's only commercial feature film, 'Take a Girl Like You' (1970), was not a success, and a large number of people savagely envious of his brilliance and versatility were delighted to seize upon that and stop him entering the film world. He has always had the most astonishing number of bitter enemies. People say he snaps at them. I have only ever known him to be charming and delightful. Who can say? It is all a mystery to me. But this particular achievement in black and white film will live forever, truly it will.

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a fascinating mix of childhood fantasy, very funny, satiric parody, and dream-logic weirdness. Most adaptations pick either the childhood or weirdness angles (the comedy is best served from the book itself; preferably the reading by Cyril Richard), and Jonathan Miller's version hits that weirdness angle very hard.

This is an unusual version of Alice. Instead of dressing up as the story's animals, this is just a movie about really odd Victorian humans interacting with a particularly unpleasant Alice who spends most of the movie staring blankly into space.

The movie is in some ways more faithful than most adaptations, including a lot of the original dialogue only changed to remove mention of animal forms, but by because you don't usually see Alice's physical transitions (perhaps for budget reasons?) and hear little of her internal monologue most of the first half will be incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know the story.

Miller's main intention seems to be to bring out the dream aspect of the book, and in this he succeeds admirably. The movie really feels like a dream; full of disconnected moments and confused conversations and stuffed with odd items.

While the dialogue is from the book, the presentation kills most of the wit. Carroll's clever parodic poems are rendered in confused, incomplete form. Peter Cook's distinctive Mad Hatter seems determined to kill the jokes with his airy delivery.

I was torn between giving this a 6 or a 7. It's creation of a real dream-state is wonderful, and there are some excellent moments (the Mad Tea Party isn't that funny but is still pretty engaging), but it is often slow moving and tends to pretension. I would definitely recommend this, especially to fans of the Alice books, even though ultimately I didn't enjoy it very much.

This version of Alice in Wonderland is an excellent film - very much reflecting the book but also reflecting the 1960's and the wishes of the director. I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this question - but here goes! I am pleased to learn I live in one of the houses used in the making of this film. I would very much like to obtain copies of some of the stills taken of my house and other locations in the film. Particularly the beach location (Pett Level - you can just see Dungeness Nuclear Power Station on the horizon in one scene) and the filming which took place in Hastings. Does anyone know who I should approach? or where the stills and other archive material might be stored? Or would all this material be destroyed by now? Any ideas/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks Ian

Jonathan Miller's Alice in Wonderland is faithful to the book. He coaxed an all star cast to take part. Hence why they are not masked in animal costumes.

There is an otherworldly quality to the production. That might be to do with the sparse dream like visuals and the music from Ravi Shankar.

Alice (Anne-Marie Mallik) and her sister take an excursion to the countryside where she dozes off. Alice follows a White Rabbit (Wilfrid Brambell) to a hospital and encounters a door where she is too big to enter. Until she drinks a portion that makes a shrink.

It might be that I have never been to enamoured by the Alice in Wonderland story. This did not change my mind. It might be the bored looking expressionless Anne-Marie Mallik. I'm not sure if she was a bad actress or directed that way.

The gulf between her and other thespians ransing from Peter Sellers to John Gielgud to Michael Redgrave was vast. It certainly is a curiosity.

I found this version of Alice In Wonderland on BBC iPlayer. I can recall seeing at least part of it, aged four, on a black and white telly back in 1966. I couldn't understand what was happening. All I can remember, somehow, is Peter Cook as the Hatter. So having rediscovered it on the BBC's streaming service, I thought I'd set time aside to give it another go and relive the 1960s. Okayyy.... well up to where I decided 'enough' (about 30 minutes in) it was a bit like being in transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Yogi while smoking herbal cigarettes. I still didn't know what was going on. Maybe I'm not 'arty' enough to appreciate it. I mean, I 'get' The Beatles Yellow Submarine. I even 'get' The Magical Mystery Tour. And that takes some getting. But no... 'Alice' chopped and changed, was mediocrely acted by the admittedly young principle character, and I just found it too tedious to sit though to the very end, so I did the metaphorical equivalent of walking out of the cinema. I admit to not reading the book the film was based on, so maybe I'm at a disadvantage, but I wouldn't have thought that should have been a necessity when sitting down to watch a BBC TV show, even in, or especially in, 1966.

Alice in Wonderland is one of the most astounding works of literature. It has therefore inspired many entertainers to do many different variations of Wonderland and its sequel, Through the Looking Glass.

Jonathan Miller's BBC version is extremely different from most adaptations of Alice, especially the Disney version (which is not really the most accurate portrayal of Lewis Carroll's logically illogical world). Miller evokes a rather haunting and surrealistic Victorian dreamworld filled with stuffy grown-ups numbly adhering to propriety and social etiquette. Alice is lost in this landscape, trying to find herself and trying to understand the process of growing up.

This variation is clearly more suitable for adults, since the mood is darker and none of the characters have any makeup at all. But the cast is excellent, with appearances by such legends as Sir Michael Redgrave, Sir John Gielgud, and Peter Sellers. Anne-Marie Mallik portrays a more sullen Alice but is perfect for this version of Wonderland.

A unique and artistic production- a must for Alice fans who like to see Lewis Carroll in all forms!

Does anyone know where or how I can get this Soundtrack? I love it, but can't find it on any Ravi Shankar compilation albums. If you can tell me where to find it then I will be infinitely grateful! And I will love you even more if you email me the answer to my yahoo account...it is claudia_osteen@yahoo.com..... thanks! p.s. I am a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland in general and this is by far one of the best adaptations (along with jan svankmajer's "Alice") because it gives the impression that maybe alice is the one who is going insane rather than everyone around her. The cinematography is beautifully done, and the music is perfect...not to mention there is a wonderful cast. I believe that this is suitable for children, but is very much made made for adults. It is a work of art!