Egypt Exhibition

I remember going to an Egyptian exhibition once, long enough ago that all I remember was darkness, a lot of people pressing together in a cramped, dimly lit space and the las room which contained a sarcophagus and a mummy, tightly wrapped in fine white linen. No really - my impression, as I leaned over the glass was that of a strong and flexible ivory coloured material that on hindsight, is oddly clean, that is, if my memory is even reliable to begin with. It wasn't at the National Museum though, I think it was at the old location of the Asian Civilizations Museum, situated in a narrow lane somewhere near the old MPH flagship store - you remember - the one with the sky painted on the domed ceiling.

Some things never change, as this new Egyptian exhibit at NMS shows. The mouth of the cave-like entrance stretched upwards cavern-like and it was invitingly dark. The small lights illuminating the interior is the kind to be found in museums, even then and I feel an odd sense of deja vu. Then again, the Christian Delacroix exhibit last year was just as dimly lit. It was bloody crowded. We had to queue outside for about 15 minutes, though it could have been longer; it certainly felt that way. One thing new though - sufficiently creepy music was echoing off the recesses of the exhibition hall. I don't know if it was the music or the exhibits themselves, but it felt creepy to be surrounded by so many statues and objects, all neatly laid out, clinically. There is something dead about these things, and I sense, oddly, desperation and urgency in the men and women who created these things in their colossal scale. It felt, somehow, like reaching back across eons, or of bridging the centuries. Here was this stone fragment from 1200BC (or so) and here was me, roughly 3000 years later staring through glass and fuzzy light at it. I can understand PY's itch to touch one of them. Looking, I can't help but wonder what the people who made them were like - same as the Lourve exhibit, same as the Lacroix one but with the Ancient Egyptians, there is the sense of being that much closer to eternity.

Which Dreamed It?

Hello there Alice. After a year or so of eager anticipation Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland arrived with the expected fanfare and everyone has been of course talking about it. Critics have complained about it being an okay film if not mind-blowing. I myself am honestly a little tired of Depp playing so many weird characters. That man needs to do something else that doesn't involve period dressing or eccentric dressing, period. But then I'm a Depp fan and I don't want to have to eat my words and complain about the dearth of Depp-in-kooky-films later either.

When my sister asked me which my favourite character was, I sighed and said the Mad Hatter won by default (see paragraph above) but on more consideration, I definitely liked the Cheshire Cat, which incidentally shared my liking for the Hatter's hat and Ann Hathaway's White Queen. That woman is amazingly funny and I only wished there had been more scenes involving her.

Having gotten the fangirl rant bit out of the way, I want to go on to defend this film (in all its scripterly mediocrity). First of all, it's the first really successful Alice screen adaptation. Of course, that could just have been the audience moving on since the first botched attempt by Disney and other lesser entities and you'll have to admit that there has been a significant increase in dragons, trolls, elves, knights, wizards (and certain vampires) etc lately. Still, this doesn't detract from the film getting a number of things right and that's what counts. You can make a perfect flash in the pan like Twilight and then you can make something like Alice.

The plot suffers of course and I find the good-triumphs-evil dichotomy problematic, especially since both Queens are treated sympathetically and one ends up feeling sorry for the Red Queen (not that she wants your pity - Off with your head!). On the other hand, it does capture the spirit of the original books pretty well. The film keeps a sense of wonder going strong, though haunting may be the better word for it, as Wonderland seems to have experienced rather a bit of wear and tear since Alice first fell down the rabbithole. The castles (both white and red) were fantastic to look at, and Burton obviously had a very good look at the sources of Alice images because certain of the scenes looked almost true to how Tenniel imagined them - that is, before Burton adds his whimisical and sometimes cheeky interpretation to them. I am thinking of the 'Drink Me' scene with all the extra doors. I don't think they were there in the original book... And my personal favourite - the cherry tinted sunnies on the Red Queen's nose as she plays croquet is a clever addition to the scene.

Still, a word of warning: don't go looking for Carroll's Alice in Burton's updated adaptation. You'll be sorely disappointed and while I find myself enjoying the movie, it's hardly a substitute for the novels. (Beware lazy lit student who thinks watching the film is as good as reading the book) This is good. It's about time somebody considered re-inventing Alice rather than try to slavishly copy it or worse still, water it down till the punch it ought to have made has absolutely no impact...

Rating: 4/5