Talk:Alice in Wonderland (1966 TV play)

message: Removed the line: "While the original story has Wonderland populated by strange animals, this version was performed without animal costumes or indeed special effects." as I am currently watching the movie and it does indeed contain some special effects and a whole lot of people in animal costumes.
:Sorry to differ, I also just watched the movie: there are absolutely NO animal costumes present. That was Miller's whole point. And special effects are used only very reducedly, e.g., the Cheshire cat head only appears once in the sky, is a real cat, and does NOT grin, growing/shrinking always (with perhaps(!) one exception) occurs between cuts, etc. 140.78.107.99 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No subject

message: I see that someone has reinstated the erroneous claim that this was part of the Wednesday Play series. Jonathan Miller was not part of the Wednesday Play production team, while in her book Play for Today - The Evolution of Television Drama, Irene Shubik does not include it in the comprehensive episode guide for editions of The Wednesday Play & Play for Today. Although the play was screened on a Wednesday in the slot usually occupied by The Wednesday Play, it was categorically not part of it, and was not billed as such, either in the Radio Times or in newspaper listings. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job of researching this Nick. This aired on Wednesday Dec 28th '66. Do you have any info about whether it aired in the Wed Play time slot. I'm thinking it might have been a special holiday programme replacing the usual Wed Play rather then being a part of it. That might be where the confusion comes from. Well, that and IMDb's having it listed erroneously. If you don't have any more info don't worry about it. I'll put this on my watchlist to try and help if others don't pay attention to your note and this info. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: My recollection is that it was not commissioned as part of the WP series, but that the BBC, which thought it was getting a nice family show for Christmas, realised it had something else on its hands and so put it out in the latish WP slot (9.05pm). I saw it at the time and seem to remember its opening with the famous WP title sequence, but maybe after 46 years my memory is playing up!IXIA (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a ''Wednesday Play''! 

message: This production is not really a 'play' nor is it a 'film of a play'. It's a film pure and simple - made on celluloid - as a film - using filmakers' techniques; but at the time (the 1960s) the UK broadcasters didn't call their own films anything other than plays.
194.72.120.131 (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a "television play" and is described and appropriately linked as such in the introduction. In UK usage, the term "film" refers more to the form than the medium, especially since most TV plays were made on video tape (or, earlier, broadcast live). As an alternative we could describe it as a "programme," but "film" is inherently misleading. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Interesting that you speak of the "form" rather than the medium. This Alice, along with many of the later "Play for Today" series was shot entirely on film, using a single camera technique and all the usual grammar of film making. Therefore, in what way is this not a film?  Perhaps because it never got a theatrical release? However, in 1995 the BBC re-made "Cold Comfort Farm" and this again was a made for TV "play" shot on film but it also had a theatrical release in the USA. So was that a play or a film? Frankly I don't worry too much but it evidently exercises people. Ant501UK (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Play or Film? 

message: It must (oh, surely) be the case that Jonathan Miller cast Anne-Marie Mallik because she made him think of what Susan Sontag might have been like (and looked like) at the same age. Stikko (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless evidence can be provided, this would be speculation. See No original research for guidance about what constitutes a reliable source. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Susan Sontag was a great speaker. This actress is an awful speaker. If she was a tribute casting, then it's no complement. Robin J Thomson (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan Sontag