(Hetty Baynes as Alice and other actors at the tea party scene, in the TV special's first half. Image credit: IMDB)
UPDATE: Adam Groves's 2025 review states that this version was actually made for a series of TV documentaries on the USSR by famous directors, called Momentous Events, and this director got "culture" as their theme. This somewhat explains why this version is how it is, but it is still a VERY odd hour or so of TV. Also Groves finds this version charming, I admit I did not personally, but, very interesting to get another POV on this special!
This is a difficult one to talk about, sorry if I make any errors on the background. If you know more about this than me, its fine!
Channel 4 , World Vision Enterprises, and Ken Russell (yes the UK director provocateur, you can see where this is going already) made in 1995 a version of Alice that for reasons unknown, relays the history of the Soviet Union/USSR, with particular focus on Russia.
Adam Groves notes this about the overall "Momentous Events" series:
The proposed title: MOMENTOUS EVENTS, reflecting both the massive changes occurring in the former Soviet Union. (...) Had it been completed, the $12 million MOMENTOUS EVENTS would have been the most ambitious of the lot, a six hour multi-parter with a wraparound segment set to be scripted by DERSU UZALA’s Yuriy Nagibin. Alas, it wasn’t to be. The problems, it seems, began almost immediately. Fellini died in 1993, before filming on his segment began, while Bogdonovich never completed (or, as far as I’m aware, started) his film. Ira Barmak, who initiated the project, also passed in 1993, followed by Yuriy Nagibin in 1994, leaving the wraparound unscripted and, by extension, unfilmed. Ultimately only four of the proposed six films were completed: Herzog’s BELLS FROM THE DEEP: FAITH AND SUPERSTITION IN RUSSIA/Glocken aus der Tiefe—Glaube und Aberglaube in Rußland, Russell’s ALICE IN RUSSIALAND, Godard’s THE KIDS PLAY RUSSIAN/Les Enfants jouent à la Russie, and Obayashi’s RUSSIAN LULLABIES, with the Russell and Godard films released on the festival circuit as a double feature (entitled RUSSIA IN THE 90s) and the Herzog and Obayashi segments exhibited as standalone films. Momentous these films weren’t. These days, in fact, they tend to be treated as mere footnotes in their makers’ filmographies.
- Groves, 2025.
This Alice also doesn't feel like a documentary for various reasons (I'll explain in a bit) but its technically a history documentary. The piece was called "Alice in Russialand" and it aired on late night channel 4 in the UK, I believe airing twice in 1995 and 1996. It then vanished for decades, and finally turned up on lost media Reddit, someone finding it through a VHS tape from Brazilian 1990s TV, where it also appears to have aired, late night on an arts channel.
What is this version like? Despite NOT being extreme as Russell's other work (he was working to Channel 4 broadcast rules after all) it still manages to be eyebrow raising and rather alarming in terms of tone in many places. If you thought the Svankmajer 1988 version was creepy, goodness.
It doesn't start this way, though. It starts in a fairly normal satire genre place, somewhat similar to Pla's 1976 Argentinian version or 1988 Svankmajer, using political figures as stand ins for Wonderland characters. The atmosphere however feels off. As if there is something wrong with the tone of the work. You can see it in how Hetty Baynes acts as Alice. So sincere that she crosses over to creepy. She looks like Tenniel's illustration, except her smile is far too wide and she's far too detached from everything she comes across. Baynes plays this role perfectly. You will have chills.
7 year old Alice really just wants to see a ballet, but unfortunately for her, she's stuck in a history lesson which goes through 200 years of Russian/USSR history all the way up to 1995. You think this might upset her, an unwanted difficult, long history lesson when all she wants is to see theatre, but because of how off this version is, Baynes's Alice barely cares. Her journey in hour one is also a very quick Alice in Wonderland adaptation, going from doors all the way up to trial fairly faithfully. This part of the special is done like a Victorian style stage play, with elaborate and fairly beautiful sets. The most part of the special has a storybook vibe, despite the satire, until it doesn't. Remember this is absolutely not for children. Remember who the director is...
Remember how off I said the entire special felt? This comes bursting to the forefront when Alice wakes up under a tree... and meets the cheshire cat. (Groves's review notes that this cat is played by the director himself!) Immediately we're thrown off course. As every Carrollian knows, the cheshire cat comes FAR before, after the Duchess. What is he doing here? He's here to tell Alice he's from Chornobyl, and there, everyone died. The Cat seems to find this hilarious. Alice has to follow him, he apparently knows more information.
Now cat wants to show Alice and us, some clips about the USSR. Some of these are archival clips, some are cultural, some are artistic, and some I wonder if Russell just made up himself. (I still do not know, even after reading Groves's review on this special) The way the compilations of clips are organised are to be as jarring as possible, even when the content is not! Some feature overlays upon overlays and dissonant sound. Again I think some of this may be edited by Russell. I couldn't find it confirmed. At some point, your jaw will be on the floor just due to the amount of clips and noise and distortion. As Alice sees 1995 new year across Europe, she finally wakes up...
Oh wait. She doesn't (again). No er.. Alice's reality with her sister is revealed to be just part of a massive book set. Those elaborate book sets from hour one were a part of it. There is no riverbank reality. Baynes's Alice can't go home. She can never go home.
Sneaks up on you, doesn't it?
I'm not sure who I'd recommend this to. It is very much a curio. History scholars would find it interesting. Europe scholars would too, also film historians. People who like Russell's work would like this. Even though its intended as a documentary, the abrupt shifts in tone and the fact you are never sure where you sit with it, that's more psychological horror. I'm sure a normal documentary could have been done, but its the left turn halfway through this that you'll really remember. Whether or not it was intended to make audiences feel uneasy, well, I have no idea if that is the intention or not. At the moment no one involved with making this has ever commented one way or another. Maybe see for yourself in terms of how you react to it???
