The first thing that strikes me about these two movies was how the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was really all about Charlie, while last year's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was really all about Willy. (Just look at the character arcs in both movies… who really changes the most in each? You'll see what I mean.) The next thing I realized is how amazingly "safe" this new version of Roald Dahl's story is. And the last thing that occurred to me as I saw Charlie this afternoon was that I really dislike this remake.
In 1971's Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder's Willy seems a bit of a cynic, is untrusting and suffers from feelings of superiority to the rest of the world. He's also vaguely threatening, or at the very least, apparently uncaring as to the well-being of these annoying people he's subjected himself to. For the majority of the movie, he's simply not a very nice guy. Meanwhile, Charlie is a quiet child, but obviously on the adventure of a lifetime, and not above getting into a little trouble on the side. Trouble that could, conceivably, have cost him dearly. But, at the moment of truth, he decides not to betray Wonka, despite Willy's bad behavior and unpleasant attitude, and salvages his own future as well as Willy's.
Flash forward 30+ years, and Johnny Depp's Willy is a fey innocent, blissfully unaware of the dangers his factory presents. He seems almost childlike in his fascination with the miracles of his factory and untouched by the dangers the children are subjected to. But he's never unpleasant, unlikable or threatening. (I'd love to hear who Depp channeled for his Willy Wonka characterization. He seems to approach his characters as recipes… a pinch of this, a dash of that. Capt Jack Sparrow was a mix of Pepe Le Pew and Keith Richards, while he blended Angela Lansbury with Roddy McDowell & a little Basil Rathbone/Sherlock Holmes to create his unique take on Ichabod Crane for Sleepy Hollow. Michael Jackson seems an obvious choice for Willy's makeup and voice, but I wonder what the other pieces of the puzzle might be. Not that he's ever mentioned using Jackson for inspiration. I doubt he'd ever cop to that one in public these days.)
This time we're given a backstory for Willy, and an explanation for his reclusiveness and problems with people that has nothing to do with adult problems like betrayal or industrial espionage (all traced back, of course, to his problems with his father. How original.) Charlie meanwhile, is a cipher. A good boy who does nothing out of line, behaves himself the whole time he's there and wins the grand prize simply for being himself. Willy expresses his joy at Charlie's winning by saying "I knew eventually there would only be one child left and that would be the winner. And that winner is you, Charlie!" (I'm paraphrasing… get over it.) Charlie doesn't need to do anything to prove his worth beyond simply being "a good boy." Unlike his previous movie incarnation (and his literary counterpart) he takes no active role in his own good fortune.
Of course, then he goes on to prove what a good boy he is by turning down Willy's offer, since it means having to leave his family. You see, unlike Willy, Charlie loves his family and can't bear to leave them. We then get a half-hour denouement as Charlie helps Willie resolve his issues with his father and learn that family is a good thing and everyone lives happily ever after. God, what pap.
People are constantly going on about the influences we expose our children to, but it's only the blatantly egregious that get noticed (the twin bugaboos of sex and violence, for the most part). But what about messages like this one? "Behave. Don't rock the boat. Conform." (Yeah, I'm on my conformity kick again.) Creativity isn't ever safe and it never comes from playing by the rules. Burton should know this instinctively… just look at his movies and you can see that he understands this notion. So why is he foisting it on the rest of us in this candy-coated paean to playing by the rules?
Maybe he was more focused on Willy's story here, since it gave him an opportunity to put his own stamp on it, and following Dahl's framework denied him that. But whatever the reason, he's stripped the best part of the message from this story and left us with an empty shell that rehashes notions you can see on any Afterschool Special and virtually every "family friendly" sitcom on TV today. And that's nothing to aspire to, especially a filmaker of Burton's talent.
In 1971's Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder's Willy seems a bit of a cynic, is untrusting and suffers from feelings of superiority to the rest of the world. He's also vaguely threatening, or at the very least, apparently uncaring as to the well-being of these annoying people he's subjected himself to. For the majority of the movie, he's simply not a very nice guy. Meanwhile, Charlie is a quiet child, but obviously on the adventure of a lifetime, and not above getting into a little trouble on the side. Trouble that could, conceivably, have cost him dearly. But, at the moment of truth, he decides not to betray Wonka, despite Willy's bad behavior and unpleasant attitude, and salvages his own future as well as Willy's.
Flash forward 30+ years, and Johnny Depp's Willy is a fey innocent, blissfully unaware of the dangers his factory presents. He seems almost childlike in his fascination with the miracles of his factory and untouched by the dangers the children are subjected to. But he's never unpleasant, unlikable or threatening. (I'd love to hear who Depp channeled for his Willy Wonka characterization. He seems to approach his characters as recipes… a pinch of this, a dash of that. Capt Jack Sparrow was a mix of Pepe Le Pew and Keith Richards, while he blended Angela Lansbury with Roddy McDowell & a little Basil Rathbone/Sherlock Holmes to create his unique take on Ichabod Crane for Sleepy Hollow. Michael Jackson seems an obvious choice for Willy's makeup and voice, but I wonder what the other pieces of the puzzle might be. Not that he's ever mentioned using Jackson for inspiration. I doubt he'd ever cop to that one in public these days.)
This time we're given a backstory for Willy, and an explanation for his reclusiveness and problems with people that has nothing to do with adult problems like betrayal or industrial espionage (all traced back, of course, to his problems with his father. How original.) Charlie meanwhile, is a cipher. A good boy who does nothing out of line, behaves himself the whole time he's there and wins the grand prize simply for being himself. Willy expresses his joy at Charlie's winning by saying "I knew eventually there would only be one child left and that would be the winner. And that winner is you, Charlie!" (I'm paraphrasing… get over it.) Charlie doesn't need to do anything to prove his worth beyond simply being "a good boy." Unlike his previous movie incarnation (and his literary counterpart) he takes no active role in his own good fortune.
Of course, then he goes on to prove what a good boy he is by turning down Willy's offer, since it means having to leave his family. You see, unlike Willy, Charlie loves his family and can't bear to leave them. We then get a half-hour denouement as Charlie helps Willie resolve his issues with his father and learn that family is a good thing and everyone lives happily ever after. God, what pap.
People are constantly going on about the influences we expose our children to, but it's only the blatantly egregious that get noticed (the twin bugaboos of sex and violence, for the most part). But what about messages like this one? "Behave. Don't rock the boat. Conform." (Yeah, I'm on my conformity kick again.) Creativity isn't ever safe and it never comes from playing by the rules. Burton should know this instinctively… just look at his movies and you can see that he understands this notion. So why is he foisting it on the rest of us in this candy-coated paean to playing by the rules?
Maybe he was more focused on Willy's story here, since it gave him an opportunity to put his own stamp on it, and following Dahl's framework denied him that. But whatever the reason, he's stripped the best part of the message from this story and left us with an empty shell that rehashes notions you can see on any Afterschool Special and virtually every "family friendly" sitcom on TV today. And that's nothing to aspire to, especially a filmaker of Burton's talent.
Comments
How much?
I actually "lost" Gillian's copy. Whoops! Guess you have to watch the "old" Willy Wonka sweetheart. I prefer watching that one with her.
Obviously, our children must never know the evils we perpetrate to protect them from bad cinema.
; )