Sunday, September 04, 2005
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
We just got back from seeing Tim Burton's film of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at our recently reopened local independent cinema. It was another movie I was prepared to dislike, but thought deserved a chance anyway - particularly considering the rave reviews it's been receiving. I think it's a qualified success.While Burton has been quoted as disliking the original film and intending to remain faithful to the book in his version, neither of these are borne out in the new film itself. In fact, visually and directionally, Charlie often recalls the original film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, starring Gene Wilder, but also it curiously references Burton's own Edward Scissorhands repeatedly, although without the sombre pathos of that remarkable film.
For anyone of my generation - many of whom rate Willa Wonka as an all-time favourite - it's hard to get past the original film version. There are a few omissions in that film - such as showing the children at the end - that are here redressed, along with a number of non-book additions, such as the subplot involving Wonka's dentist father (Christopher Lee in a role that somewhat parallels Vincent Price's in Edwards Scissorhands). There are new inconsistencies (Who are all those men on motorbikes who come out of the factory to put up posters?, What happened to Charlie's change?, If Wonka is reconciled with his father will he still need Charlie?*) and some new invention, certainly enough for the film to draw the viewer into this bizarre, marvellous world, at least at a superficial level.
The flashback showing Wonka in Oompa Loompa Land, whilst enjoyable and direct from the book, does remove ambiguity from the childlike shiftiness of the Wonka portrayed in the original film. Danny Elfman's songs, which set words direct from the books to music, are somehow inadequate, with the exception of the introductory "Willy Wonka" song, sung by the puppets - the lyrics are largely unintelligable and very prosaic when they can be understood, which is a long way from the consistent classics of the first film.
Scenery-wise, too many setpieces to recount appear directly reminiscent of the first film, but The Chocolate Room and The Television-Chocolate Room are probably sufficient to show what I mean, the latter being additionally saddled with a drawn out injoke referencing Kubrick's 2001.The child actors hold up fairly well for the most part, particularly Charlie (Veruca looks disturbingly like my niece!). The reintroduction of the squirrels in the Nut Room sequence is welcome, and also among the creepier, Burtonesque moments (thankfully, there aren't too many). This scene works well on its own merits, but it's impossible to beat the showstopper from Willy Wonka (though the squirrels are equisite and the set design perfect).
Charlie's parents and grandparents are all excellent performances but overall, the other adult performances are subdued and unremarkable.
With the exception of Johnny Depp, that is! Most critics commenting on this film have raved about his unbelievably odd performance. Wilder's inspired, nuanced and scary performance as Willy Wonka aside, Depp reinterprets the role in a disturbed, idiosyncratic and bizarre manner. Sporting a Prince Valiant hairstyle and a wide toothy grin not reflected in his eyes, this Wonka works by turns to distance and embrace both audience and characters alike - and this is compelling to watch. I do wish the rewrite had given him more depth and some better lines, but the added flashbacks with his father do add something, though it is ultimately inconclusive.
On it's own terms Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an enjoyable, diverting entertainment. However, for those familiar with the original film, it feels at too many points like a remake, rather than something entirely new. J and L really enjoyed it (and also enjoy the earlier film).
* SPOILER ALERT! Jill suggested I post my theory about part of the film here, with my review. I read the scene where Wonka visits his father, in a house standing alone, as him coming to feel at peace with his father, who is actually deceased. This echoes Wonka's father's threat about being "gone," and the disappearance of his house in the earlier scene. Very nice symbolism and an effective addition!
Labels: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Movie reviews
Comments:
good review, ian and i'd agree on most points.
my gripes: the use of narration was a cop-out, i thought. a clever screenplay can do away with this intrusive element. maybe the 'once upon a time' feel was what they wanted but it just keeps reminding me i'm being told a story rather than than you actually living it.
the original movie took it's sweet (heh!) time to set up the story in a (fairly) ordinary, believable world. charlie goes to school, does a paper round, etc. this is of great importance in fantasy story-telling to 'ground' your audience first before you introduce all the zany, impossible elements. but burton couldn't resist giving everything his patented zany gorey gothic look, right from the get go. charlie's wildly leaning house with huge gaps in the roof letting in snow was a fine piece of crazy design but seemed too crazy, too early. it robs you of contrast when you see the craziness of the factory, later.
i also liked the absence of a father in the first movie, which made the poverty seem more intense and threw the importance of wonka as a kind of father figure into the sub-text.
while dahl's book may be more cynical, and maybe burton's tone indeed suits that, i found it a tad too mean-spirited. wonka appears to hate the children and the kids mostly hate and mock him back. it appears he's almost started the factory out of spite for his father who's was mean to him, etc. the sub-plot of his childhood was a bad move, i thought and only robs the viewer of the wonderful mystery the character had in the first movie. the new movie tries to make wonka the central figure whereas the first film also made you experience everything through charlie's eyes, which was a perfect touch for a kids movie (but i guess it's not just a kid's movie anymore, is it?) wilder's subtle and glib lines are replaced with repetitive prat falls and sarcastic eye-rolling. great, simple songs are replaced with noisy din, trying too hard to be clever. (having each song reference a different decade of music was distracting and ugly) over-use of pop culture references, like the laboured 2001 joke is again distracting and unnecessary. the poker-faced, cgi cut and pasted oompa-loompas looked as bored as i was and scaling them so small made them even more 'unreal' as characters. gah!
i did like the squirrels, though.
my gripes: the use of narration was a cop-out, i thought. a clever screenplay can do away with this intrusive element. maybe the 'once upon a time' feel was what they wanted but it just keeps reminding me i'm being told a story rather than than you actually living it.
the original movie took it's sweet (heh!) time to set up the story in a (fairly) ordinary, believable world. charlie goes to school, does a paper round, etc. this is of great importance in fantasy story-telling to 'ground' your audience first before you introduce all the zany, impossible elements. but burton couldn't resist giving everything his patented zany gorey gothic look, right from the get go. charlie's wildly leaning house with huge gaps in the roof letting in snow was a fine piece of crazy design but seemed too crazy, too early. it robs you of contrast when you see the craziness of the factory, later.
i also liked the absence of a father in the first movie, which made the poverty seem more intense and threw the importance of wonka as a kind of father figure into the sub-text.
while dahl's book may be more cynical, and maybe burton's tone indeed suits that, i found it a tad too mean-spirited. wonka appears to hate the children and the kids mostly hate and mock him back. it appears he's almost started the factory out of spite for his father who's was mean to him, etc. the sub-plot of his childhood was a bad move, i thought and only robs the viewer of the wonderful mystery the character had in the first movie. the new movie tries to make wonka the central figure whereas the first film also made you experience everything through charlie's eyes, which was a perfect touch for a kids movie (but i guess it's not just a kid's movie anymore, is it?) wilder's subtle and glib lines are replaced with repetitive prat falls and sarcastic eye-rolling. great, simple songs are replaced with noisy din, trying too hard to be clever. (having each song reference a different decade of music was distracting and ugly) over-use of pop culture references, like the laboured 2001 joke is again distracting and unnecessary. the poker-faced, cgi cut and pasted oompa-loompas looked as bored as i was and scaling them so small made them even more 'unreal' as characters. gah!
i did like the squirrels, though.
Thanks, Dillon, yeah, I agree about the narration, though it seems to be in at the moment (ie: War of the Worlds). It would’ve worked better just to set the mood than to have to go into explanation mode.
but burton couldn't resist giving everything his patented zany gorey gothic look, right from the get go.
You’re right, I hadn’t thought about this – yes, this whole world is kind of crazy. The ageless outside world in the original film was strange, but not outright bizarre (like the leaning house). And it is all very Burtony, but I guess that's why he wanted to remake this film.
i also liked the absence of a father in the first movie, which made the poverty seem more intense and threw the importance of wonka as a kind of father figure into the sub-text.
Definitely! I hadn’t thought of that. The Wonka in this film has such oddly arrested development that this subtext is obscured altogether.
while dahl's book may be more cynical, and maybe burton's tone indeed suits that, i found it a tad too mean-spirited.
Yes, agreed! The melting puppet was downright unpleasant, but overall none of the characters (apart from Charlie’s family) seemed to care about each other (like Veruca Salt and her father in Willy Wonka), or even interact in any meaningful or sustained way.
the sub-plot of his childhood was a bad move, i thought and only robs the viewer of the wonderful mystery the character had in the first movie.
I’m still out on this one: I wasn’t prepared to like it, but it sort of worked for me, in the context of this film.
the new movie tries to make wonka the central figure whereas the first film also made you experience everything through charlie's eyes,
It’s ironic, given the respective titles! I didn’t think much of them retitling the book for the first film, and now we have a film with the book title that is more about Willy Wonka!
which was a perfect touch for a kids movie (but i guess it's not just a kid's movie anymore, is it?)
That’s a really good question! My children enjoyed it, and it is superficially shiny and spectacular, but not engaging at an emotional level (at least for me).
great, simple songs are replaced with noisy din, trying too hard to be clever.
As brilliant as Danny Elfman is (and I still love Oingo Boingo’s Stay), the songs fail to progress the action at all – in fact, they bog it down! When you can understand the words they’re only explaining the patently obvious in a longwinded and banal way. The songs in the original really work!
the poker-faced, cgi cut and pasted oompa-loompas
Apparently the cgied Oompa Loompas (all played by one actor, Deep Roy) have led to Eugene Pidgeon, a labor activist for short-statured performers, to form an official advocacy committee, the Short-Statured Actors Forum.
Glad you liked the squirrels – they apparently trained some real ones!
but burton couldn't resist giving everything his patented zany gorey gothic look, right from the get go.
You’re right, I hadn’t thought about this – yes, this whole world is kind of crazy. The ageless outside world in the original film was strange, but not outright bizarre (like the leaning house). And it is all very Burtony, but I guess that's why he wanted to remake this film.
i also liked the absence of a father in the first movie, which made the poverty seem more intense and threw the importance of wonka as a kind of father figure into the sub-text.
Definitely! I hadn’t thought of that. The Wonka in this film has such oddly arrested development that this subtext is obscured altogether.
while dahl's book may be more cynical, and maybe burton's tone indeed suits that, i found it a tad too mean-spirited.
Yes, agreed! The melting puppet was downright unpleasant, but overall none of the characters (apart from Charlie’s family) seemed to care about each other (like Veruca Salt and her father in Willy Wonka), or even interact in any meaningful or sustained way.
the sub-plot of his childhood was a bad move, i thought and only robs the viewer of the wonderful mystery the character had in the first movie.
I’m still out on this one: I wasn’t prepared to like it, but it sort of worked for me, in the context of this film.
the new movie tries to make wonka the central figure whereas the first film also made you experience everything through charlie's eyes,
It’s ironic, given the respective titles! I didn’t think much of them retitling the book for the first film, and now we have a film with the book title that is more about Willy Wonka!
which was a perfect touch for a kids movie (but i guess it's not just a kid's movie anymore, is it?)
That’s a really good question! My children enjoyed it, and it is superficially shiny and spectacular, but not engaging at an emotional level (at least for me).
great, simple songs are replaced with noisy din, trying too hard to be clever.
As brilliant as Danny Elfman is (and I still love Oingo Boingo’s Stay), the songs fail to progress the action at all – in fact, they bog it down! When you can understand the words they’re only explaining the patently obvious in a longwinded and banal way. The songs in the original really work!
the poker-faced, cgi cut and pasted oompa-loompas
Apparently the cgied Oompa Loompas (all played by one actor, Deep Roy) have led to Eugene Pidgeon, a labor activist for short-statured performers, to form an official advocacy committee, the Short-Statured Actors Forum.
Glad you liked the squirrels – they apparently trained some real ones!
