Don’t get me wrong…I don’t think I would have this interpretation if I didn’t have two small girls. But with her sitting there next to me munching on popcorn I don’t think any other interpretation COULD occur to me.
I like your extension that parenting is a balance of letting them go and reeling them back. It might be thought that Dahl was coming out against any form of dogmatic child-rearing, whether too tight or too loose.
Here is a trailer for The Corpse Bride. I’m excited.
Oh, and more info in case anyone is interested.
Saw the movie yesterday with my 13 year old daughter. We both really enjoyed. In fact I laughed so hard in places that I embarassed her. The Oompa Loompa songs! The squirrels! Johnny Depp!
I am one of the few who wasn’t in love with the 1971 movie (tho I did love Gene Wilder’s characterization), so the movie didn’t have to prove anything to me. And my daughter had completely forgotten the 1st movie (she only saw it when she was much younger) so she was caught up in this one.
That was my feeling too. It just wizzed along and never really connected with me. This movie was the one they should have called “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” I think they shortchanged the kids for Wonka. And Wonka just made everything feel awkward. Some lines just made me feel embarassed for the guy.
I liked the look they were going for but it just never felt real enough for me. The blueberry bit was awful. I liked the Oompa Loompa songs although I couldn’t understand a word they said. I hated Depp’s Wonka. He’d probably have a disturbing webpage where he dresses … oddly would be the politest word I could use.
It was ok but I don’t think the kids of today will be making parodies of it 30 years from now.
An interesting thread. I just wanted to give my perceptions about the book, in particular with regard to locations of the ticket winners and Violet’s character flaws.
With regard to the book we should consider the time of its publication to explain some of the attitudes, as well as the background of the author.
My older sister used to read her copy (first edition, complete with black pygmy Oompla Loompas) to me when I was a child during the 1970’s, and it was also a favourite at school.
As I understand, Dahl was back in Britain when he wrote the book, but it was first published in the US, where he had lived for several years. So in the absence of any concrete evidence for Charlie’s origins it would appear it was intended to be ambiguous. I could put forward some arguments for British-European origins (and no doubt someone else can advance several opposing ones).
Biographies of Dahl suggest the inspiration for the book were Dahl’s dreams of working in a chocolate factory. As a schoolboy, he and his classmates had been product testers for Cadbury’s Dahl would have been asked for opinions regarding the chocolate sent and no doubt many of the products never made it to market. It’s not hard to see how an imaginative boy might have fantasised about inventing rooms at Cadbury’s.
The perception in Europe as America being wealthy, having a better standard of living, still being a land of opportunity. It would have been difficult to imagine poor people in America, particularly the dire poverty described in the book. Working class Europeans, on the other hand, would at least be able to remember times like those even if, in Britain at least, the establishment of the Welfare State meant that things were no longer that grim.
I’m fairly certain that British currency was mentioned in the book. However, it’s possible that there was an American version and a British version.
I certainly perceived Violet and Mike as Americans. Again remember Dahl’s background. Born and brought up in Britain, spending much of his time at an English boarding school, would have pretty ensured he was imbued with the qualities of the English middle classes of that time. TV and gum would have seemed very much American (American vices, to many). Even I (and I’m certainly younger than Dahl!) can remember this attitude, from older folk in particular. I can remember being teased by elderly neighbours for looking like “a yank” when I chewed gum. Many people regarded it as dreadfully common, as they would Violet’s other characteristics. What might be interpreted positively now as being an ambitious go getter would then be considered pushy and vulgar.
TV was not seen unequivocally as a good thing. It was not a 24/7 thing, and there was a clear distinction between programming for children and adults, with children getting a few hours a day. There was certainly a sense of too much tv being a bad thing. Like the implication in the book, it was very much inferior to sitting down and reading a book (consider Dahl’s Matilda).
This is definitely possible; my copy of the book talks about dollars, not pounds.
Very interesting post!
Daniel
Saw it today; liked it a lot better than I expected, especially Depp. The editing in the trailer made me expect a far more annoying, contrived pace of dialogue.
Gene Wilder’s Wonka was an eccentric but confident showman; Depp’s Wonka is an emotionally arrested recluse who really didn’t have a clue how to connect with normal people. Both were very effective at their particular interpretation.
Danny Elfman’s music, while still crappy, wasn’t quite as annoying as it sometimes is. The songs were snappy but somehow forgettable – maybe because the instrumentals drowned out the lyrics too much. I like Deep Roy; how tall is he really?
Those squirrels were really smart.
Well, I finally got around to seeing this. The kids and I had spent the morning watching Edward Scissorhands, so we were all Burtoned up and ready to open our minds to this new experience. I’ll not keep you in suspense: we were disappointed. I have several comments to make, but not the time or mental resources to make them into a coherent review, so I’m going to just list them here.
Not all of these comments are disparaging. I found a lot to like in this movie. It was very pretty and I liked how it fit in parts that were faithful to the book. Speaking of Edward Scissorhands, I thought there was a reference to it when Wonka cut the ribbon in front of his new factory and stood there dangling the scissors with the long sleeve of his coat hiding his fingers. Anyone else get that?
I really liked Grandpa George. I thought it was hilarious when he said, “You don’t like chocolate? Well then it’s a good thing you’re going to a chocolate factory, isn’t it, you ungrateful little ba…!”
I didn’t think much of the chocolate room. In the original movie there was a sense of them being in a vast room, whereas in this version, I had a sense of them standing on a small, crowded set.
There were some real stomach turning moments in this one, notably Violet’s mom in the chocolate room with red goop all over her teeth, and the caterpillar scene. I couldn’t even watch that one through my fingers.
There were a few places in the movie where it disturbed me that the actors didn’t give an appropriate reaction. One was during the blueberry scene, when Violet starts to change color (in a very nicely done way). Her mother is watching this horrible change come over her daughter, and never even says “spit it out?” Then Violet sees it happening on her own hand, yet still chews on. Yeah, right.
Another time was in the Nut Room. Veruca clearly states her intention to grab a squirrel, then calmly opens the little gate and goes down the steps. Wonka and her father don’t move or say a word as she does this.
Another one: the shoeshine scene. They get into the Great Glass Elevator and blast off. Passers-by are oblivious.
The audience I was with thought “You’re weird!” and “Don’t touch that squirrel’s nuts!” were hilarious, though we’ve all seen the trailer fifty times and they weren’t even funny the first time. Grrr!
Johnny Depp’s lipstick stole almost every scene he was in. I guess he figured if eyeliner could make him a pirate, lipstick could make him a reclusive chocolatier.
All of this, and it still would have been a passable movie. It was okay right up until the end, when Wonka asked Charlie to leave his family. Even then, it could have been salvaged if he had smacked himself in the forehead right away and said, “Okay, bring 'em all!” But, no, we have another ten minutes before Wonka can begin to understand where he went wrong. It was very reminiscent of Jacko inviting a little boy to a sleepover, then wondering what everyone is so upset about. Wonka had no special love or respect for Charlie; Charlie was merely the puzzle piece which had to fit in with his plans. Whoever said there was no heart in this movie was right. That last few minutes just blew it, as far as I’m concerned.
Anyway, Corpse Bride looks pretty interesting!
Yup. The first time I saw the trailer online I had the same thought. I wondered at the time if it was unintentional, but the more times I see it, the more I think it was intended.
She didn’t actually open the gate–she slipped through it. But yeah, Mr. Salt was certainly athletic-looking enough that he could have climbed over the gate instead of waiting for Wonka to locate the proper key.
I’ve seen a lot of people refer to Depp’s Wonka as being just one-note creepy. Maybe I’m seein’ more than is actually there, but it seems to me that he’s packed a lot of subtlety into him.
Watch his face. Not just the little muggings we’ve seen a zillion times in the commercials. There are times, usually when he’s walking toward the camera, that he has this light in his eyes … he’s a genius, and this is his home. He’s surrounded by his work. He forgets that he’s being followed by a pack of people he has no idea how to relate to, and fills with pride and satisfaction.
When something’s happening to one of the kids, he has an expression that’s simultaneously gleeful, fascinated, and a little bit repulsed. There’s the hanging question of whether he knew what was going to happen (“I must say, that seemed rather rehearsed.”). He does have a look of being in control … during the scene in the nut sorting room, he keeps looking through his keys, but when he tells Veruca’s dad to go down to the chute he’s already got the key in the lock. How long has it been there? Good question.
At several points during the movie, Charlie says something that shows that he’s on Wonka’s wavelength. He gets the whipped cream right off; he says candy doesn’t have to have a point; he asks if Wonka remembers the first candy he ever ate (interestingly, I don’t think we ever see the adult Wonka eat anything); even when they first see the Oompa-Loompas, someone asks where they came from but Charlie is more interested in who they are. At the end, when Charlie’s the only one left, Wonka says he had a feeling from the beginning that Charlie would win, and it’s sort of tossed in like it’s one of the little informational monologues he spouts throughout the tour, but Charlie’s observations the whole time have usually been followed by a Wonka reaction shot. Also, when he shakes Charlie’s hand it’s the first time he’s willingly touched anyone in the movie.
Also watch Wonka’s face when Charlie says he won’t leave his family. He’s thrown out of his element by something that is, to him, completely unexpected. You can see several expressions cross his face as he tries to compute what he’s hearing, regains his composure when he’s sure he knows what to say to change Charlie’s mind, then finds it didn’t work at all. He has to fall back on his all-purpose “I don’t get it” remark, “That’s really weird” but when he leaves in the elevator he looks very, very alone. Kinda like when he came back from “running away” to find his dad had meant what he said.
My brother also pointed out that the young Wonka’s face is being pulled into an artificial smile, and suggested that as one of the reasons the adult Wonka’s expressions, especially the smiles he puts on for the tour, seem a little off. It’s the smaller smile he gets when he’s watching the flawless machinery of his factory, or his beloved Oompa Loompas (the only people he really understands), that’s his genuine smile.
I never got a Michael Jackson vibe from Depp’s Wonka. In fact, he’s pretty repulsed by children (and the real world in general). I didn’t even really get a “still a kid” vibe from him – more of a pure innocence. He’s spent his time completely in control of his factory, surrounded by workers who won’t repeat the betrayal of trust that so bewildered and devastated him before. Anything he didn’t understand, he shut out. Nothing in his factory frightens him.
Huh, typed more than I thought. In any case, I liked the movie a lot. There were a few off moments (like Wonka’s first not-quite flashback “Dad … papa …?”, plus the “Flags of the World” joke which didn’t seem to quite fit the tone of the movie), but overall I loved the feel and I especially liked Depp’s portrayal of Wonka.
Dragonblink, that seems a very good account of Depp’s Wonka. I found myself wondering whether Wonka had meticulously planned out the entire tour to test all the children, and rehearsed all the songs in advance, and really was in complete control. Maybe that’s where his discomfort came from: maybe he was finally putting his evil genius I AM GOD plans into effect, and it was kind of freaking him out.
Daniel
Sir Doris’s post made me think of a question: by my vague memory reading the book, it was my impression that Dahl intended all the kids to be British (my strongest memory of this is in the case of Augustus, whom I remember as being portrayed as British, not German). Yet the Beauregarde last name seems to put this theory out. What’s the real deal?
– I’m not sure whether I was impressed or repulsed by Burton’s even yet more extravagant Bauhaus self-parodies. Yes, the buildings are big. I get it. Big. Then again, it’s supposed to look cartoony, and it really is a really big factory, so why not?
– I kept waiting for Wonka’s dad to say “You will not eat candy. You will taste manflesh!!!”
I’ve always said that the original movie (and I’m one of those who prefer it to the book) grabbed hold of something almost primordial in me as a kid. I wanted that factory. I wanted to taste the snozzberry wallpaper. It was intense.
That amazing sense of discovery seemed lacking in Burton’s version. But when I think about it, I think there was an innocence to the original that wouldn’t be applicable to today’s children. They are more… I guess the word is jaded, though that sounds judgmental and I don’t mean it to be. Kids will laugh at the funny man saying funny things, but is there anything left to awe and impress a child with, candy-wise? So the focus shifts from the candy, from the wonderland, to the characters.
In the first movie, the children are venal and appalling because of the amazing background. Instead of bringing out the best in people, it brought out the worst except in Charlie. Charlie was the one who reacted the way I thought made sense (when I was also a child) in the context of the wonderland.
In the second movie, the children are just more freaks for the freakshow. The factory is weird first and foremost, instead of magical.
I enjoyed them both. I giggled almost every time Johnny Depp opened his mouth. The boy playing Charlie was very good.
Just saw it again yesterday, after checking in with the Gene Wilder version. (Brought some kids along, this time. Imagine that.)
A little detail I didn’t notice the first time – mebbe a little dig at the slightly-cheesy gold-greasepaint “coathooks” in that film.
When the lucky ticketholders first enter the factory, they’re advised to just throw their coats anywhere, and toss them on the floor. That gag was not missed. 
Saw it again today and I just wanted to add a couple of things I missed:
On second viewing, yeah, Violet deserved what she got, and Augustus really got shafted.
But what I can’t believe I missed the first time was that the toothpaste in the factory Mr. Bucket worked at was called Smilex . Nice touch, that.
The same thing that bugged the shit out of me in the first movie bugged the shit out of me in the second.
The mom is obviously overworked and stressed trying to support a child and, count 'em, four elderly bed-ridden parents. They are so feeble that they have to be served their dinners in bed.
Yet when Charlie wins the golden ticket, Grandpa, who can’t lift a single finger to help out the overworked parents, suddenly finds all this energy. Not only can he get out of bed and do a little jig, but he can miraculously find the energy to make it through an all-day tour of a chocolate factory.
In both versions, if there was any measure of justice, the mother should have gone on the damn tour and grandpa should have kept his lazy, good for nothing ass in bed where he’s laid for umpteen years.
Geesh.
Okay, I’m done.
That’s how it is in the book, isn’t it? Mrs. Bucket didn’t care about the chocolate factory, so why would she go? The only one who cared aside from Charlie was Grandpa Joe, who I think only cared because of Charlie.
Actually, I think both movies and Roald Dahl (Don’t forget, this scene was in the book too) were making a point. Grandpa Joe was fine physically, but spiritually he was crushed. The four elders were bedridden because they had lost hope, like the rest of the family. They were more or less resigned to their fates.
When Charlie found the ticket, Joe had his faith in life restored and was able to leave the bed for the first time in years to claim his role as Charlie’s guardian. At the end of the book and movie, the other elders were able to get out of bed and live their lives once they saw Joe and Charlie’s dreams fulfilled.
It sounds corny, but sometimes all you need is a little hope.