I have really fond memories of the book. IIRC my fourth grade teacher read it to the class, half an hour a day, after lunch every day. I’m tempted to pick up a copy and reread it before seeing the new version but I don’t think it’s possible with my work schedule right now.
Just saw this last night with MilliCal.
But it is. No matter how you slice it, both the 1971 and 2005 version (and presumably the book, which I’ve never read) show Augustus Gloop failing because of his gluttony, Veruca for her self-centered spoiling, and Mike and Violet apparently for their impulsiveness and failure to listen to warnings. Except for Charlie and Augustus, all the kids are dislikeable brats. Even without the gob-stopper, Charlie does get a test at the end of the 2005 version, even if it’s not engineered by Willy Wonka.
(Pointless Aside)
[Gene Wilder]My name is Wonkenstein[/Gene wilder]
…
This film - and I say this in neither a positive nor a negative way - made my brain hurt.
Yeah. Morality play might not be the term I’m use, but the book is a kind of humorous critique of how spoiled and rotten kids are. Only Charlie, who has nothing, really appreciates what he has and acts like a good kid.
On to this movie: the Wonka backstory (aside from the Oompa Loompa bit) was really unnecessary and didn’t add much. I liked Christopher Lee and I was glad he was there, as always, but in the end, in this movie WONKA was the child and Charlie was more of an adult. That doesn’t make sense to me. The “Flags of the World” gag was hilarious, though, as was the building moving.
They made some clever updates, especially to Mike Teevee - this is one book that won’t be hurt by modernization, and the way they laughed off skepticism worked for me - but this movie felt closer to the book than “Willy Wonka.” However I admit I haven’t read the book in years. Burton’s weird outlook might be the difference maker. The funny thing is that neither Wilder’s nor Depp’s Wonka strikes me as being much like the original character, who I remember as more of a neutral guy. Wilder had a mean edge to him, but I suppose he came closer to being a person. Depp was gray-skinned and psychotic.
One big plus for this movie: the Oompa Loompa songs. Wow. They were great!
I disagree with The Flick Filosopher’s review, but I love this line from it:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2005/charliechocolate.shtml
Charlie agrees to take over the factory, then Charlie, Grampa Joe, and Mr. Wonka get in the Great Glass Elevator to get the rest of his family so they can move to the factory. That’s the end of the book, but there’s a sequel.
I really don’t like the 1971 film, aside from Wilder’s performance which was great and much more in the spirit of the book than Depp’s.
The fizzy lifting drink scene was horrible. Look, acording to the logic of the story, Charlie and Grandpa Joe should get chopped to bits by the fan. No second chance. Did Augustus Gloop get a second chance? Did Violet Beauregard get a second chance? Did Veruca Salt get a second chance? Did Mike Teevee get a second chance? Then why in hell should Charlie Bucket get a second chance? Sorry kid, you’re a degenerate thief, get the fuck outta my factory. Buh-bye now.
Plus, the kid who played Charlie in the 1971 version was terrible. Just awful. And the interminable exposition, the terrible musical numbers…arg. Just arg.
I disagree too :). First off, I think his basic “I’m a lump!” thing is virtue, for a writer of a Victorian children’s novel: kids aren’t supposed to do much except be quiet and be respectful to their elders.
Charlie:
-Asks his grandparents for stories, and then listens attentively and respectfully to them;
-Takes the disappointment of not finding a golden ticket with grace and dignity, three times;
-Tries to convince his family–“begs” them–to share his candy bar, the one bar that he gets every year;
-Tries to convince his Grandpa that they don’t need to frivolously spend a whole dime on another bar, and then tries to convince Grandpa that since Gramps paid for the bar, it’s his prerogative to tear off the cover
-When the family is starving and they try to slip him extra food, he staunchly refuses to take it, despite the fact that his refusal might kill him;
-While starving, he never complains, but simply takes wise little actions to conserve his failing strength (e.g., sits quietly resting in the classroom during recess);
-When he finds a whole dollar, decides to take 90 cents of it home to feed his family (he gives into temptation and ends up spending 20, not 10, cents–his one moral lapse)
-Is very polite and complimentary to Wonka
-Shows respectful concern about the welfare of the other children.
-Never once complains, or whines, or wheedles.
There’s a proverb I read once, years ago; I think it was Senegalese. “Bow your head when passing,” it said, “and you will harvest many bananas.”
Charlie bowed his head, and received the mother of all banana harvests.
Daniel
But there is an arc-one both straightforward and subtle. Charlie is a truly good person–and the story rewards the good. It is quite a simple story, really. Charlie is thoughtful, kind, sympathetic and brave. He is moral and decent. Such qualities should be rewarded. There is no irony to Charlie, no satire, no malice or ambition.
I think it is perfect that he is rewarded with candy–totally good characters are often called saccharine and sickly sweet, like many candies to an adult palate. It is literally sweets for the sweet.
Kids (up to a certain age) really dont’ have the need for irony and snarkiness–they believe in the world, in rules (and the other 4 kids think that rules don’t apply to them) and rewards.
As to the 2005 movie, I think Charlie won, not only for the above qualities mentioned, but because he is the ONLY child who thinks of others. He is the ONLY child who asks questions of Wonka that concern Willie–not the prize, his money, fame or skill in chocolate, but Willie the person. Charlie loves the candy, but also wants to know the man better and cares for him. This is alien stuff to Burton’s Wonka.
In the '05 movie, it is Wonka who grows and changes, and Charlie who shows him the way. It is brilliant and is more true to the spirit of the book than the '71 film (which I also saw in the theater, and I cried in horror when Wilder ripped Charle and Grandpa Joe another one for the Fizzing Lifting Drinks bit–it was so out of character for C and GJ to do what they did, but also out of character for WW to do what he did. It rang false when I was 9 and it still does.)
Much improved songs in this one. It was a bit creepy seeing the same Oompa Loompa en masse, but Doris(the receptionist) was a great bit!
LHoD–I see your point and I like the proverb but it doesn’t make for a solid story, IMO.
Here’s my disagreement while it was out of character for Charlie to swipe the Fizzy Lifting Drink–he did it at the behest of Grandpa Joe so it can be forgiven. What to me was so important about the Wonka ripping into Charlie was that this was Charlie’s moment of temptation. THIS was where his mettle was tested. Every other kid had a huge temptation dangled in front of them. Charlie, without Wonka’s outburst, was never tempted. Imagine a game wherein each child has to throw a ball through a hoop. Four children are given the opportunity to try–and fail–and the fifth child is (without ever touching the ball) announce the winner 'cause the other four failed first–there’s no virtue in winning by forfit–and in the book, Charlie won only because the other kids lost.
That’s why the Wonka Anger scene was so good–it shows that Charlie even in the face of horrible disappointment, unfairness and his own wrongdoing still did the right thing.
I semi-disagree.
I think Charlie was tested just as much, in not MORE than all the others. He had nothing. Was he just as hungry as Augustus? How long do you think it had been since he had a three-course meal with tomato soup, roast beef and blueberry pie, like Violet stole? The TV and squirrel are a little more difficult to parse this way, but I’d bet Charlie never had a pet and certainly was never famous either. In short, he was tempted just as much as all the other kids COMBINED, in that he had even LESS of the things the other kids stole.
I repeat what I said in my earlier post. Wonka DID tell him he was disqualified for stealing the fizzy drinks. This gives Charlie an incentive to take spiteful revenge on Wonka and sell the everlasting gobstopper to Slugworth. But instead, Charlie gives the gobstopper back. And then Wonka delares that he has won after all.
So, in the film Charlie wins through a positive act of virtue, while in the book he simply fails to do anything stupid.
But none of those are an…obsession…for lack of a better word, with him. In the '71 movie version there’s a very brief moment of sorrow and bitterness from Charlie (right before the dull “Cheer Up Charlie” song*) where he essentially says that he never wins, he never gets anything. That makes the temptation with the Wonka anger scene so much more powerful–he thinks that again the rug was unfairly yanked out from under him, that he’s going to lose again and he still does the right thing by giving back the gobstopper when it would have been so easy to rationalize “Well, he screwed me out of food my family needs to survive. Given that, how important is a promise?”
In the book, Charlie doesn’t have a personality in Chocolate Factory (he does in GGE) so he’s really not all that tempted. Nothing he’s obsessed with is dangled in front of his face. Yeah, he’s hungrier than Gloop but he’s not a…a foodaholic. Which is more impressive: an alcoholic turning down a glass of wine or someone who’s really, really thirsty?
Fenris
*I like most of the songs from the first movie and I love “Golden Ticket” and “Pure Imagination” but “Cheer Up Charlie” is like fingernails on a blackboard.
Exactly, and to add to that–Charlie’s test wasn’t “Avoid Fizzy Lifting Drink” (as Agustus’s was “Avoid gluttony” and Veruca’s was “Don’t be a spoiled bitch” 
) it was “Can he accept the responsiblity of making a mistake?” and “Can he do the right thing in the face of incredible disappointment?”
A friend of mine pointed out that in the 1971 film, Charlie originally feigns finding the Golden Ticket. I don’t recall the details, but this seems out of step with Charlie’s character. Then again, so does stealing the fizzy drinks.
I’ve just re-read the book. Here Be Spoilers!
In the book, unlike in the '71 movie,Willy Wonka is not trying to tempt the children to see “who is left”. Actually I strongly get the feeling in the '71 movie that Wonka has chosen Charlie in advance and the rest is just a set-up to make sure he’s worthy. I see this possibility in the book, but also the possibility that Charlie is just extremely lucky. Anyway, Willy Wonka explicitly says at the end: “I decided to invite five children to the factory, and the one I liked best at the end of the day would be the winner!” So Charlie could have won even if the others had not disqualified themselves. Charlie wins not because he resists temptation - although he does! - but because of who he is, the sort of child Mr Wonka likes.
I also have to say that in the book, in my opinion, Charlie is tempted - almost cruelly so. For that matter, so is Grandpa Joe. Remember that they are, literally, starving. And yet, surrounded by all those beautiful things that they are told are all eatable, they only take what they are specifically invited to take. When Willy Wonka points out that the grass is made of “a new kind of soft, minty sugar that I’ve just invented!”, and invites them to “try a blade”, Charlie and Grandpa Joe only take one blade each. Grandpa Joe whispers to Charlie that he could get down on all fours and graze on it like a cow, but they each only take one blade. It’s overfed Augustus who grabs a whole handful.
The Bucket family’s poverty was toned down a great deal for the '71 movie. I would guess that the scriptwriters put in the extra temptation of Slugworth and the money he promised for an Everlasting Gobstopper to make up for that a bit - Charlie doesn’t seem quite so heroic for not stealing food when he looks like an ordinary slender boy rather than a walking skeleton!
I don’t see it that way. WW wants a child he likes to inherit the factory. He invites 5 kids. The only one he likes at the end is Charlie. The others are not present because of their inability to control themselves in one way or another.
Charlie is rewarded for being Charlie. It’s very simple. No need to overcomplicate things.
Depp creeped me out badly,(I kept getting flashes of Jacko), but his emotional growth touched me in the film. Wilder’s Wonka did no do that for me–in fact, I lost respect for Wonka.
I think it’s great that there are so many different interpretations.
I reall yl thought the new version was inferior, most notably because of Depp’s Wonka character. I just never felt anything for him and his backstory and reedmption with his father just didn’t mean much to me at all and it really interrupted the movie, IMO. I think it is interesting theat the 1971 movie was Called “Willy Wonka…” and the newr version “Charlie…” when the newer version is the one that incorporates much more of WOnka’s character development into the story, in fact, the 05 is about Wonka and is not about Charlie at all, while the '71 is almost exactly the opposite.
You want a final temptation for Charlie? It’s this: he’s offered untold riches of the world if only he’ll turn his back on his father*. He’s given a bird’s-eye-view of the kingdom over which he’ll rule if only he turns his back. But he doesn’t: he keeps the faith, and is rewarded for it.
It’s kind of a classic temptation story, really.
Daniel
- (his whole family, really, but work with me here)
Sure, but do you ever get the sense that Charlie is actually struggling with this decision? I didn’t. The point of the movie was not the Temptation of Charlie, but the redemption of Willy Wonka.
Because he’s SO GOOD! I don’t think in the New Testament, Jesus agonizes over whether to take Satan’s offer (I could be wrong, but I think that’s a late addition to the story).
Seriously, though, I don’t think that a temptation is necessary. The story isn’t about a boy who overcomes mighty obstacles both external and internal to achieve great things. It’s about a kid who bows his head when passing, and harvests many bananas.
That story may not work for you, but it’s not an uncommon story for children’s books.
Daniel