Aurora Plastics put out a pretty nice model of the car, which is worth quite a bit now:
Goldfinger, actually - Gert Frobe (and he was a Baron).
Joe
Ah, the Child Catcher: “Lollies! Lovely lollies! All free today…” Never spooked my sister or me as a child; but according to my sister, the Child Catcher frightened my young nephews enough that they couldn’t finish watching the movie.
Loved the inventions that were in the Potts home. They were built by Rowland Emett, and he kindly donated some of his inventions to a local science museum. While they were not the ones used in the movie, they were a popular stop on school field trips to the science museum–they were just as elaborate as the ones in the movie, and they were always working. Fascinating to watch.
The Truly-and-Caracatus-as-puppets number was fun. Whenever the movie was on TV, I would always look for the strings that I was sure were holding Dick Van Dyke up. Never saw them, but had to believe that they were there somewhere–people just can’t do that sort of thing without falling.
Good memories of a movie I enjoyed very much as a child!
I still watch it, and I own on DVD.
A wonderful piece of work by Ian Fleming (yes, THAT Ian Fleming)…Wonder if he got the idea of the tricks in Bond’s card from CCBB?
That wasn’t Dick Van Dyke, that was David Tomlinson. Dick Van Dyke was not in Bedknobs at all (Bedknobs and Chitty are my favourites, I picked up Chitty a year or so back from the bin at Walmart, just need Bedknobs now!)
Celtling loves Chitty Chitty! She roots for Chitty in the races at the beginning, she praises Chitty for saving the little girl and her dog, and she gets furious when the Baron tries to steal her. We’ve probably watched it 50 times in the last 3 months.
Someone mentioned the Outhouse - it’s referred to as his lavatory which is why the spies steal it along with the Dad. When he says he can’t invent without his laboratory, the Baron says “No worry, we’ve brought it along.” Besides, the way he’s walking when he heads out the door for it should be all the proof you need! LOL!
“I’m off to India” was the accepted euphemism in our house throughout my childhood.
My favorite song is at the beginning, “Someone to care for, to be there for, I have you two. . .” and also “Lullaby Mountain.”
As for “Choo-Chi Face,” can you imagine a dance scene ina black leather teddy and fishnet stockings in a modern kids flick? I was horrified when I saw it as an adult!
And he does do the accent at the very beginning, when he’s got the rockets strapped to his back and yells out “keep clear” it’s especially obvious that a) he’s trying and b) it’s not working. The accent disappears soon after.
I also love the Baron’s right-hand man who talks funny. “A motorcar, floatin’, floatin’ on the water foam! this is never coming to be seen!!”
I was about 4 when I saw **Chitty Chitty Bang Bang **in the theater. Despite it’s length (2.5 hours), it did manage to hold my interest the entire time which, when you’re that age, is your only criteria for whether a movie’s good or not. Also, for some reason, the Child Catcher didn’t freak me out.
Flash ahead over three years: I am now 7 and see CCBB on TV. My estimate of the movie drops considerably (and has never recovered). Still not freaked out about the Child Catcher and think he’s only cool thing in the movie.
In addition, here’s a bit little context about the presence of elaborate singing and dancing numbers that seemingly had little to do with the plot in CCBB. After the huge success of Mary Poppins and **Sound of Music **in the mid 60s, the Hollywood studios all tried to outdo each other in producing exorbitantly expensive family-friendly musicals. Unfortunately, those bloated epics all bombed big time. Along with others like Dr. Doolittle and Hello Dolly, CCBB was one those oversized all-singing and all-dancing extravaganzas that did so poorly that it resulted in some major studios flirting with bankruptcy during the late 60s and crippled the film musical genre so badly that it’s never completey recovered.
I’ve long been a bit baffled by the casting of Benny Hill in what amounts to a straight dramatic role amid all the slapstick and musical comedy.
Wasn’t that used in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?
That’s more than just a nitpick. The whole point of the joke is that Caractacus’s uniform consisted entirely of blue paint, so Major Stanley’s knowledge really isn’t that impressive.
I remember that they actually made whistling lollypops for awhile, called Whistle Pops instead of Toot Sweets, but I still couldn’t help thinking of them as dog treats. I also really believed that posh was an acronym until Unca Cecil disabused me of the idea.
Do they really not show it on TV anymore?
It is the very first movie that I remember seeing in a theater. As I recall, my Mom gave me the choice of Yellow Submarine or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I chose YS but for some reason we went to CCBB anyway. I see that they came out in 1968 so I would have been 4 years old at the time.
I have seen in a few times on TV since then but not in many years. My favorite has always been Me Old Bamboo.
D’oh. That’s two pop-culture mistakes in as many days.
I have developed a perverse desire to actually drive that car. Which is weird, since I haven’t never really had much interest in driving cars at all, much less a particular one. Ridiculous, isn’t it? Ha-ha-ha. Like my childhood desire to fly a biplane. Ridicul–
Oh. Wait.
Well, at least I already have a driver’s license.
Hmmm… :::starts to plot:::
It is an extremely handsome motor car.
http://www.badmouth.net/content/uploads/2007/03/chitty-chity-bang-bang.jpg
BTW Broomstick are you rated for this kind of “aircraft”?
Single engine fixed landing gear? Certainly!
Possibly, but I’m unsure that high-ranking British chiefs of the time actually went around in nothing but woad, even if some of the rank and file did. It’s not like the rest of Stanley’s accomplishments are all smoke and mirrors; reciting the “fights historical from Marathon to Waterloo” would be an impressive feat, not to mention the ability to write familiar things in an ancient alphabet. The whole point of Stanley’s song is that despite all this he doesn’t know a thimbleful about how to be a modern Major-General…
/hijack
Years ago, in a review for the latest Bond movie, I recall reading a mention that the fact that Bond movies differed so much from the books was due to Ian Fleming himself - that he sold the rights to the titles and a few characters or plot themes, but would never sell the rights to the full stories.
My first thought was, “Oh so THAT’s why the movie Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is nothing like the book!” Because that’s the only Ian Fleming book I had ever read
ACCURACY DISCLAIMER: this was MANY years ago - the Bond movie in the review starred Roger Moore, so my info may be faulty.
I’m in the camp of those who were rather turned off by the movie having read the book first. I read it in 2nd grade, and loved it. The movie came out within a year, and even at that age it seemed to me an obvious attempt to turn CCBB into Mary Poppins. And I remember thinking it DRAGGED.
By the way, I have seen it a few times since, as my nieces were fans. Have also watched it with my kid (now 7), but it’s not a big favorite with her.
I agree it has some good, even great points, but the songs didn’t hook as much for me. Also, I may be in the minority, but I was never a big Roald Dahl fan, and his mark is all over that screenplay. But mostly, even tho the movie is good enough, I just would have liked to see a movie based on the story in book.
One more gripe which I can’t believe I am the first to mention is that the CCBB movie came out during that weird time when they liked to put kids in movies with really wispy little singing voices - I’m thinking especially of “Oliver!” which won the best pic Oscar the same year. Jeremy & Jemima were just way too waifish. In the book they were such cool, savvy, tough little kids.
Well, I requested a copy of the book from the library (in preference to driving all over the country trying to locate a copy) and maybe I’ll be able to pick it up today or tomorrow.
I am a bit surprised this ran to 2 pages - I half expected it to be one of those threads that sinks like a stone.
Possibly a garbled/misremembered version of the fact that Fleming was unhappy with the negative reception to his (rather untypical) The Spy Who Loved Me as a novel and hence sold only the title to Saltzman and Brocolli for a film. As far as I know, they got full rights to the other novels, post the initial Casino Royale (with the controversial other exception of Thunderball). That they then generally chose to ignore much of the material they’d bought is another matter.
Well, I got the Ian Fleming book version from the library today and read it.
I expected some differences, but a couple took me by surprise. For one thing, the book was clearly set at a later time than the movie’s 1910 time period. The “wings” and the “hoverboat” forms are significantly different (and make no more sense in terms of real world physics).
Some differences were picky - in the book the car is, apparently, green. OK, I confess, I like the quirky way the movie car looks, and the red/yellow/chrome color scheme but that may just be familiarity.
The characters in the book struck me as being about as 2 dimensional as in the movie. I mean, yes, there’s an adventure story but there’s no real character development. Although it was nice to see the book version of the children being smart and resourceful, I definitely liked that.
Yes, the book was more about the magic car. And the villain completely different, but just as cartoonish as in the movie.
Oh, and the current owner of the car thanked me for my interest, but no, I can’t drive Chitty. Apparently only a select few “very skilled drivers” get the privilege. Well, not too surprising I suppose - now I just have to figure out how to become special, select, and highly skilled as a driver, I guess. Just hope it doesn’t take as long as it did for me to get my hands wrapped around the stick of a biplane.