|
Author
|
Comment
|
chirons daughter
Registered User
(9/13/05 11:26 am)
|
New Willy Wonka movie
I am thinking that at least here I will not be the only one who found this new Tim Burton version troubling. Here is most of a post I made on another forum recently. Do y'all see what I see?
I did not like it, though it seems to have made a real hit. (I did not see the earlier film with Wilder, so I can't compare them.) I do compare it with the book, and there is something added that I think takes away from the magic. Children's literature has these fantasy figures that are magical, and their origins are a little mysterious. This leaves the child room to project what he wants to on this figure, for his own developmental needs of the moment. The Willy Wonka figure in the book is nutty, whimsical, a rule breaker, terribly honest, and very magical. And mysterious.
This Tim Burton version puts in a whole subplot that the book does not have at all, that I found really intrusive. This is the attempt to explain what made Willy Wonka the way he is -- an overly controlling dentist father (played by Christopher Lee, wonderfully, so it's too bad it hurts the film so much) who hates candy and won't let his son have any (the boy Willy is all tied up in a really bizarre torture device that's supposed to straighten his teeth). Worse yet, the father and son have a reconciliation at the end of the film, and Willy Wonka ends up becoming a somewhat infantilized honorary son of the Bucket family, like the poor maladjusted weirdo the father-hangup suggests he must be. Incredible shrink-ological overkill - what WERE they thinking? And the critics all burbling about how DARK it is, just like Roald Dahl . . . it was dark, all right, but more because it was muddy with unnecessary issues.
Poor Johnny Depp did his best with it. They all did -- the Hightower kid is brilliant, and he played brilliantly with Depp in Finding Neverland, so the chemistry should have been there except for the screwed-up internal hostility Depp had to try and project -- and the CG is very intriguing and all, it's beautiful to look at. But this intrusion on the fantasy of the story robs the whole thing blind. Willy Wonka is a kind of chocolate good fairy godfather who tests all the children to find the worthy one, like the three trials in a classic fairy tale. Exploring the origins of his candy obsession (I mean, really. . . ) completely takes all the magic out and hamstrings the power.
Am I being too hard on it? It does seem to have cleaned up well at the box office, but I couldn't get over the idea that it violated too much of what we give a story to a child for and was significantly weakened because of it.
Edited by: chirons daughter at: 9/13/05 11:30 am
|
Writerpatrick
Registered User
(9/13/05 5:54 pm)
|
Re: New Willy Wonka movie
Many found it a funny movie. Many critics have commented that Depp didn't do as good a job in this film as he has done on other films in the past, but he's still enjoyable to watch.
This film probably would be better to watch around November as most of Burton's films are. It's quite different than the musical version, but I think it's foolish to compare a movie to a book, although this one was probably closer than the musical. Movies are almost never like the book.
|
chirons daughter
Registered User
(9/13/05 7:11 pm)
|
Re: New Willy Wonka movie
Oh, it was funny in many places, that's not the issue, and this was not intended as a pan. Some of the sequences and quirky touches were wonderful. I agree that books don't usually translate well into movies item for item, and that the movie adaptation is a separate entity. (Not sure I agree it's "foolish" to make comparisons, though. . .)
The point is that something radical was done to the title character that changed his function and his relationship to the child protagonist and everyone else (and, as I believe, not really for the better -- perhaps to appeal to the humor buttons of the adults in the audience?) So this is not just the same essential story in a different medium, with all the alternative pleasures or insights the new medium can offer -- it's in some measure a different story, and something Dahl didn't intend is now in the mix that is bringing it down.
Edited by: chirons daughter at: 9/13/05 7:23 pm
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(9/14/05 5:29 am)
|
Re: New Willy Wonka movie
I actually liked this subplot - but hadn't thought about it this way before... Not leaving room for the child's imagination... I'm not sure...
I feel a bit torn about Dahl generally... I loved him as a kid (not least for the Quentin Blake illustrations), but as a "so-called" adult a lot of it now seems broken-backed and rather lecturing on the evils of tv and chewing gum. It's a couple of years since I last read this book, but from what I remember there's a sense that Dahl himself might have been a bit confused as to whether Willy Wonka was a magical parent figure or a magical child.
Just trying to think of other Dahl parental figures... Don't they tend to be either appalling bullies or fully idealised? Wonka doesn't seem so simple.
The new subplot doesn't actually explain everything away though, does it? It suggests connections and points at origins, but there's still a vast and mysterious distance between the boy Wonka where we leave him, and the adult Wonka. Couldn't it be that rather than inhibit a child's imagination, it might actually direct it towards this other country called "origins"? I think there's a lot of room for wonderful imaginings here - What on earth happened to him after he left his dad?
This isn't something most children would do in respect of Cinderella's fairy godmother, for example. Her past is completely undefined. It just doesn't matter where she came from.
I'm open to argument - I agree something slightly strange has been done to the character... But the film does seem to be a big hit with kids, and that must mean something...
|
rosyelf
Registered User
(9/14/05 7:31 am)
|
willy wonka
I took my 9-year-old son and 7-year-old daughter to see this film last month. They had seen the earlier (Wilder) version, which they enjoyed, and they enjoyed this too. But not massively. I sensed it didn't feel very magical to them. Chironsdaughter, I hated the subplot too. Why tell us ? And Willy Wonka didn't seem at all magical-to me, at least-but just rather manic-those wide eyes !
And I feel another problem in the film is Willy Wonka's age. Played by Depp, he's just too young. Ridiculously young. It's a long time since I read the book, but I had the strong impression that Wonka is a kind of eccentric grandfather or great uncle-type figure, certainly older than the kids' parents. And he'd have to be, wouldn't he ? when you bear in mind that Charlie Bucket's grandfather worked for him decades ago. This didn't feel like magic to me-an old guy who has somehow kept his youthful appearace-it just felt silly. The Wilder portrayal-elderly, eccentric, rather mysterious but also lovable, and possessing a strong childlike side (I wouldn't call it infantilism)-felt far more compelling.
The kids (except Charlie) were wonderfully horrible, as were their parents, and the cast was good, and I liked the gloomy feel of the industrial city, but Willy Wonka himself ?-NOPE.
|
aka Greensleeves
Registered User
(9/14/05 2:02 pm)
|
Re: New Willy Wonka movie
Quote:
The point is that something radical was done to the title character that changed his function and his relationship to the child protagonist and everyone else (and, as I believe, not really for the better -- perhaps to appeal to the humor buttons of the adults in the audience?) So this is not just the same essential story in a different medium, with all the alternative pleasures or insights the new medium can offer -- it's in some measure a different story, and something Dahl didn't intend is now in the mix that is bringing it down.
I haven't seen the Burton film, but I wholeheartedly agree with this on principle. A classic example of a similar change that fundamentally alters the 'message' of the source occurs in two famous film versions of A Little Princess. To resurrect Sara's father at the climax gives the impression that her servitude and misfortune "was all a big misunderstanding," and gives a "happily ever after" ending to the story that loses the complexity and depth of the original (her adoption by her father's guilt-ridden business partner). The Alphonso Cuaron version from the 1990s took change-for-change's sake a few random steps further, by setting the story in New York. There are elements of British politics and history that are critical to the plot, and erasing them utterly removes the context from which the relationships in the story are built.
On the other hand, I think it's occasionally possible for adaptations to create a backstory where none existed, and actually enrich the story in the process. The musical theater adaptation of another FH Burnett classic, The Secret Garden, did this, by expanding the romance between Archibald and Lilias (in the musical, brilliantly renamed Lily). In this case, the changes gave a depth and consistency to the character of Archibald that make his neglect of his son that much more poignant, and provided an adult significance to what was previously a very child-centered story.
Ultimately, there's obviously a very fine line to walk, in adapting a specific, authored novel to another medium, which is not so significant (or at least lacks quite the power to offend) when we're dealing with adaptations of folk literature. I suppose it comes down to the director's vision of the story he's trying to bring to film; but it is hard to justify when it seems like the filmmaker absolutely missed the boat.
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(9/14/05 6:21 pm)
|
Re: New Willy Wonka movie
Finally having gotten around to a second-run:
1) Tim Burton has a habit of being wayyyy too amused by
his own Gen-X jokes (oh, look, Grandma Georgina does wacky-senile
gags! )--
Which's rather intrusive when Dahl happens to tell better ones.
2) There's a difference between being "faithful" to a book and pasting it up on screen without really understanding it--
For example, when you lavish huge amounts of screen time on side stories (eg. the Indian prince's palace; how Veruca's father found the ticket) that didn't particularly contribute to the book in the first place.
3) There will only be ONE Gene Wilder, and he aced Dahl's character in one go...Look up the '71 DVD documentary if you don't believe me.
Sorry if you didn't like the added subplot, Roald, but Gene still aced it.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(9/15/05 1:07 pm)
|
Re: New Willy Wonka movie
I'm not going to say anything about what you've said before,because I'd be here for hours.I'm just going to say what I think:
1)Love Johnny Depp.Have been addicted ever since Chocolate (okay,so the Irish accent was part of it then,but whatever).Loved this movie partly because of that.
(2)Loved the new Oompa-Loompas.They were hilarious!We killed ourselves on them.They're just so small,and they have all these different voices...Another reason to love the movie.
(3)This version was closer to the book.In the book,only the Oompa-Loompas sang,and there was none of the weepy "Cheer up Charlies",that,after the first few hearings,make you just roll your eyes.(And his dad's alive in this one - yay.)
(4)I loved knowing what actually happened to the other kids,and to make Willy so obsessed with chocolate.I didn't think Christopher Lee made a particularly good dad,but it's true I can't think of anyone else.Maybe I'm restricted by his other,v. evil roles.(Though I didn't like the reunion later,but I never like that.I love it when people stay mad with their parents - don't ask me why,I'm weird.)
And okay,I will make one comment - Grampa Joe doesn't look any different from when he worked at the factory,so maybe it wasn't that long ago,just when Charlie was too young to remember.Or,Willy's love of youth keeps him young.On the other hand(I found out recently you can have three hands)Johnny Depp himself still looks in his late 20s,early 30s,and he's 46 this year.That's older than my dad!But he's still a hottie.;)
Maybe I love it because I'm so young myself.But Senga and I came out signing bits from both Oompa-Loompa lots of songs and the mechanical puppets' "Willy Wonka",so much so that my dad nearly went crazy when he picked us up - especially when he had us for longer,as Senga left her phone and we had to go back for it.
|
Eliza
Registered User
(9/20/05 6:53 am)
|
I completely agree
Walking out of the theater, I said to my husband, "The whole point of Willy Wonka is that he simply IS. You can't explain him. To even try takes away the magic."
I think Tim Burton, for all his glitzy special effects, has forgotten what it is to be a child, when the world is full of things that just ARE. Only a true grownup would need someone like Willy Wonka (or the Grinch, for all love!) to have a backstory.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(9/20/05 8:48 am)
|
Re: The province of grown ups...
I understand why people are saying this... and I think it depends to what degree you feel the backstory defined the character...
I don't think wanting to understand things is at all the province of grown ups. You could make a better case for the reverse, I would say...
I understand what you mean - "somethings just ARE" - Yes, but this childlike grasp of the nature of something is often intimately connected with understanding, I think. A grasp and simple enjoyment of the motion of a marble is connected with an awareness of things like its elements of predictability and unpredictability (each time you roll it, it makes the same spiral pattern into the drain - but not exactly the same pattern) as well as more sensual things like shape, weight and so on...
What is perhaps the province of grown ups is the desire to define things...
I think a parent's care or lack of it may well be one of those things that just is... for children and many grown ups alike. And given that no family is entirely free of a little dysfunction here and there, I don't think it ever does any harm for children to be encouraged to think about the possible causes of behaviour.
I think probably the main purpose of the backstory was actually not to define or even to explain, but to emphasise WW's vulnerability... which I liked because it made his relationship with Charlie more complex and interdependent.
I guess, if you feel the backstory defined all the magic out of the WW character, then you'll hate it. Personally, I don't think it did... There was no attempt to explain away his magic or his odd combination of adventurousness and reclusion... Bags of room for imagination, mystery and things that just are...
(And a lot of kids do seem to love it...)
Edited by: DividedSelf at: 9/20/05 8:52 am
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(9/24/05 6:16 pm)
|
Willy Wonka
My five year old daughter had nightmares for more than a week after seeing the movie. What scared her most was the scene where the wax dolls are burnt (a reference to Shrek's reference to Disneyland -- or whatever.) It shocked the hell out of me, because that was the last thing I expexted. But it set the scene for Burton's brain surgery on Willy Wonka. Dahl out, Burton in. He should have called the movie "The Nightmare in the Chocolate Factory. "
Burton's Wonka is diametrically opposed to Dahl's Wonka. In the book he is a grandfather figure and a mentor. In the movie he is an infantile sadist. In the book he genuinely tried to stop the kids from getting into trouble, in the movie he locks the gate so mr Salt can't save his little brat. It is not the back story that ruins the film. It is Willy Wonka. I almost expected Depp to pull a chainsaw out of his pants and mow the poor obnoxious little kids down. It would have saved him a lot of trouble.
I also hate what Burton did to poor Charlie Bucket. The Charlie of the book is one I could relate to as a kid. Burton makes Charlie a too-good-to-be-true little suck up who insists on giving all his birthday chocolate away.
The scene that irritated me most was where Charlie saves Willy Wonka from despair and helps him to find his father. Charlie becomes the adult mentor and Wonka the infant. It should be the other way around.
I do not think Dahl would have approved.
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(9/24/05 7:31 pm)
|
Re: Willy Wonka
Quote:
I do not think Dahl would have approved.
The movie was originally (as in, back when it was going to be Nicholas Cage as Willy, directed by Gary "Seabiscuit" Ross) exec-produced by Felicity Dahl, who wanted a more "book-faithful" version that didn't have Anthony Newley songs or the whole Slugworth "temptation" subplot that Roald objected to. (Particularly the idea of Wonka deceptively being "mean" to Charlie in the last act, as part of the test.)
And, er, sorry you share Daddy's opinion about the '71 version, Felicity, BUT... :rolleyes
Thing is, when the '71 version first came out, not too many readers were familiar with Dahl's tweakingly trademark "Beastly Stories for Ghastly Children" style, and stories like Charlie and "James & the Giant Peach" were still considered groundbreaking for their time (ie. before an entire generation of J.K. Rowlings and Eva Ibbortsens beat it into the ground as an entire UK subgenre)...
And as a result the '71 movie (which manages to be one of the more fluid translations of Dahl to film, thanks to Dahl scripting Wilder's dialogue) got an overblown reputation as "twisted", "drug-induced", "nightmare-fodder", etc., among those grownup stateside neophytes who just didn't know any better.
And Burton, of course--who has a taste for very, very, very easy gags--had no compunctions against grabbing the wrong end of the pop-culture-artifact stick and clubbing the book to death with it....And just how the heck he got appointed to the project instead of Ross is an even more annoying story that still sums it up.
|
|
