Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film


In terms of my childhood influences, Roald Dahl occupied the same rare air as J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and Dr. Seuss. He was a master storyteller; one whose work I savored much like Charlie Bucket savored his Whipple Scrumptious Fudgemallow Delight chocolate bar on his birthday each year—bit by precious bit. Needless to say, then, when someone like Tim Burton ventures to bring a book like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to the big screen, for me and countless other former children, he is treading on holy ground. Thankfully, even though Burton’s account of the gospel of Wonka is eerily unorthodox, he avoids falling into full-blown heresy. I wouldn’t necessarily call the changes he has made to the story improvements, but Burton’s film is definitely an intriguing adaptation of Dahl’s beloved children’s tale.

07.jpg (49 K)One of the most significant and fascinating deviations from the book is Burton’s characterization of Willy Wonka. As written by Dahl, Wonka was a mysterious, delightfully childlike man with a heart like Santa Claus and a face like Uncle Sam. He was also a genius, a “magician with chocolate,� according to Charlie’s Grandpa Joe. In Burton’s film, Wonka is still a genius, but he has more in common with Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson than Santa Claus. And his face, well… Let’s just say it’s more disturbing than comforting. Burton’s Wonka is also childlike in his own way. But rather than portray him as an old man who has managed to retain his sense of childlike wonder, Burton depicts him as more of a man-child who hasn’t really gotten over the trauma of his early years but who doesn’t know how to grow up either. He is clumsy, gawky, unsure how to relate to others, and uncertain if he even wants to. He doesn’t seem to like children, so it’s a wonder he ever issues the invitation for the children to tour his chocolate factory at all. But perhaps it’s his way of reaching out, a desperate cry for help from a troubled man who realizes he is losing his grip on reality and that somehow only the wisdom of a child can bring him back.

In these and other ways, Burton’s take on Wonka couldn’t be more different from Dahl’s original vision. However, even though I regard myself as somewhat of a Dahl purist, I don’t see these changes as intrinsically negative. Not only have Burton and actor Johnny Depp managed to create an entirely original character who is captivating in his own right, the choices they made also enabled them to showcase Dahl’s delightfully wicked sense of humor, which is one of the most attractive features of his work. In fact, my only real complaint about the film is the superfluous backstory that explains how Willy Wonka became the troubled genius we see on screen. Mystery, says screenwriter William Goldman, is one of the key ingredients of an effective character. While Burton’s Wonka definitely starts out as an enjoyable enigma, eventually it is revealed that he is nothing more than the product of a (yawn) troubled childhood. As I’ve stated elsewhere in regard to George Lucas’s laborious exposé of Darth Vader’s origins in Star Wars Episodes I–III, sometimes you just need to leave well enough alone.

02.jpg (223 K)That said; Burton’s ambiguous depiction of Willy Wonka does lead to some interesting spiritual reflections. But before I get to those, a bit of set-up: In terms of structure, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory bears a strong resemblance to C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce. In Lewis’s tale, a group of people gets the chance to take a bus from hell to heaven. If they like it there, they will be allowed to stay. If not, they are free to get return to the dreary, rainy place from whence they came. Strangely enough, after a short stint in Paradise, one-by-one, each passenger decides they were much happier down below where they were free to pursue their vices, so back on the bus they go. Only one character decides to stay, and he is gloriously transformed as a result.

Similarly, in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, five children and their guardians are invited to leave the dreary, hopelessness of their lives (hell) and visit Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory (heaven). At the end of the tour, Wonka (an admittedly bizarre stand-in for God) promises that one of the children will receive a prize far greater than they can imagine. However, as in The Great Divorce, one-by-one, the children fall victim to their vices—whether gluttony, greed, pride or anger—turn their back on Wonka and the factory and return to the world from whence they came. In the end, only Charlie remains. By virtue of his stalwart character, he has proven himself worthy to receive the prize, which is nothing less than Wonka’s glorious chocolate factory itself!

17.jpg (119 K)However, in a surprising departure from the original story, rather than give the factory to Charlie outright, Wonka reveals one final stipulation: To inherit the factory, Charlie must say goodbye to his family forever. Suddenly, what appeared to be a gift from God looks more like a deal with the devil. Charlie refuses, and Wonka goes away angry. But he is also troubled. How could Charlie turn down such an offer? Never having experienced familial love himself, he simply cannot understand Charlie’s motivation. Only when Charlie helps Wonka reunite with his own father does he finally see what Charlie was on to.

To my mind, Wonka’s surprising about-face is an accurate reflection of our current feelings of uncertainty toward God. In Dahl’s book, Wonka is similar to the version of God I heard about in Sunday school—all knowing, all loving, and so forth. In Burton’s film, however, Wonka is nasty, confused, and socially awkward—hardly what you would call divine attributes. At times, you can’t help but wonder, is Wonka God or is he the devil? Are his Oompa Loompas angels or demons? Is the chocolate factory heaven or hell? Should the children love Wonka or fear him?

These questions aren’t much different from the ones many of us ask about God. Does God, like Wonka, take delight in seeing us fall victim to our vices? Is he some sort of eccentric misfit who needs us as much or more, as we need him? Could it be that, like Wonka, God has a thing or two to learn from us as well? Can he be trusted? At times, we may see him as unable or unwilling to relate to common people like ourselves. We may also suspect that, like Wonka at the opening of the factory tour, God is just putting on a show for his own amusement—and not a very good show at that.

Competing depictions to the contrary, I prefer to think of God in terms of Dahl’s original description of Wonka, as a kindly, self-assured being with an eye to celebrating my redemption rather than glorying in my defeat. That has certainly been my experience of him, anyway. I also realize that just because God has offered me an invitation to Paradise does not guarantee I will be there to enjoy it with him after I die. Like Charlie, if I hope to inherit the prize, I must turn away from my vices rather than allow them to consume me. I must devote myself to virtue today. Otherwise, like the characters in The Great Divorce, I am certain I will have no interest in doing so after I die either, and not even God will be able to convince me otherwise.

MOVIE
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections


BOOK

—Review: WonkaMania

—Blog: Tom Price
—Blog: Jacob Sahms

10 Comments:

Liz the Brit said...

Love "The Great Divorce" by C. S. Lewis, Kevin.

Looking forward to seeing this "Charlie", as well, Kevin - I like Dahl too, you're quite right... One of my abiding first reading memories is "James and the Giant Peach"... also "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" - but I LOVED the sequel to it the MOST - "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator".... with those alien creatures in it that ate people - what were they called?!?!? Nobody's ever filmed that: man, it was SCARY to me as a kid!! I HATED the pictures in the book... but I loved them too!

Yeah: looking forward to "Willy Wonka the Androgynous Version" - as it could also be titled!

(Hey - you don't think that the moviemakers INTENDED any sly, Jackson-leaning, "Peter Pan" references, DO you?)

5:37 PM  
Liz the Brit said...

Hey, Kevin, I've read the above review through again... and it's DEEP, man!!!

Those comments about God... yes, maybe "he" DOES need us as much as we need him!

Hey, on another literary subject: I told John (my young socialist blogger friend) and pals, the other day on livejournal.com (He's known as "commonplacebook" - check him out!), that I'd like to do a graphic novel version of "Paradise Lost"!!

Immediately, John and friends launched into a lot of intellectual stuff about the political implications of Milton's epic; and all sorts of postmodernism... unsurprising, since the blog is largely from a postmodern left-wing viewpoint.

But... I just sort of sighed to myself and thought: "Guys, guys.. you're getting it all WRONG.... we don't NEED all this stuff in here!! "Paradise Lost" is in fact the earliest, greatest of all the romantic novels - the fact that it's in blank verse, is a bonus!!

Milton's Satan is the first of the romantic rebel heroes - LONG before Lord Byron and that lot were writing about Childe Harold, etc etc. And people a hundred years later, in the Enlightenment, such as William Blake, thought so too... "Milton was of the devil's party without knowing it".

That's all you REALLY need to concentrate on.... making it "romantic"; and if ANYTHING, suffusing a bit of old-fashioned, Enlightenment style politics into it - that's what it reminds me of the most - there's no real need to go on about (or to reference in any drawings!) movements of Milton's own day, such as the Diggers and the Levellers, they didn't come to anything, the time wasn't ripe....

I wanted to hire me somebody to do me a Blakean style GN of it.(possibly! And don't anyone dare do it without my sayso - it was my idea first! ) I don't know if Blake ever DID any illustrations for P.L; I know Gustave Dore illustrated it at one time; the most famous picture is of Satan tumbling hellwards... Good but very fussy! I want something that looks less like engravings.

I don't really know **** about English Lit OR poetry; but I know my Paradise Lost; and I could EASILY prepare an interpretation of that, and several other classic works....

Maybe putting in a few modern visual references as well.. you see, the thing with me, is as a comics creator, I would NEVER (in a graphic novel) just write a text and let the artist get on with it - I would HAVE to be art director as well - because I have a visual concept, much as a film director would... my art skills are not good enough, or I'd do it all myself: but ideally I'd like to be a film director, but in comics.

But anyway, a simple, clear vision is what you'd need for something like that, I think....not lots of stuff with "oh this is like some postmodern thing nobody's ever heard of...."

The idea would be to make Milton ACCESSIBLE - to youth, if to anybody - not to make him INACCESSIBLE!!!

What d'yer think?!? Could you help? (Just looking at some of your other, earlier comments to me!)

5:53 PM  
Kevin Miller said...

Liz: Wow, I've been gone on vacation for a week, but I see you haven't! Words upon words... It will be a while before I am able to wade through them all. As for this (thankfully) brief post, the creatures were called Vermiscious Knids. They were my favorites as well. I also love the president who designs the fly trap, the one that requires the fly to fall off of a pencil into a cup of water. Remember that?

As for Depp's portrayal of Wonka, he says he drew inspiration from children's television hosts as well as children's entertainers. But, as another reviewer pointed out, the Jackson references are still very clear, whether intentional or not. Nevertheless, I thought he was a LOT of fun. I especially liked it when he said, "You're weird," which he does several times throughout the film.

10:42 PM  
Kevin Miller said...

Liz: Your idea of a GN based on Paradise Lost is a good one. How about transplanting it to some sort of different setting? Something that would shake the dust off it and make 16-year-olds interested. Transport it to the future, to another world, write it about dogs and cats instead of people. Just some thoughts. I doubt I would be able to be involved in any significant way other than offering inane suggestions that you could safely ignore. I'm already feeling maxed to the max. I'd like to hear more about your simple, clear vision. Perhaps e-mail might be the best forum for that though.

10:46 PM  
Liz the Brit said...

Will do! Don't want to write/design PARADISE LOST about dogs and cats!

I'd love to e-mail... you know what my main worry is? I'll mention it here in case any other HJ readers have any ideas. Now. I live about 30 miles up the road from Falmouth College of Art. I bet I could drive down there tomorrow; speak to a few tutors; leave printed cards around and manage to interview myself some fairly competent cartoonists/artists/graphic designers. (I'd love to damn well use "Cornish" talent!!)

But HOW - barring a win on some game show - do I PAY them while they're on the project! Oh sure, they'd do what I told them to... if I paid them for it!

Would it be possible to get the project pre-approved by some publishing company (maybe some BOOK publishing company; as the British "graphic novelist" (and children's illustrator) I most RESPECT, Raymond Briggs, ALWAYS uses book publishers and never touches comics publishers - good for him!!)

If it was pre-approved, would they pay some sort of advance to cover my artists' wages??

And no, we don't bloody want it about dogs and cats. ANGELS and DEVILS... tell me one teenager, religious or not, who isn't fascinated by THOSE!!!

(As is proved by Buffy, Hellboy, Constantine....)

4:00 AM  
Kevin Miller said...

Having never had a comic book story published before, I'm not sure if comic book publishers pay advances, but I'm certain they do. However, even if they did, they would want to choose their own hot artist. If you want to do the art and everything, you'd probably have to self-publish. That would mean financing the thing out of your own pocket.

8:02 AM  
Liz the Brit said...

Hmm. Have you NOT had a comic book story published before, Kevin? You seem to have the ideas and the necessary market knowledge... You previously were "threatening" to pitch something at ComicCon... did you??

(After all, as you yourself say, more or less - it wouldn't be HARD to be better than most of the mediocrities now out there!!)

So - IF comics companies publish a story, they want to add "their own hot artist", do they???

But WHAT about when people - it IS usually a pair of them - approach a comics company with a NEW idea, for a title, eg. that pair who did "Tank Girl"... some of which I did used to read with some pleasure in the 90s, when it wasn't TOO stupid...

Well, if it's a PAIR of creators with a new character/title (or another kind of small team?) DC'd have to take the whole LOT on board, wouldn't they... if they were interested in the concept at all??

(And comics DO always need new TITLES... Have you ever thought of an idea for a new title, Kevin??)

And IF one had this whole idea for a whole new graphic NOVEL...eg. "Paradise Lost", or indeed a SERIES based on classic works of literature... then I would have thought, the same notion would apply... Eg., new concept, so artist accepted on board as well... no???

Now. If it was BOOK publishers we were talking about, I'd know what to do I think: Get my artist(s)... (wouldn't be ME doing the drawing I can tell you!! Just like I said - I would do art direction. I can visualise: I can't draw. NOT to professional standard. And I wouldn't even try!)

Get my artists to do me some samples of key pages from the book.. I would already have worked out a storyboard, probably with stick people and speech balloons or something!

And present THAT little lot to the book publishers and ask for an advance on the strength of it - for me and my artist(s)... idea plus example, you see!!

But COMICS publishers... I just don't like nor trust. (After all, they publish so much rubbish!!) This is where I need help! Trust overall is a VERY big hurdle for me...

However it may be NECESSARY for me to "build up some trust" with some evil corporations, as I think that "financing the thing out of one's own pocket" is a VERY big hurdle... for ANY ordinary person!! It's hard enough to self-publish an ordinary BOOK (though I've discovered some cracking Internet-based companies.) For something with lavish illustrations necessary.... well.

(NOW do you see, people, why I HATE capitalism?? It's a stumbling-block for people and artists, hardly EVER a facilitator!! Even - maybe especially - if what you want to do is not necessarily "political", but "cultural" and "worthy". Now - if it WERE PORN I were after publishing... yes, I'm sure I'd get some backers for that!!)

Anyway. I have to find out more about comics companies. But still I DESPISE them, for the record (this is an interesting assertion to make, but it's true!) and I'd rather have my Paradise Lost GN published by a book publisher. If I could get it published by anybody!

Yes, and me and my young Cornish artist(s) - whoever it is I find, and I think I may find someone... we want an advance!!

HOW did we get onto P.L.? My fault, again!! (Hey, what about a graphic novel of Willy Wonka... one could certainly make it bizarre enough!! To appeal to even Maurice and his slasher-comic friends! If he has any of this type.)

Yeah - just use a lot of dark dingy ink when colouring the cartoons in, is what I say!!

(Yer can all see I'm cynical.)

SOMEONE - please come and review "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" before Kevin gets cross with me!!

P.S. I know about webcomics and I regard the field with interest but skepticism - as I regard most things!

2:07 PM  
Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:11 PM  
progressive Christian said...

From the perspective of a Christian, I have one problem with the book and the 2005 film version (less so the 1971 version): this is a story in which hope for redemption after human fallibility does not exist.

Charlie was born sinless, behaves sinlessly, and wins his factory sinlessly.

The naughty children are raised by wicked parents, conform to the expectations of their wicked parents (note how Veruca's father constantly reinforces her spoilt nature), and then are punished without hope of redemption for having done as their wicked parents have trained them to do.

Charlie is good from the start, and while he stands up against temptation, having never fallen in this film he has no need for redemption.

The naughty children are permanently disfigured for flaws which are far less their fault than the fault of their horrible parents. At such a young age, they are told there is no redemption, no mercy, and no hope -- only retributive violence. When they fall, with their parents' encouragement to fall, there is no offer of redemption during or after their fall. Instead, their fall is made permanent.

Now, admittedly, this is a fable, and many fables never offer redemption.

But what bothers me is that no one seems to comment on the lack of redemption in such a world.

The parents are adults, not children -- if there must be punishment, they should have been the ones punished. And redemption should still have been there, waiting for them.

11:33 AM  
Kevin Miller said...

Hey,

Really appreciate your insight here, PC. I'd never thought of the story in that way, although I have always been somewhat bothered by the underlying nastiness of it--particularly in the way Wonka is portrayed in this film. You've put your finger on something really important here. Thanks for revealing our blind spot.

K

11:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home