Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Jul. 24th, 2005 07:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
My first reaction when hearing about this project, like that of many people, was "why do another movie of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? What was wrong with the other one?" I actually paid to see this one, so I guess that's one answer. Tim Burton labors mightily to find some others, and he's partly successful.
There are two threads in this movie. One is an extremely faithful adaptation of Roald Dahl's book, much more faithful in the incidental details than the 1971 Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. The other (replacing the 1971 movie's added subplot about Slugworth and Charlie) is an attempt to humanize Willy Wonka and give him background and motivations. He's a cadaverous loon who lives in a magical chocolate factory with Oompa-Loompas because of his sad childhood. Johnny Depp gives it his all, as usual, and the end of the movie sells it pretty well, but I'm still not sure it was a good idea; Gene Wilder was actually closer to the heart of Dahl's Wonka, a devilish, deadpan character who always knows exactly what he's doing. This part of Burton's movie provides an excuse to put Christopher Lee in, anyway, and that can't be bad.
I heartily approved of other changes. This movie can finally do justice to the horrible Veruca Salt's comeuppance. The scene is really scary, making up for the considerably toned-down boat-tunnel sequence (no Un Chien Andalou references here, though they reference a lot of other things elsewhere). And instead of those somewhat insipid Newley and Bricusse songs, this one has Roald Dahl's own lyrics set to well-done pop parodies by Danny Elfman. And you can never have too much Deep Roy.
Like the 1971 movie, this one does bring out the meanness in Dahl's silly morality story, which, while it's helped by vastly entertaining execution, is really a spiritual descendant of those awful 19th century didactic tales Mark Twain used to parody, about unbelievably saintly kids getting rewarded and naughty ones punished in defiance of all laws of logic. I've always thought it's a little too hard on Augustus Gloop in particular; though the Burton movie does portray him as ungenerous at one moment, mostly he's just an aesthete who is slightly too enthusiastic. I suppose that, compared to the others, he doesn't come out too badly in the end.
There are two threads in this movie. One is an extremely faithful adaptation of Roald Dahl's book, much more faithful in the incidental details than the 1971 Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. The other (replacing the 1971 movie's added subplot about Slugworth and Charlie) is an attempt to humanize Willy Wonka and give him background and motivations. He's a cadaverous loon who lives in a magical chocolate factory with Oompa-Loompas because of his sad childhood. Johnny Depp gives it his all, as usual, and the end of the movie sells it pretty well, but I'm still not sure it was a good idea; Gene Wilder was actually closer to the heart of Dahl's Wonka, a devilish, deadpan character who always knows exactly what he's doing. This part of Burton's movie provides an excuse to put Christopher Lee in, anyway, and that can't be bad.
I heartily approved of other changes. This movie can finally do justice to the horrible Veruca Salt's comeuppance. The scene is really scary, making up for the considerably toned-down boat-tunnel sequence (no Un Chien Andalou references here, though they reference a lot of other things elsewhere). And instead of those somewhat insipid Newley and Bricusse songs, this one has Roald Dahl's own lyrics set to well-done pop parodies by Danny Elfman. And you can never have too much Deep Roy.
Like the 1971 movie, this one does bring out the meanness in Dahl's silly morality story, which, while it's helped by vastly entertaining execution, is really a spiritual descendant of those awful 19th century didactic tales Mark Twain used to parody, about unbelievably saintly kids getting rewarded and naughty ones punished in defiance of all laws of logic. I've always thought it's a little too hard on Augustus Gloop in particular; though the Burton movie does portray him as ungenerous at one moment, mostly he's just an aesthete who is slightly too enthusiastic. I suppose that, compared to the others, he doesn't come out too badly in the end.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-24 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 06:35 am (UTC)I almost hope Burton does this one too. I think today's youth deserve to be terrified of Vermicious Knids.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 04:20 am (UTC)There's also a moment near the beginning that should elicit cries of "Simpsons did it!" (Immediately following "Shrek did it"...)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-24 11:02 pm (UTC)Ah, so that's your game.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-25 11:05 pm (UTC)(I don't like slash in general, but, disappointingly, fanfic from the various age-of-sail fandoms, my interest, has a much higher ratio of slash to non-slash than any other fandom, possibly because they're entirely populated by male characters, apart from the distant, 1-dimensional wife, mistress, or honeytrap spy. Write some adventures, people!)
As for your fic, though-- what sort of candy-tastic peril will Rose (or whichever sidekick to your preferred Doctor) find herself in?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 03:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 06:56 pm (UTC)Matt will attest to the fact that this made me laugh out loud.
Slash is trendy. I get kind of tired of it at times. Heck, I often get plain tired of any shippiness, het or slash. Sometimes people really are just friends. The new DW brought with it a boatload of shippy fics. Not that I mind it in small doses, but the onslaught got to be too much.