Many thoughts about identity, Judaism, teaching, meditation, travel, parenting and more

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Movie: Charlie and The Chocolate Factory

Tonight we went to see Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. U. had already seen it, but wanted my opinion. I always have very intense opinions about anything related to a children's movie.

So I'll remark on that first... basically I resent any movies that try to bribe children into seeing them by being cute or fast-paced. This movie definitely doesn't do that. I also don't think that scary movies are necessarily bad for children to see, but I don't see myself recommending this to anyone younger than 10, and even then I'd do it selectively. I'll probably feel more strongly about this when I'm talking about an individual child.

But I just want to talk about Willy Wonka, the character, for a second. Now, I'm at a disadvantage because 1. I barely remember the book and 2. I barely remember the Gene Wilder version of the movie. However, I do remember enough to have seen the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka as being both amazing and menacing. This Johnny Depp Willy Wonka is wacked out and pathetic instead. He's this powerful magician and this meek little boy wound up together. I'm not sure I liked seeing him reduced like that. Now, as always, Johnny Depp was fantastic at the way he played it, but that's beside the point.

There's this other piece too that has to be said, which is that there is no way to watch this movie and not think of Michael Jackson. The movie makers claim that there were no intentional parallels. However, it's really hard not to see it. Which on one hand is fascinating and, on the other hand, a shame. The last thing I want to do is worry about Charlie being in danger by being left the favored child with Mr. Wonka at the end.

OK. I know that that is gross and disturbing. But we had dinner with some nice people on Friday night who said just that... that they wanted to enjoy the movie but couldn't because of the parallels they couldn't help but draw.

As for me, I saw plenty of flaws in the movie itself. Come on! What are these flashbacks? We don't need explanations for this fascinating character. And did he plan the demises of the other 4 children or not? But I enjoyed it all the same. I love Tim Burton's art and that's just all there is to it.

Finally, one last point. Anyone can see that this story is a bit of a morality tale about good, modest children versus bad, spoiled greedy ones. But I don't think that was the only reason why Charlie is favored over the other 4 children. He is the only one who still has imagination. I have to say I was moved when the fourth child is explaining how Willy Wonka is wrong about how science works and that candy is stupid, and Charlie says something to the effect that candy doesn't need to have a point. While the other children don't appreciate what is around them, Charlie is in constant awe.

It's a great message. if you don't have imagination, you can get drowned in chocolate, blown up like a giant blueberry, dragged away by squirrels or transported into a TV by those who do.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Blogger Evenewra said...

My college friend Ben Zelkowicz (see the "biographies" section and check out his film if in any way you can... it's worth it) wrote the following comments in an email correspondence we had about the above blog entry. He said I could post them here:

i was kinda disappointed by charlie in the chocolate factory myself. i thought johnny depp's choices were very wrong (and i usually like him) thought the whole father thing was completely unneeded, thought the production design was unimpressive (like they blew all their money on that one huge colorful candy set and had no money for anything else) with the exception of charlie's house which i quite liked. i was mesmerized by the first 45 minutes or so, then quickly lost interest. partly i think dahl's story isn't well constructed for a movie. much i think is cause tim burton isn't a great director. sacrilege for many to hear, i know, but his movies are by and large interesting with great images and very weak dramatic construction (the two exceptions to that are ed wood, which i think is phenomenal, and pee wee's big adventure, which i think hits exactly the right shades of whimsy and silliness for the story.) both of those successful films are also the least visually dense of his films. i don't think he can differentiate a good script from a bad one. his films come out hollow and flat overall, often mistaking schmaltz for drama (big fish, ie) don't get me wrong, i enjoy batman, edward scissorhands, sleepy hollow, et all, but they are not great films. and if he didn't have such good art directors (especially rick heinrichs) on many of his films, they would be even less memorable. i understand why many people think he is a genius- i think the majority of filmgoers think any director they can name, or with a recognizable style, must be a genius- and i see the appeal of his kooky darkness, but i wish he made better films. i am looking forward to corpse bride (which like nightmare before christmas, is directed by someone else, contrary to popular belief. this one is directed by a nice fellow named mike johnson) but i suspect it will have the same soggy story construction as many of his other projects (including nightmare). but wallace and gromit comes out three weeks later, which means there will be 2 (hopefully successful!) stop motion films in the theaters simultaneously!!
long live art.

9:56 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home