(no subject)

[2eclipse]

i just saw willie wonka and the chocolate factory with ross.
what a disappointment.
the acting was fabulous, if not to my taste, but whoever allowed tim burton and danny elfman to work on that project needs to be dragged out into the street and shot. the creepiness of that duo's work was completely unsuited for the story. wonka came off as effete and a complete ninny, instead of charming and eccentric. he also appeared to dislike children generally for most of the movie, rather than specifically, because he never allowed them to EARN his disgust before voicing it.
the songs were a poor substitute for the wit of the first movie and the lyrics were mostly unintelligible.
that said, he did a few things i liked. it was modernized in some interesting ways, and in a few places adhered to the book in some ways that the former movie did not. the actors did a very good job of portraying their characters. the only acception was johnny depp, who did a fabulous job, i just hated his portrayal of wonka.
the best thing about it was really the previews for movies coming out this fall. which look fabulous.
king kong - directed by peter jackson
ice age 2 - i hated the sloth from the first movie(just plain annoying), but maybe he won't be in this one....i can always hope
corpse bride - patterned after nightmare before xmas
and the wallace and grommit movie - obviously a must-see for yours truly.

Comments

In humble disagreement.

[skia.livejournal.com]

Wow. I was just in the Maple Leaf state and saw it with Pamela. We both agreed it was generally excellent.

I think it's unfair to say Wonka disliked children. He disliked the young and old alike. And anyone who thinks a man can stay locked up in a factory after being betrayed by his workers with no one but Oompa-Loompas for company for decades and still be comfortable around people... Well, I think Depp's portrayal of Wonka was at least accurate. Maybe accuracy is not what was called for?

As to not allowing the children to earn his distrust: one of the interesting twists in the movie was that Wonka knew all about the children ahead of time and knew exactly how to tempt them -- something that is not flat-out contrary to the book. I appreciated this twist, and thought it added to the story, but if you did not, the least you can say is that his dislike for the children was well-explained if not palatable. And, after all, they deserved it.

Oddly, I always found the "wit" of the musical numbers in the first movie painfully lacking. And I didn't find the lyrics of the new version hard to understand at all, though perhaps that's because Burton used the songs right out of the book instead of making up his own, and thus I was familiar with them. One could certainly take issue with the production of these songs, but I found the different musical "styles" charming and in keeping with the personalities of each of the children.

A final note about Depp's Wonka: The thing I enjoyed about it the most was that his defective Wonka had room to develop as a character. Instead of being an omniscient deus ex machina as he was in the book and the movie, the Burton/Depp Wonka was missing just as much as each of the children and, in his own way (sometimes just as misguidedly as the children) was searching for it along side them. This new Wonka makes it clear why he needed Charlie so much. He wasn't just a child who wouldn't mess up his soulless chocolate making machines. He embodied the very thing Wonka needed to give his factory back its soul.

Without this, the ending would not have been nearly as satisfying as it ultimately was. I think the payoff was worth it.

Re: In humble disagreement.

[(Anonymous)]

sigh....in like disagreement.
you are right about the earning of his distrust. i was trying to stay in denial of the fact that wonka did in fact, know these children before they arrived. it is clear from the movie. however, i find this idea appalling and revolting and have no appreciation for it because in my mind it defeats the purpose of actually checking out potential heirs. none of the children except charlie would really have been a potential heir.
and i DO think depp's character disliked children. you are right that he disliked everybody else too, but there is no reason to pick on children to allow into his factory above anyone else (as opposed to teenagers, say, who might have more sense of business in the world or some such), unless there was something GOOD about children that he liked (which the movie hinted at - their imaginations) this point was horribly under-pushed. instead, depp's character didn't want to know the names of his potential heirs from the beginning. i thought wilder's portrayal of a kinder wonka was much more in sync with the concept they were using. he liked children until they became the brats they are, he was not simply showing children to be brats for the fun of it. they were ALL potential heirs. the only other reasons for having wonka choose children (say his terror of adults) in this movie were based on things that i thought were stupid ideas in the first place (say, wonka's terror of adults).
and i don't have any problems with depp over this. i fully blame burton for allowing it to become such a travesty.
the director gives the actors his general concept, the actors merely flush it out. the director has veto power.
i have no beef with the idea that wonka needed some place to go as a character. i just hated the direction they took with his character and the deminishment they imposed on him in order to be able to take him in that direction. he was infintile and crazy, not brilliant and inspired. i WANT my wonka to be brilliant and inspired.

sigh

[2eclipse.livejournal.com]

that last is actually from me, i didn't realize i could not reply from e-mail and still be identified.

[skia.livejournal.com]

Well, it would defeat the purpose of looking for an heir if you assume that was Wonka's intent. If we run with the story as presented in the new movie, however, it looks as though Wonka is not looking for heirs. He's already found them. What he's looking for is a child who can withstand temptation (perhaps because he realizes his own great dissatisfaction stems from his own inability to stop himself from eating that chocolate treat found in the fireplace?). It's interesting to note that, in at least some instances, the order in which the trials were arrived at were random. By the time Mike TV is out of the picture, Wonka is genuinely surprised that Charlie is the only one left. Which leads me to believe he was about to take Charlie to the next room which would hold his great temptation. But seeing he was the only child left, he hit "up and out" on the Wonkavator instead.

As it turns out, the chocolate factory itself was probably a greater temptation than any Wonka could have cooked up, and Charlie refuses it. So we in the audience don't feel he's lacking in any way. And all ends well. The direction of Wonka having pre-knowledge of the children was not some slap-dash addition to the plot. It was well thought out and is self-consistent if you (choose to) look a little deeper into it.

And of course he also dislikes children. But to say "He dislikes children" alone insinuates that he's just honkey-dory with the rest of humanity, which he clearly isn't (and shouldn't be after being cloistered for so long!). And he didn't allow only children into his factory. In fact, he allowed just as many adults into his factory as he did kids. As to why he wanted a child for his heir, and why he was at the same time so disinterested in them, the movie could not have spelled it out more clearly. Wonka wanted his heir to be like him. And he was the product of a distant and unaffectionate father. Wonka had no idea how to raise an heir apart from doing the same thing his father did. We see it all the time, don't we? Repeating the mistakes of our parents over and over again down through the generations. Wonka's condition seemed text-book psychology to me, which made him more real and interesting.

Like I said, perhaps realism was not what was called for and you enjoyed the fictional Willy Wonka more. If that's the case, though, you can't really call the movie a travesty. You can call it "not to my taste" or even "too real", but you must admit that it is well told, well planned, and self-consistant. You can say "I want my Wonka to be brilliant and inspired", but it's not the fault of the movie if he is not. Like many things, it is but a matter of taste. To "blame burton" or suggest the producers be "dragged out into the street and shot" is to say "They are responsible for my taste," which I don't think is quite true.