04 July 2016
BLOCKBUSTER HISTORY: ROALD DAHL ON FILM
Every week this summer, we'll be taking an historical tour of the Hollywood blockbuster by examining an older film that is in some way a spiritual precursor to one of the weekend's wide releases. This week: Disney and Steven Spielberg combine forces to make The BFG, based upon a novel by a children's novelist with a great deal less sentiment than either of those entities. Roald Dahl's books have served as the fodder for quite a few movies over the years; I would like to invite you to join me in revisiting one of the very first.
It's no shock when an author complains that the film adaptation of one of his books is a terrible travesty that misses everything important about the original. What is a bit of a shock is for the author in question to make those complaints when he, himself, is the only credited screenwriter for the adaptation, as happened when English misanthrope Roald Dahl was famously disgusted by Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 film made out of his classic dark comic children's novella Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The explanation for how this unique situation came about is easy enough to explain: Dahl might have been the only credited screenwriter, but a substantial amount of revision was applied to his draft by the uncredited David Seltzer, and these include rather significant changes. We might then further ask the question, are these changes truly for the worst, or was Dahl just being a crybaby? And to that, I can firmly declare the answer to be: um, both.
In point of fact, the worst of the changes doesn't merely harm Willy Wonka as an adaptation: it is a self-evidently bad decision solely in reference to the film itself. But we'll get to that point later. For right now, let's quickly catch-up all those readers who were not children in the late 1970s, the 1980s, or the early 1990s, and this were not around to appreciate this classic of family cinema when it was at the height of its reputation, following a financially disappointing theatrical release. Somewhere in a mixture of Germany, Switzerland, and England, there is a small town whose most notable fixture is a mysterious chocolate factory operated by the reclusive Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder). Its products are renowned the world over, and Wonka's operation is the focus of all the most vigorous candy industry espionage.
In the same town, there lives a desperately poor family, consisting of four bedridden senior citizens, a middle-aged single mother (Diana Swole), and her sorrowful preteen son named Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum). Charlie's one dream is to have the disposable income to be able to eat candy to his heart's content, instead of the cabbage water and - oh so rarely, a loaf of bread - that makes up the family's sustenance. The first ray of hope that enters Charlie's deprived world comes when Wonka announces a contest: five Wonka products, somewhere in the world, have been wrapped with golden tickets inside, and the recipients of those tickets will be the first people in years to see inside the mysterious Wonka factory on a tour led by Wonka himself, in addition to receiving a lifetime supply of chocolate. Eventually, Charlie manages to acquire one such ticket, and joins four other children, all repulsive in some way or another, on an incident-filled trip through the fantastic spaces inside the factory, all of which cause the naughty children to experience some ironic fate that nearly kills them. And the elfin Wonka seems to be incredibly pleased by all of this.
If nothing else, the material of this story points out the razor-thin line between horror and comedy in children's literature. That, of course, was the thing Dahl did best: his books, even the very fluffiest and friendliest (and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is neither), are profoundly dark and nasty-minded, punishing the guilty (often in immense disproportion to their crimes) and providing vivid wish-fulfillment for children who are quietly convinced that they are the best, smartest, most deserving young person alive - which is to say, all children who have ever lived. Dahl famously hated children, which is surely the reason his books for them have survived: if you regard kids as a bunch of bastards, you're not likely to talk down to them, and if you suss out that kids secretly all have an abiding cruel streak and love of outrageous morbidity, you will indulge it. That Dahl had an exceptional sense of sarcastic wit, an enviable facility with the sounds of the English language that permitted him to create invented names and words like nobody this side of Charles Dickens, and a tremendously visual sense of prose are all just added bonuses.
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory isn't really a perfect embodiment of any of that, but as a first attempt at adapting Dahl's children's fiction to the screen (some of his spy fiction had been filmed, primarily on television), it's a good stab at it. There's only one unabashed "hell yes, this is Dahl" moment in the film - Charlie meeting a tinker (Peter Capell) with knives hanging off of his cart, who intones grim thoughts outside of the locked Wonka gate - but the sense terribly self-amused cruelty is never terribly far away, particularly once Wilder finally shows up, close to the half-way point of the movie.
But anyway, the value of a thing is not, inherently, the same as its fidelity as a work of adaptation. On its own terms, Willy Wonka is a mostly charming, at times dreadfully irritating thing, and I apologise to everyone for whom this is an unlimited childhood classic. I watched it a lot myself, as a young person; parts of annoyed me even then. It's the songs, more than anything: producer David Wolper concluded somewhere along the line that all the big kids' classics were musicals, and so his film would damn well be the same thing, a decision that even the film's director, Mel Stuart, had to be talked into (allegedly; there are a lot of cute making-of stories surrounding Willy Wonka, and I can't believe every last one of them is the sober gospel truth). The songs were written by the team of Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley, still in the glow of their big '60s stage hits Stop the World - I Want to Get Off and The Roar of the Greasepaint - The Smell of the Crowd, though the sepulchral 1967 film Doctor Dolittle (with songs by Bricusse, and Newley in a major role) had perhaps knocked some of the gleam off. At any rate, they provided six original songs for the soundtrack, and not one of them is terrifically good, though at least "The Candy Man" has endured as a standard. I am sure plenty of people would disagree with me in a flush of outraged horror. At any rate, I find the lyrics in the best songs - "The Candy Man" and "Pure Imagination" - to be rather smugly overdetermined, with anxiety-inducing forced rhymes. And the ostensibly sweet, heart-melting ballad "Cheer Up Charlie" has been leaving me peevish since I was six years old, grinding the plot to a halt to drop a steaming slice of '70s singer-songwriter cheese onto a character who serves very little other purpose than the sing this song.
Anyways, if the songs were cut out, it would brighten Willy Wonka's pace and comic energy considerably (though I would regret losing the haunting way Wilder sings "Pure Imagination"), for outside of how gummy those moments are, it's a pretty terrific movie, for the most part. Certainly, no film which began life as a marketing opportunity for silent partner Quaker Oats, looking to get into producing chocolate under the "Wonka" brand name, and insisting on the title change to further that end, ought to be as spry and frequently beautiful as this. Probably the first truly noteworthy thing about the movie is its baffling sense of place: the setting of the film is a timeless, dream version of Europe (it was primarily shot in Munich), heavily British but clearly not of Great Britain. This helps smooth the path for the film's satiric treatment of media culture (which feels, in honesty, more in line with the 1950s than the time of the film's production and release), as a curious, buffoonish intrusion into the placid, ethereal setting of everything else. And this is something that really shouldn't work at all, yet there's something about the contrast between the news and the hushed city that receives it which makes the whole thing feel more special, although it's also the element that most unmistakably dates the film.
What everyone remembers, of course, are the fanciful sets Harper Goff designed for the inside of Wonka's factory: a mixture of pure fantasy, modernist graphic art, industrial chic, and good old-fashioned movie magic. None of it is as marvelous as I thought it was a child - there are some barbarically cheap sets inside that factory - but it does a good job of evoking the kind of fairy tale setting that an impoverished boy like Charlie might dream up. And the wide range of reference points adds considerably to our feeling of a place appeallingly out of step with the world. At its best moments, Willy Wonka evokes the spirit, if not the letter of an Alice in Wonderland setting where geometry and perspective are conditional or nonexistent, and where a light surrealism coats everything.
The setting and visuals are, generally speaking, stronger than the rest of the movie; there's a real charm to it, but it's all a bit less... less, than it should be. Stuart's directing lacks the twinkle in the eye of Dahl's prose, which is why a great deal of what feels like it should push the film towards a dry English absurdism, like the 20-years-bedridden grandparents, is simply swallowed up into the background. It is a cute movie, when it maybe ought to be a funny movie. But cute counts for something, and the interplay between Ostrum and Jack Albertson, playing the most lively of the grandparents, Joe, drives the first half of the movie well enough that the absence of wit or even much sustained whimsy doesn't hurt it very much.
The second half of the movie is a completely different matter; and it's a bit surprising, revisiting the thing, how very different the two halves are. After serving as the protagonist and recipient of a very clear, strong character arc in the first half, Charlie almost disappears, as the movie prefers instead to focus on the four very naughty children accompanying him on the tour, all of whom it regards as more amusing in their wickedness than is the case (in particular, the greedy Veruca Salt, played by Julie Dawn Cole - the only one of the child actors here to pursue much of a career - is pure agony; and she's supposed to be, but "successful at being hatefully annoying" is a dubious kind of success). Even more than them, it starts to fixate on Wonka, and why wouldn't it? Gene Wilder's performance is the absolute triumph of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and the difference between "an unbalanced curiosity with great sets and locations" and "an abiding classic of children's cinema" is entirely his presence. Above everything else, Wilder manages to make Wonka feel subtly but decisively inhuman: the way he speaks to the other characters, his body language, and above all his tone of voice, suggest in a very clear way a being on some other plane of consciousness - not a higher plane, but a very different one. It would be easy to take the script and conclude that Wonka is just joyfully callous and sardonic, and that could still have worked, by Wilder plays the role as something like Santa Claus crossed with Loki, and I adore every bit of it: the unfocused look in his eyes, staring through things and not at them (which adds a minute but potent sense of melancholy to the character, which is only clarified in the last scenes); the elfin movement down the stairs in the big chocolate river room; the way he tunelessly sings the literary references Seltzer seeded into the script. The actor had the good sense to know that he had to make Wonka essentially unpredictable and unknowable in order to generate the sense of otherworldly magic that the second half of the film thrives on, and there's not one single beat of the performance where that doesn't come through.
The script undoubtedly becomes a muddle at this point, lacking the ironic moralising of the book (whose sharpest edges it always chooses to sand down), and dropping all of the emotional momentum of the first half until the somewhat peremptory final scene. But Wilder's such a magnetic presence that he largely makes it work. Largely. We still have to deal with the completely impossible matter of the one truly awful addition to the script, one of two deal-breakers for Dahl (he was equally offended by the creation of a secretive conspiratorial villain, but taken on its own terms, I think the film makes it work). The four nasty children all break the rules and are punished; this is well and good, in keeping with the Grimm sensibility Dahl used to fuel his comedy. In the movie, however, Charlie and Grandpa Joe also break the rules, and this is unbelievably wrong and bad. The whole damn point is that Charlie has a moral compass and good sense. He is the only one of the five children who hasn't decided to betray Wonka's secrets, and the only one who found his golden ticket after buying a chocolate bar for the love of chocolate (and also for another person), rather than out of greed. He's the sickly-sweet pure innocent; but this is a goddamn fable. It needs an exaggerated innocent. And along comes the Fizzy Lifting Drink scene to fuck that up completely. It adds nothing other than burp jokes and heinously bad dubbing, at the cost of elegance.
It's the only outright bum note in a screenplay that, even at its muddiest, has a sense of playfulness and arch humor that work well and give Wilder, if not really anybody else in the cast, plenty to do. There's little doubt in my mind that the film has a rosier reputation than it earns, but its strengths are awfully good, and Wilder is one for the history books. Dahl would be better-served by the movies, multiple times; but even if it's a weak approximation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka has enough going for it that I can't really quibble with the adoration it's racked up over the years.
7/10
It's no shock when an author complains that the film adaptation of one of his books is a terrible travesty that misses everything important about the original. What is a bit of a shock is for the author in question to make those complaints when he, himself, is the only credited screenwriter for the adaptation, as happened when English misanthrope Roald Dahl was famously disgusted by Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 film made out of his classic dark comic children's novella Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The explanation for how this unique situation came about is easy enough to explain: Dahl might have been the only credited screenwriter, but a substantial amount of revision was applied to his draft by the uncredited David Seltzer, and these include rather significant changes. We might then further ask the question, are these changes truly for the worst, or was Dahl just being a crybaby? And to that, I can firmly declare the answer to be: um, both.
In point of fact, the worst of the changes doesn't merely harm Willy Wonka as an adaptation: it is a self-evidently bad decision solely in reference to the film itself. But we'll get to that point later. For right now, let's quickly catch-up all those readers who were not children in the late 1970s, the 1980s, or the early 1990s, and this were not around to appreciate this classic of family cinema when it was at the height of its reputation, following a financially disappointing theatrical release. Somewhere in a mixture of Germany, Switzerland, and England, there is a small town whose most notable fixture is a mysterious chocolate factory operated by the reclusive Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder). Its products are renowned the world over, and Wonka's operation is the focus of all the most vigorous candy industry espionage.
In the same town, there lives a desperately poor family, consisting of four bedridden senior citizens, a middle-aged single mother (Diana Swole), and her sorrowful preteen son named Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum). Charlie's one dream is to have the disposable income to be able to eat candy to his heart's content, instead of the cabbage water and - oh so rarely, a loaf of bread - that makes up the family's sustenance. The first ray of hope that enters Charlie's deprived world comes when Wonka announces a contest: five Wonka products, somewhere in the world, have been wrapped with golden tickets inside, and the recipients of those tickets will be the first people in years to see inside the mysterious Wonka factory on a tour led by Wonka himself, in addition to receiving a lifetime supply of chocolate. Eventually, Charlie manages to acquire one such ticket, and joins four other children, all repulsive in some way or another, on an incident-filled trip through the fantastic spaces inside the factory, all of which cause the naughty children to experience some ironic fate that nearly kills them. And the elfin Wonka seems to be incredibly pleased by all of this.
If nothing else, the material of this story points out the razor-thin line between horror and comedy in children's literature. That, of course, was the thing Dahl did best: his books, even the very fluffiest and friendliest (and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is neither), are profoundly dark and nasty-minded, punishing the guilty (often in immense disproportion to their crimes) and providing vivid wish-fulfillment for children who are quietly convinced that they are the best, smartest, most deserving young person alive - which is to say, all children who have ever lived. Dahl famously hated children, which is surely the reason his books for them have survived: if you regard kids as a bunch of bastards, you're not likely to talk down to them, and if you suss out that kids secretly all have an abiding cruel streak and love of outrageous morbidity, you will indulge it. That Dahl had an exceptional sense of sarcastic wit, an enviable facility with the sounds of the English language that permitted him to create invented names and words like nobody this side of Charles Dickens, and a tremendously visual sense of prose are all just added bonuses.
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory isn't really a perfect embodiment of any of that, but as a first attempt at adapting Dahl's children's fiction to the screen (some of his spy fiction had been filmed, primarily on television), it's a good stab at it. There's only one unabashed "hell yes, this is Dahl" moment in the film - Charlie meeting a tinker (Peter Capell) with knives hanging off of his cart, who intones grim thoughts outside of the locked Wonka gate - but the sense terribly self-amused cruelty is never terribly far away, particularly once Wilder finally shows up, close to the half-way point of the movie.
But anyway, the value of a thing is not, inherently, the same as its fidelity as a work of adaptation. On its own terms, Willy Wonka is a mostly charming, at times dreadfully irritating thing, and I apologise to everyone for whom this is an unlimited childhood classic. I watched it a lot myself, as a young person; parts of annoyed me even then. It's the songs, more than anything: producer David Wolper concluded somewhere along the line that all the big kids' classics were musicals, and so his film would damn well be the same thing, a decision that even the film's director, Mel Stuart, had to be talked into (allegedly; there are a lot of cute making-of stories surrounding Willy Wonka, and I can't believe every last one of them is the sober gospel truth). The songs were written by the team of Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley, still in the glow of their big '60s stage hits Stop the World - I Want to Get Off and The Roar of the Greasepaint - The Smell of the Crowd, though the sepulchral 1967 film Doctor Dolittle (with songs by Bricusse, and Newley in a major role) had perhaps knocked some of the gleam off. At any rate, they provided six original songs for the soundtrack, and not one of them is terrifically good, though at least "The Candy Man" has endured as a standard. I am sure plenty of people would disagree with me in a flush of outraged horror. At any rate, I find the lyrics in the best songs - "The Candy Man" and "Pure Imagination" - to be rather smugly overdetermined, with anxiety-inducing forced rhymes. And the ostensibly sweet, heart-melting ballad "Cheer Up Charlie" has been leaving me peevish since I was six years old, grinding the plot to a halt to drop a steaming slice of '70s singer-songwriter cheese onto a character who serves very little other purpose than the sing this song.
Anyways, if the songs were cut out, it would brighten Willy Wonka's pace and comic energy considerably (though I would regret losing the haunting way Wilder sings "Pure Imagination"), for outside of how gummy those moments are, it's a pretty terrific movie, for the most part. Certainly, no film which began life as a marketing opportunity for silent partner Quaker Oats, looking to get into producing chocolate under the "Wonka" brand name, and insisting on the title change to further that end, ought to be as spry and frequently beautiful as this. Probably the first truly noteworthy thing about the movie is its baffling sense of place: the setting of the film is a timeless, dream version of Europe (it was primarily shot in Munich), heavily British but clearly not of Great Britain. This helps smooth the path for the film's satiric treatment of media culture (which feels, in honesty, more in line with the 1950s than the time of the film's production and release), as a curious, buffoonish intrusion into the placid, ethereal setting of everything else. And this is something that really shouldn't work at all, yet there's something about the contrast between the news and the hushed city that receives it which makes the whole thing feel more special, although it's also the element that most unmistakably dates the film.
What everyone remembers, of course, are the fanciful sets Harper Goff designed for the inside of Wonka's factory: a mixture of pure fantasy, modernist graphic art, industrial chic, and good old-fashioned movie magic. None of it is as marvelous as I thought it was a child - there are some barbarically cheap sets inside that factory - but it does a good job of evoking the kind of fairy tale setting that an impoverished boy like Charlie might dream up. And the wide range of reference points adds considerably to our feeling of a place appeallingly out of step with the world. At its best moments, Willy Wonka evokes the spirit, if not the letter of an Alice in Wonderland setting where geometry and perspective are conditional or nonexistent, and where a light surrealism coats everything.
The setting and visuals are, generally speaking, stronger than the rest of the movie; there's a real charm to it, but it's all a bit less... less, than it should be. Stuart's directing lacks the twinkle in the eye of Dahl's prose, which is why a great deal of what feels like it should push the film towards a dry English absurdism, like the 20-years-bedridden grandparents, is simply swallowed up into the background. It is a cute movie, when it maybe ought to be a funny movie. But cute counts for something, and the interplay between Ostrum and Jack Albertson, playing the most lively of the grandparents, Joe, drives the first half of the movie well enough that the absence of wit or even much sustained whimsy doesn't hurt it very much.
The second half of the movie is a completely different matter; and it's a bit surprising, revisiting the thing, how very different the two halves are. After serving as the protagonist and recipient of a very clear, strong character arc in the first half, Charlie almost disappears, as the movie prefers instead to focus on the four very naughty children accompanying him on the tour, all of whom it regards as more amusing in their wickedness than is the case (in particular, the greedy Veruca Salt, played by Julie Dawn Cole - the only one of the child actors here to pursue much of a career - is pure agony; and she's supposed to be, but "successful at being hatefully annoying" is a dubious kind of success). Even more than them, it starts to fixate on Wonka, and why wouldn't it? Gene Wilder's performance is the absolute triumph of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, and the difference between "an unbalanced curiosity with great sets and locations" and "an abiding classic of children's cinema" is entirely his presence. Above everything else, Wilder manages to make Wonka feel subtly but decisively inhuman: the way he speaks to the other characters, his body language, and above all his tone of voice, suggest in a very clear way a being on some other plane of consciousness - not a higher plane, but a very different one. It would be easy to take the script and conclude that Wonka is just joyfully callous and sardonic, and that could still have worked, by Wilder plays the role as something like Santa Claus crossed with Loki, and I adore every bit of it: the unfocused look in his eyes, staring through things and not at them (which adds a minute but potent sense of melancholy to the character, which is only clarified in the last scenes); the elfin movement down the stairs in the big chocolate river room; the way he tunelessly sings the literary references Seltzer seeded into the script. The actor had the good sense to know that he had to make Wonka essentially unpredictable and unknowable in order to generate the sense of otherworldly magic that the second half of the film thrives on, and there's not one single beat of the performance where that doesn't come through.
The script undoubtedly becomes a muddle at this point, lacking the ironic moralising of the book (whose sharpest edges it always chooses to sand down), and dropping all of the emotional momentum of the first half until the somewhat peremptory final scene. But Wilder's such a magnetic presence that he largely makes it work. Largely. We still have to deal with the completely impossible matter of the one truly awful addition to the script, one of two deal-breakers for Dahl (he was equally offended by the creation of a secretive conspiratorial villain, but taken on its own terms, I think the film makes it work). The four nasty children all break the rules and are punished; this is well and good, in keeping with the Grimm sensibility Dahl used to fuel his comedy. In the movie, however, Charlie and Grandpa Joe also break the rules, and this is unbelievably wrong and bad. The whole damn point is that Charlie has a moral compass and good sense. He is the only one of the five children who hasn't decided to betray Wonka's secrets, and the only one who found his golden ticket after buying a chocolate bar for the love of chocolate (and also for another person), rather than out of greed. He's the sickly-sweet pure innocent; but this is a goddamn fable. It needs an exaggerated innocent. And along comes the Fizzy Lifting Drink scene to fuck that up completely. It adds nothing other than burp jokes and heinously bad dubbing, at the cost of elegance.
It's the only outright bum note in a screenplay that, even at its muddiest, has a sense of playfulness and arch humor that work well and give Wilder, if not really anybody else in the cast, plenty to do. There's little doubt in my mind that the film has a rosier reputation than it earns, but its strengths are awfully good, and Wilder is one for the history books. Dahl would be better-served by the movies, multiple times; but even if it's a weak approximation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka has enough going for it that I can't really quibble with the adoration it's racked up over the years.
7/10
25 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
"I apologise to everyone for whom this is an unlimited childhood classic."
ReplyDeleteYOU BETTER APOLOGIZE TIM
YOU BETTER APOLOGIZE
That should be a lifetime's supply of chocolate, not just a year!
ReplyDeleteThe VHS of this movie I used to rent as a kid was all scratchy during the "Cheer Up Charlie" number. From all the kids fast-forwarding though it.
"He's the sickly-sweet pure innocent; but this is a goddamn fable. It needs an exaggerated innocent."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Burton took that exact approach and it came across as soppy and manipulative. I don't know, maybe it's one thing to read about a total saint but it's quite another to have to endure them in the flesh.
Anyway, one of the reasons why Dahl reserved such special hatred for this movie was because they wouldn't cast his buddy Spike Milligan in the role of Willy Wonka. I'm also led to believe that Dahl just wasn't a fan of film adaptations making drastic changes to his original story - he despised the Hollywood ending of the 1990 film The Witches (although he was a lot more positive about the casting of that one). So much so that I have to wonder if he would have been terribly enthused by the majority of adaptations that came after his death (although his widow frequently insists that he would have loved them).
In re: Burton's film, I agree that it was a bit more soppy and manipulative, but I don't agree that making Charlie a "good boy" was part of that. You can have good fables and bad fables, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a character representing sweetness and light in a story that calls for it- and a dark story like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (and, you know, most of Dahl's stories) desperately need something to take the edge off. My problem with Freddie Highmore's performance is that the character wasn't really given a lot to do by Burton except to show how much more moral he was from the other kids, and yes, it does make him boring. That's probably why the creators of Willy Wonka decided to give him and Grandpa Joe stuff like the Fizzy Lifting scene and the Slugworth bit; they may have been tonally dissonant with the story, but at least they give the character some agency after a point where he largely becomes a spectator in the story.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah! You needn't apologize to me, Tim; I read almost everything of Dahl's I could get my hands on before I'd even heard they made this movie, so to me, it was never so much "unassailable classic" as "pretty good, but..." I've felt that way about all of the adaptations of Roald Dahl I've seen; there have been some good moments, but thus far there's no adaptation of any of his stuff that's made me jump up and go "that's it, that's what I've been waiting for." Matilda is just too muddled for its own good, and James and the Giant Peach too toothless; Tim Burton's later interpretation pulled off the astonishing trick of being closer to the letter of the book whilst being even further away from the spirit of it than Willy Wonka was. The Witches... well, if you were to hold my feet to the fire, it'd actually be a tossup of The Witches and Willy Wonka for "Best Adaptation of Dahl" which Willy Wonka would win by a hair for ending kinda-sorta like the book did.
But without that scene I wouldn't be able to randomly terrify people by yelling "YOU STOLE FIZZY LIFTING DRINK AND NOW THE CEILING HAS TO BE WASHED AND STERILIZED!"
ReplyDeletesome of his spy fiction had been filmed, primarily on television
ReplyDeleteAnd some of them were on the big screen, providing us that ineffable moment of "Fuckit, James Bond is spy-themed fantasy now."
Re: the movie itself - I was a little suprised at the low rating, but on consideration, I have great memories of more-or-less the entrance to the factory to whichever of Violet and Verucca dies last, and that's about it. Also I haven't seen it in years, nor felt much need to, so clearly some part of me is as semi-impressed as you are.
Finally, I still can't believe you forgot to mention the There's no earthly way of knowing... "song", the prime example of the "children can take a little bit of being fucked up now and then" if ever there was one.
When I think back on it, it kinda boggles my mind that--uh, spoilers, I guess-- the ending of The Witches is "I'm going to die soon, but it's cool, 'cause I don't want to outlive my grandmother anyway." What's even more amazing, perhaps, is the way it still seems like a happy ending, or at least it did to me as a child. It is, however, wholly impossible to imagine that having been preserved for the movie.
ReplyDeleteI actually like most of the songs.
ReplyDeleteBut oh holy fuck is Cheer Up Charlie an abomination. It's a bad song, sung in a bad scene, that greetings the entire movie to a standstill.
No mention of that legendarily terrifying boat scene? That's what's really stuck with me about the film all these years, and Wilder's performance there is positively unhinged.
ReplyDelete@Sean: Oh, I agree that it's not so much Charlie being "all good" that's the problem (it's certainly not an issue in the book), more that Burton and Highmore's efforts to convey that extreme level of goodness on film lead to the character being at best rather dull and at worst, his goodness coming off as a bit showy (c'mon now, don't tell me that the chocolate-sharing scene in Burton's film didn't make you cringe too).
ReplyDeleteIn the book, Charlie is modest, unassuming and undemanding and he basically wins by default in end - as you say, once we enter the chocolate factory he becomes more of a spectator than anything else, and he comes through not because of his own actions per se but because every other child manages to royally fuck things up in some way. And that's all very fine in the book, where the reader is essentially experiencing this magical world through Charlie's eyes, but in Burton's film the character is left with nothing really juicy to work with, and becomes just kind of "there". Giving Charlie a few vices of his own to overcome in the Wilder version was, in my opinion, something of a necessary evil in order to make him more of an engaging character to follow onscreen - at the very least, I prefer to it Burton's approach.
I used to own this on VHS as a child. The boat scene terrified me to my core, and to this day I admire the sheer balls on the filmmakers to include a truly Dahl-esque piece of nightmarish imagination. It was weird shit like that which made me such a fan of his books, and I've read most of them.
ReplyDeleteThose Oompa-Loompa sequences are perfect adaptations but I fucking hate them because they're incredible ear-worms and just the most dated motherfucking things on the planet, even more than the big balloon filled with airplane buttons. Those fonts.
Mysterious F- It was part of my childhood too! Just not a part I'm as head-over heels about as, say Dumbo.
ReplyDeletegold guy- What a very odd mistake. Fixed.
Scampy- I'd encountered that fact about Dahl & Milligan, and I think he's just flat-out wrong; I can't imagine anybody bettering Wilder. But I do agree that there's a clear degree of Alan Moore-esque "if you touch my precious books, I will curse you to the hottest flames of hell".
Scampy/Sean/Scampy- The problems with the Burton film are muuuuuuuuuuuch deeper than just how it portrays Charlie. I mean, that's clearly part of it, but I don't even know that it makes my Top 5. I thought about reviewing that this weekend, but I didn't really want to re-watch it.
Sean- My favorite is actually Fantastic Mr. Fox, but I do think The Witches is the best at getting Dahl's tone pinned down, even if the ending is cutesy-poo crap.
David- And honestly, Wilder's performance in that scene is enough to endear me to the plot it took to get there. Basically I will forgive this movie all its sins for Wilder.
Not Fenimore- I haven't seen any of his spy movies/shows! But I've got 36 Hours coming from Netflix soon.
Not Fenimore/Michael- I felt like the boat scene has been the subject of so many listicles and such about "things that terrified us into a coma as children" that I had nothing to add. But it's the first time that most of us ever saw a chicken being decapitated, so yeah, definitely a pretty satisfyingly brutal moment.
GeoX- I dunno, I think Roeg of all filmmakers could have sold that ending. Mind you, I haven't watched the movie in years - I almost watched it this weekend - so I might be overestimating how effectively dark it is. But agreed the fact that the book sells that as a happy ending is pretty nuts.
Brian- I mean, I don't hate any of the other songs. I even mostly like half of them. But "Cheer Up Charlie" is pure torture.
Mia- Oh, now THAT I can't believe I forgot to mention. Those goddamn text effects. Like, kiddie-friendly psychedelia is one thing, but those were already three years out-of-date by the time the movie was released.
I used to watch this on an old VHS tape that was recorded off TV from neighbors of ours. Their version did not have the song by the Mother at all so for years I had no idea it was in the full length film. Roald Dahl is by far my favorite children's author. In school I had a lot of issues learning to read and write and had to be put in a reading recovery program in 1st grade. But by 3rd grade I was ready to start reading chapter books and my teacher that year read tons of Roald Dahl to us (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Great Glass Elevator, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, etc.) I eventually went out and read them all by myself as well as the ones she didn't read to us such as The Witches which became my favorite. His stories remind me of that time when I could finally read on my own and I am so happy these were the books that helped facilitate that. As for the movie you are pretty much right other then like some other people have said I like most of the songs but then again my version lacked the worst song on the soundtrack.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever met anyone who actually *likes* "Cheer Up, Charlie"? Even among the score's fans (of which I number myself, though more for Newley's tunefulness than Bricusse's mediocre skills as a lyricist) everyone I've met treats it as an awful bore. Even my mother, who absolutely adores the film, always manages to find some bit of housecleaning that urgently needs finished when we rewatch the film.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you didn't comment more on that first half of the film, because it's always been the most bizarre thing to me when I rewatch it as an adult--the whole tone of it is just weird, plus the interspersion of *very* 70s-Britain humour that feels so off but still somehow works (David Battley's Mr. Turkentine is always what sticks out to me, but the ransomed-for-Wonka-bars bit is a strong second). It's very much a film anchored by personalities over anything else--as much as Wilder drives the second half of the film, the first half is anchored almost solely on the colour of the random bit characters (as well as Albertson's Uncle Joe). It's an odd little beast, to be sure.
Having just rewatched the boat sequence, there are, like, 7 "scary" images:
ReplyDelete- Snail(?) behind some scrub
- Millipede crawling on face
- Eye closeup
- Chicken being decapitated
- Mr Slugworth, just kinda standing there
- Chameleon eating something
and then Wonka starts singing and it's nothing but him and reaction shots until a closeup of a spider's mouth bits right at the end. So, uh, mad props to Gene Wilder and Lev Kuleshov, I guess.
Things that seven year old me was well aware of: "Cheer Up Charlie" is unwatchable, and Dahl's ending to "The Witches" was incredibly fucked up.
ReplyDeleteHe's going to die at FIFTEEN? And it's fine because he won't have to outlive his grandmother? Jesus.
I'm a huge Bricusse/Newley fan, and I will acknowledge that "Cheer Up Charlie" is an objectively bad song, but I still kind of like it. I do find myself humming the title phrase every once in a while.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, the Dahl ending which always struck me as the most fucked up would have to be George's Marvelous Medicine. Seeing as how it seems to condone the murdering of elderly relatives who've become a burden to the family.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair to say Dahl "famously hated children". He had 5 of his own and his devastation at the death of a young daughter seemed to be a pivot point on which his life turned.
ReplyDeleteHis father died when he was young and he was subsequently shipped off to a violently abusive boarding school - I suspect THAT might inform the tone of his books more than anything.
His understanding that childhood, while fall of innocence and whimsy, can also be helpless, appallingly dark and desperately unfair was I think a big part of his ability to connect to young readers.
Shame they never got round to actually doing Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator but I guess Dr. Strangelove for kids + an insane visual effects budget = not on the cards.
ReplyDeleteTuesday- I'd heard that about his daughter. One of his books was dedicated to her, I think - maybe The BFG? I haven't read any of them in a long time. I don't think he hated his children, of course, but that he had absolutely no interest in or tolerance for anyone else's children is pretty well established in everything I've ever read about him.
ReplyDeleteConcise Statement- I'm sure the budget would have been ruinous, but that wasn't the problem. Dahl refused to give them the rights on the basis of how disappointed he was in the first movie. A damn pity, I always liked Great Glass Elevator more than Chocolate Factory.
Yep, The BFG was dedicated to Olivia Dahl. I assume that he was at least well-disposed toward his granddaughter Sophie, given that Sophie from The BFG was based upon/named after her.
ReplyDelete@Tim: The Great Glass Elevator always seemed so underrated! It's certainly one of his funniest novels. As a kid I enjoyed it more, though I could imagine finding it a strange follow up to the more classical fable of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
ReplyDelete@Tim: Aw, shoot, I had genuinely forgotten about Fantastic Mr. Fox when I was composing that list! That one's really good too, but there's such an expansion of the story, characters, and themes from the book that my mind tends to view it as more an example of "Wes Anderson Film" rather than "Roald Dahl Adaptation"...
ReplyDeleteLet's please keep in mind that this is the author of the silliest James Bond screenplay, one that in large parts doesn't scan at the most basic level.
ReplyDelete