I went out and saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory last Friday night with my friend McDavid. Now, McDavid is a student of dramatic literature, so I was going to throw out any criticisms she might have had, almost immediately, because she is coming from a different land than most conscious beings. I liked the film, though I will have to say careful post-watching reflection has brought certain flaws to the forefront for me. I'm just going to talk about everything all at once, though.
First of all, Charlie is a cute, cute kid. His teeth are just starting to show that handsome/grotesque English badness. He is abominably good. He sleeps in a room in the top of the house, and his window is really an open hole in the roof. I didn't get why he didn't freeze to death, but perhaps it was just one of those things I was supposed to accept and not question. Charlie appears to just kind of hang out, and doesn't really go to school or anything. We find out towards the end that he might be a shoe shiner, but I have no idea if this is a one time stint or an ongoing occupation, because there is no through-line on the subject.
Also, Grandpa Joe is the same old skinny actor from Waking Ned Divine, a film I absolutely loved. And Charlie's mother is Helena Bonham Carter. Gorgeous. The other great casting plus (aside from Johnny, who I will get to in a minute) is the character of Mike TV, who almost uncannily resembled the original actor of the 1970's classic.
The moment Johnny Depp stepped onto the screen, I almost screamed. The guy is Michael Jackson. I wonder if stage directions sounded like this. "Ok, Johnny, now in this scene, I want you to act like Michael Jackson. Ok, great. Now, in this next scene, act like Michael Jackson. Ok, here just act bored and make fun of the kids. Ok, now act like Michael Jackson." I mean, the guy must have been watching the trial or something, because he had it down. Really pasty skin, bad hair, weird clothes, said really bizarre stuff, and acted creepy around kids. He was like a MJ clone.
This is where McDavid took the low road, but I hightailed it and beat her to Scotland. She felt like things were overdone, and a bit perefunctory at times. The latter part I might concede to on occasion, but definitely not the former. The original "Charlie" film was groundbreaking in its time. Roald Dahl was an irreverent genius of kiddie lit. This is the curse disguised as a blessing for those wishing to remake such a classic film.
How can the original impact of the film be felt when so many have seen it, have a certain set of expectations, and are also familiar with the written work? Well, just enough has to change- Violet's parent becomes a mom, Mike TV's parent is a dad. There is no Slugworth. Emphasis is put on background- we learn Charlie's dad is a toothpaste factory worker, and Willy's was a dentist. There is thought here- mere coincidence that both boys will grow up to be choclatiers?
The bar also has to be raised with the extremity of the film. Willy goes from a somewhat passive stance towards the children in the original, to an occasionally aggressive, antagonistic bully. His impotence to overcome his situation is nearly crippling to him, only being discovered in a therapy session with an oompa loompa. The film had to be taken to the next level to have the same impact on today's audience, in a louder, more caustic world, that the original had on its intended audience.
But don't take my word for it, Levar Burton. I definitely recommend a personal viewing, along with a large popcorn and some sweettarts. Not even this film could get me near the chocolate.
No comments:
Post a Comment