For those of you who haven't realsied yet I went to see Tim Burton's adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory last night. The book and the original film were cornerstones of my childhood so I had pretty high expectations as I took my seat in the cinema, and as I left I had lots to talk about.
The most obvious bit of analysis to make it between Depp and Wilder. Both are very different. Wilder was dramatic, very physical with the part. I remember distictly the scene where he walks out of the facotry limping and then does a forward roll towards the crowd. Depp on the other hand is more reserved, he conveys the socially awkward side of Wonka in contrast to Wilder's childish exuberance. While the word character development might be going a bit overboard, Burton does try to explore the man behind the chocolate. Explaining Wonka's fasincation with sweets and the poor relationship with his dentist father; things that the book eluded to but that the first film avoided. In doing so Burton also puts across some of the more serious themes that were obviously important to Dahl. Family, friendship and honesty. Wilder's Wonka also had an aggresive undertone; shouting at Charlie in the later stages of the film and seemingly taking pleasure as one by one the other children disappear. This isn't part of Depps character. He's just far to simple for that, an adult who didn't grow up and thus can't really take things too seriously (please avoid comparisons with Michael Jackson.) Indeed in many instances the children find the simplicity he approaches situations with annoying.
The kids who play they children are great, each provide a good performace. But I just can't take the whole powerhouse child actor thing seriously. Think Dakota Flanning in War of the Worlds, Haley Joel Osmond in, well anything, or indeed Freedie Highmore as the new Charlie. I understand that it's devisive but when kids come out with lines like "I want to be a real boy" or "Candy doesn't have to have a point...that's why it's candy" (the fact that they stuck Americanisms into the film is another issue entirely!) it makes me cringe. I think you get my drift, I'll move on now.
Visually it is far superior to the first. Obviously because of the technological advances, but no less impart due to Tim Burton. The city is typically Burton, a mix of fantasy and old childrens stories (look at Charlie's crooked house) with a touch of Gotham City thrown in. The factory couldn't be more different. Fantastically colourful, like the Nightmare Before Christmas on acid. The scene with the squirels is worth the entrance fee alone.
Please go and watch this film. It won't be able to stir up the sort of passion the first film did, the kids film industry is a lot bigger than it was then, but everyone will enjoy it particularly those who were big fans of the book.
On a completely unrelated note, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between Wonka's factory, and the Googleplex. Google have definately modeled part of their business plan on Wonka's. Strict employee confidentiality, only letting the public in a couple of times a year and using the rumour mill as a PR engine; everyone knows the Googleplex is a magical place, but not many people have seen insdie it. Maybe I'll find a golden ticket inside a search query......a boy can always dream.
