It's hard not to like Tim Burton…well, actually, that's not strictly true. It's hard not to like the idea of Tim Burton. We all know the score at this stage: a flash of Dr. Heinrich Hoffmann here, a dash of Ray Harryhausen there, gothic touches, expressionist angles, thumping Danny Elfman soundtracks etc. For all the signature flourishes and dazzling design details however, Burton's delightfully inviting 'shop fronts' often turn out to be little more than disappointing facades….revealing hollow and empty interiors.
This apparent superficiality has been critically commented on many times and oft, but Burton's films are still lauded as 'dark' by practically every journo who comments on them. The 'darkness' of his work is (for me) far less obvious, or significant, than your average hack would have you believe. After all, there's a key difference between acting (or playing) 'dark', and truly being 'dark'. In other words, is the 'darkness' in Burton's films little more than a stylistic sheen, or is there, in fact, a solid, 'dark' element that runs to the core? That is for you, dear reader, to decide…
Even setting aside such issues, you would still have thought that someone with such an obvious affinity for Victorian morality tales would be the ideal candidate to capture Roald Dahl's ambivalent world of grotesque brutality and deep (familial) love. However, the dissapointing reality of Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (recently released on DVD) is that, for all the supposed fidelity to the source novel, it's sadly flat and bland where it really matters. Of most interest to people my age, I'd imagine, is how Johnny Depp's performance compares to Gene Wilder's unforgettable turn. Though nostalgia, and sentimentality, tend to cloud sober appreciations of the 1971 version (which is rather hit and miss), Wilder's Wonka remains a gem, and a pretty tough act to follow.
As in Burton's version (and the book as I recall) the 'Wilder Wonka' (apparently) withdraws from the world as a result of industrial espionage and the theft of his secrets. Yet, whether by accident or design, Wilder's performance suggests a man with a clear sense of his own superiority, and a decided antipathy towards the world 'out there'. Inside the walls of the factory he has created a 'better world' drawn straight from his own imagination (there's nowhere like it). His campaign to find a successor seems motivated by a desire to share on one hand, but he never displays any interest in rejoining the 'real world'. He lacks nothing the 'outside' can offer him…and certainly isn't looking to propel his inner child back into the open arms of a family structure.
Depp's portrayal, alas, suffers from being a tad too 'one note'…and certainly doesn't suggest the kind of roguish ambiguity of Wilder's interpretation. The Depp Wonka is an awkward (and loony) 'man-child', and seems a clear nod to (that real-life 'Wonka') Michael Jackson. For the 'Wonka Factory', read 'Neverland'. For 'abusive father', read…em…'abusive father'. Sadly, this referentiality is about as interesting as it gets, as the character is soon unsubtly revealed to be merely attempting the recovery of his 'lost family'. His eventual return to the bosom of a family (albeit somewhat on his own terms) feels distressingly like the Spielbergian "Kid of divorced parents desperately looking for love" model.
Maybe Wilder's defiant ("Fuck the World") independence just won't wash anymore in a kids' movie. In these touchy-feely times, it seems that even the greatest oddballs are just trying to give their questing 'inner child' some peace…
I find myself in complete agreement. You come away from the “Wilder” wonka with a sense that he withdrew from the outside world because he couldn’t give a fiddlers (there I go again!) not returning until such time that he was good and ready or, indeed, until it was ready for him (perhaps a process aided by mass ingestion of wonka bars et al). On the other hand, Depp’s Wonka gives you the impression that if he were to place a foot outside of the factory he would be set upon and mugged by a gang of old ladies and/or promptly run over by a truck. Pee Wee Herman, why have we forsaken thee?
December 5th, 2005 at 3:41 pmPee Wee Herman indeed. A very apt comparison.
A few other observations: Though Wilder’s Wonka does bring the Buckets to live with him, this epilogue is never actually seen on screen (unlike the Burton version). In any case, his reason for inviting the whole clan into ‘chez Wonka’ seems to spring from a desire to keep Charlie (his heir) happy, rather than suggesting any need for familial bonds on his part.
December 5th, 2005 at 5:26 pmI haven’t seen the new Wonka, partly because I was quite disturbed to see Depp and that kid reunited after their emetic outing in Neverland. Everything about the promotional material for Burton’s latest flick screamed “surface”. There was nothing in the way the various techies enthusiastically nerded on about the consistency of their chocolate river that compelled one to see their movie. One had the impression that the team so busy creating a world for the movie had little interest in populating it. Burton’s Wonka’s “weirdness” seemed entirely a creature of Deppish mannerisms and tooth flashing whereas Wilder was normal to look at, apart from the purple hat, and spoke with perfect ordinariness of tone, which made what he said and his disinterest in the various fates of the horrid children in his charge and the world beyond his gates all the more disturbing and challenging.
There’s a point in the movie where you realise that Wonka is not very nice and I wouldn’t say it’s an especially pleasant one. Charlie doesn’t win Wonka’s favour because he’s nice, he wins because he plays a straight bat.
December 5th, 2005 at 7:31 pm