Many reviewers have accepted the claim by Burton that his adaptation is faithful to Dahl's novel, or simply more faithful to it than the 1971 film. This is far from the case. The opening 20 minutes of Burton's film do in fact incorporate many story elements that were absent in the 1971 film: the story of the Indian Prince who commissioned Wonka to construct a palace made of chocolate; the chocolate egg that breaks open to reveal a chocolate bird; Charlie's father's job in the toothpaste factory; etc. But beyond those examples, Burton's script deviates from both the letter and the spirit of Dahl's novel.
The main problem is Wonka's character. In Dahl's book, Wonka is a sprightly, good natured, and somewhat avuncular eccentric who is in no way menacing, dark, or deceitful. Dahl's Wonka is consistently concerned about the welfare of the children, and is proactive in attempting to prevent them from suffering their horrible fates.
In the 1971 film, Gene Wilder creates an eccentric chocolatier who is somewhat aloof, mysterious, and whose true stance towards the children is ambiguous. This did not please Dahl, who wanted the benevolent and charismatic Spike Milligan to play the role of Wonka.
Burton moves further afield from the Wonka of Dahl's conception by creating a self-absorbed, uncaring, sneering, and completely unlikable candyman whom someone as pure as Charlie Bucket should never have grown to love. Worse still, Burton's script implicates Wonka in the demise of each child, where the fomenting situation is clearly preplanned by the candyman.
If Dahl was displeased with Gene Wilder's enigmatic-yet-ultimately-caring Wonka, he surely would have hated Johnny Depp's uncaring, selfish, and offensive candyman.
Most disappointing is the ending of Burton's film, which bears no relationship to Dahl's book. In the book and in the 1971 film, the story ends with a heartwarming scene in which Wonka offers to give the factory to Charlie. Charlie asks about his family, and Wonka explains lovingly that they can come along and live in comfort and safety in the factory. The 1971 film's ending is perhaps the most loving and wonderful ending of any movie of any time.
In disappointing and bewildering contrast, Burton's Wonka initially disallows Charlie's family from coming to live in the factory. Apparently, the selfish Wonka has internalized anger towards his own estranged father, a story element found nowhere in Dahl's book. The remainder of Burton's film contains a weak and unaffecting account of Charlie's successful attempt to mend bridges between Wonka and his father. The film concludes flippantly, with Charlie and his family residing in the Chocolate Room of the factory, sharing turkey dinners with Wonka inside of their shack which has been relocated there on the shore of the Chocolate River. Not only does this ending have nothing to do with the narrative of Dahl's book, it violates the spirit of the work and ends on an unsentimental note that betrays the fairytale-like quality that makes the book and the 1971 film so endearing.
The Greek chorus of Oompah Loompahs gives wonderful commentary on the woeful character of each child (save Charlie, of course, who suffers no ill fate.) For the 1971 film, Bricusse and Newly created a memorable melody for the Oompah Loompah songs, with an original set of lyrics not found in Dahl's book. Each set of lyrics provides a didactic riddle for the listener, for example: "Oompah-Loompah Doopa-dee-doo; I've got a perfect puzzle for you....What do you get when you guzzle down sweets? Eating as much as an elephant eats?" etc. The lyrics are clearly articulated, and in one scene they appear in psychedelic typography on the film screen.
In Burton's film, Dahl's original lyrics (in abbreviated form) are employed, but they can't be heard clearly at all. With a few exceptions, it's essentially impossible to understand what the Oompah Loompahs are singing. Making matters worse is the use of extremely generic pop rock as the accompanying music. Consider the now-famous "Jitterbug" song from the "Wizard of Oz": it was cut from that film for the simple reason that it was much too specific to the time the film was created, and thus would stand in the way of making the film timeless. The music sung by Burton's Oompah Loompahs is insipid, unmemorable, and so specific to the music of the present day that it will date the film considerably.
Burton failed to utilize many important details from Dahl's book. For example, in Dahl's book the vessel that escorts the party along the chocolate river is described as a sugar boat, made "...by hollowing out an enormous boiled sweet..."; Mike Teavee is admonished not to lick it. Burton is true to Dahl's description of the boat (mainly in its size and its pink color), but Burton's Wonka never explains the nature of the boat to the party, or, therefore, to the audience. In fact, the boat isn't introduced at all; it merely pulls up and Wonka asks everyone to get in. This incident points at a related problem throughout the film: Burton is often so concerned with visual details that he neglects to ensure that the dialogue properly introduces and explains key concepts in the film. In the 1971 film, all points along Charlie's journey are clearly articulated by the characters, so that dialogue and visuals harmonize with one another. In Burton's film, the dialogue is flimsy at best, and usually serves only to buttress the two-dimensional quality of the characters.
Another failure in Burton's film is the Great Gum Machine. In Dahl's description, the machine is enormously tall and is the centerpiece (and perhaps the masterpiece) of the Inventing Room. Dahl describes Wonka's acrobatics at operating the monstrous contraption, and describes in particular a huge basin at its top that fills with multi-colored fluids that more-or-less correspond to the colors of the foods that are encapsulated in the gum that it creates. When a single gray strip of gum emerges from the machine, the effect is temporarily anticlimactic. Once we learn its effect on Violet, however, the size and terrific nature of the machine make it quite ominous again.
In the 1971 film, the machine is not very large, but it is very intricate and visually fascinating. All manners of whirrings and churnings are heard while plates of food are presented and consumed by the machine; even a honeybee hive is part of the machine, and at one point the camera aims through the machine to show a somewhat crazed and perhaps obsessed Wonka staring back at the machine's workings (and at us, as well.)
In contrast, Burton gives no indication of the size, shape, or operation of the machine. Wonka first activates it, then we see a few close-ups of levers and gears moving, and then a strip of gum is shot out directly into Violet Beauregard's hand. What could have been (and should have been) the most visually interesting invention in the Inventing Room is instead a quick gloss over mundane machine parts. Why Burton failed to capitalize on what could have been a visual bonanza is a complete mystery, and a real let-down to anyone who has read the book.
Roald Dahl was a clever and spirited writer, and his prose and verse throughout "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" sparkles. For the 1971 film, the writer David Seltzer was hired to recalibrate the script. To it he added almost two dozen literary references and quotations, making Wonka spout memorable and cryptic lines that are repeated to this day. (A quick survey of the internet will show Wonka quotes on thousands of pages. Many people erroneously believe that Wonka's cryptic lines are original to the script. A complete listing of all quotations and their original sources and contexts can be found at Wonka Quotes and Literary Allusions)
In contrast, Burton's Wonka spouts no clever lines, except perhaps his exhortation to Veruca in the nut room, "Don't touch that squirrel's nuts!" Other than that, there are really no memorable lines in the entire film.
Burton's films are typically devoid of dramatic tension, and this film is no exception. There are at least three factors at play here: 1) lack of psychological depth to the characters, 2) pacing, and 3) narrative lackluster.
Shallow Psychology
In the 1971 film, the distinct personality of every character is conveyed not only through dialogue, but also by camera shots that emphasize facial expressions, by the delivery of lines, and by emotionally rich interactions between (and among) the various characters. With these elements director Mel Stuart creates three-dimensional characters an audience will apprehend with empathy, disgust, wonder, and compassion.
Burton's characters are simply still-life photos of stereotypes that are no more animated than the "Small World" puppets at the door to the factory. Burton repeatedly reinforces the concept that Charlie Bucket is a kind-hearted child by giving him short, encapsulated statements of altruism. However, they come across as non sequiturs in the context of each scene, making him seem like an ethical puppet in some perverse Punch and Judy show. (His excitement in finding a golden ticket is paradoxically cancelled when he announces that "...no one is going to the factory...a woman offered me $500 for the ticket, and we need the money..." [paraphrase]. If the main character of the film isn't really interested in going to the factory, why should we be? In contrast, the Charlie Bucket of the 1971 film cried himself to sleep when erroneous news circulated that the last Golden Ticket had been found.)
Uneven pacing
Burton's pacing is often uneven and slow. This has been especially problematic in his previous films, such "Ed Wood" and "Mars Attacks", which crawl at a snail's pace. The problem with pacing seems to stem from Burton's visual priorities: gratuitous shots (whose subjects are always--and uncreatively--in the dead-center of the screen) are held onto for several seconds longer than what is actually needed. These tenutos slow the pace of a film, and often make it feel directionless.
In recent years this has been less of a problem for Burton, who has learned how to make his films move forward without sacrificing his all-important visuals. But in his take on Wonka there are sections of the film where emphasis on the visuals subtract from and even slow down the pacing. For example, the boat ride on the chocolate river (a scary and very memorable scene in the 1971 film) contains far too many recurrent shots of the Oompah-Loompah rowers, and the shots of the boat sailing through the currents are not especially engaging. There is no dialogue among the characters during this scene, and nothing moves it forward. While mildly visually interesting during the first viewing, it will likely prove tedious on successive screenings.
Slippery narrative
The greatest failure in the film is the slick and unengaging narrative Burton has crafted from a book rich with narrative possibility. In the 1971 film, Charlie opens two bars hoping to find a ticket; his disappointment is palpable and affecting each time. After opening a third bar (purchased with money he finds in the street--a magical moment in itself), he buys a fourth bar with the change left over from the purchase of the third bar. The street is then alive with news that the 5th ticket holder had created a counterfeit ticket, thus reintroducing the possibility that Charlie still might find the last one. There on the street, in a moment of magnificent and glorious serendipity, Charlie finds his ticket. This is a scene that sends rapturous chills down the spine of anyone engaged by this marvelous film: our hero--the inner child in all of us, the one most deserving of a reward for his hardships--has found the thing he has wanted all along, and we share in his happiness as he runs home to share the news with his family. All aspects of the film at this point--the cinematography, the focus on facial expression, the dialogue, and the glorious music--work together to produce an unforgettable and truly heartwarming scene.
In disappointing contrast, Burton makes this scene slick and uneventful. There's no magic in the air when Charlie finds the money in the street, and the first (and only) bar he purchases has the ticket. (The 1971 film is like Dahl's book, with a second bar containing the ticket.) There's no glorious music, Charlie's would-be enthusiasm is simply a shadow of excitement, and Charlie--mind you, the same child who just seconds later (in Burton's account) would rather sell the ticket for money than allow anyone in the family to go to the factory--then *neglects* to receive the change from the shopkeeper for the purchase of the candy bar. What should have been one of the most glorious moments in the film slips by on equal par with every other scene in the film.
Time and again, Burton's narrative skills are subsided by his obsession with static visuals. In the 1971 film, the fate of each child is a moment of memorable tension. The film score stops; no music is sounded during each horrible fate, and then a haunting Oompah-Loopah song begins, always (and creepily) in a minor key. We're encouraged to be horrified by what has happened, and then receive a lesson in personal conduct by the film's Greek chorus.
In Burton's film, the fate of each child is not particularly didactic. If we could actually hear the lyrics that the Oompah Loompahs are singing, it would help matters. But we seem to be encouraged to laugh at each of them, as though we couldn't suffer any similar personal defects ourselves. There's a schadenfreude-like quality to the demise of each child, which is completely contrary to the wisdom Dahl tries to impart to the readers of his book.
Also contrary to Dahl's book is Burton's implication that Wonka preplanned a comeuppance for each child, even rehearsing the Oompah-Loompahs and orchestrating Mike Teavee's demise in the Television Room. There's a logical problem here, though; in the book and in Burton's film, Mike Teavee himself randomly chooses the Television Room as a destination for the tour. (It's moot whether Wonka would've taken the group to that room regardless of where Mike Teavee had chosen to go first; the fact remains that Mike chose the room himself, yet Wonka had something preplanned for him there.)
Mike Teavee's character is particularly confused in the film. In Dahl's book, Mike is a television addict. His surname reinforces that, and his parents do little to sway him away from the boob-tube. His demise--like that of every other child--is therefore ironic.
Burton recasts Mike not so much as a television addict, but as an angry techno-nerd who apparently likes video games. However, he isn't demonstrably addicted to them; we simply see him sitting in front of a television screen playing one. This is yet another instance of Burton's narrative limitations, where concepts that need to be demonstrated and articulated clearly are left unspoken for the audience to infer.
According to Burton, Mike managed to find a golden ticket through probability analysis involving the Nikkei Index. (Here was another missed opportunity by Burton, this time of a story element of Burton's own creation: we could have been treated to a visual demonstration of the data and technique that allowed Mike to buy a single chocolate bar containing a golden ticket, but instead we're given a quick verbal explanation by him that goes by in a blur.) Mike Teavee's comeuppance via television is therefore only tangentially related to his personal vice, which is not television per se, but science and technology in general.
Wonka's factory is a testing ground for kindness, generosity, and altruism on the part of its visitors. Only a sweet soul like Charlie Bucket could travel through it, resist temptation, and emerge not only unscathed but master-elect of the factory. Mel Stuart's 1971 film makes out Charlie, his Grandpa Joe, and Wonka all equal players, cut from the same cloth. Sadly, Burton's Wonka is a vile, vindictive, and self-absorbed dandy who wouldn't be able to survive a trip through his own factory.
To paraphrase a line from a great film: So stinks a pointless re-make in a weary world...
Feel free to send your thoughts and reactions to HugeWonkaFan@yahoo.com
A complete listing of all literary quotations and allusions in the 1971 film and their original sources and contexts can be found at Wonka Quotes and Literary Allusions
Back to home page of Brodhead Music Typography
This page created 17 July 2005
Last updated 17 July 2005
Webpage Copyright © 2005 Thomas Brodhead
Visitor #