To Make Or Remake: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Friday, February 6th, 2009
Where is fancy bread? In the heart, or in the head?
As a kid, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a favourite book of mine. I was a big chocolate hound. I still am and in fact now work for a chocolate company ironically enough. There was something just so magic and wondrous as a kid about the possibility of getting to go into a chocolate factory and play around and then to find out you have won it at the very end. Timeless.
I think that’s why the story of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka and the Golden Tickets and everything has lasted for the last fifty years or so. Every kid wants to go to a wonderful place where all their dreams come true.
Since the book was written in 1964 there have been two major film adaptations made, one in 1971 and another in 2005. The first, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a musical starring Gene Wilder, while the 2005 film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory starring Johnny Depp was a more serious adaptation with a darker Wonka.
The 1971 film has a really interesting story of genesis. The daughter of the director Mel Stuart read the book and told her father she thought it would make a good movie and that he had to make the movie and get Uncle Dave (David Wolper the producer) to put up the money for it. Wolper was already in talks on a side issue with a cereal company to produce a candy bar and how to advertise it, so he convinced them to call it a Wonka Bar and to make the movie as the perfect marketing ploy.
While not as stringently in line with the book as its successor in 2005, the screenplay for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was actually written by the book’s author Roald Dahl himself, with additional patchwork by David Seltzer. So its interesting to watch in that light, however, according to Wikipedia Dahl didn’t like the final result and therefore didn’t consent to sell the film rights to the book’s sequel.
That not withstanding, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is in my opinion a fantastic film, right up there as one of my all time favourites. I think it’s the heart of the movie that really makes it, and I think that it comes from the characters being so genuine. When you see little Charlie Bucket you can see that he has a really good heart, despite all the hardship he has had to endure as a poor kid.
There’s nothing like rooting for the underdog and Charlie Bucket sure is that. When his job as a paperboy can only afford his starving family a measly loaf of bread to go with their cabbage water soup, you know that there is no likely chance that this little boy could possibly have the means to find a Golden Wonka ticket. But the beauty of film prevails and the stars align just right so that the poor boy’s mighty dreams can come true.
Watching the film now as opposed to when I was a kid, you can tell straight away just how amateurish it all is. You can see the cardboard and tape and coloured balloons and know that it is all fake. But somehow, the fact that it is so real and human helps create an incredible suspension of disbelief when watching the film. Willy Wonka’s world is an immensely fantastic one that as the song says is a creation sprung from pure imagination and I think you need a little bit of that so that you can fully enjoy this world that is being laid out before you. To quote Charlie (how ironic) in The Santa Clause 2, “seeing isn’t believing; believing is seeing”.
This extends not only to the sets of the chocolate factory but the actual locations as well. I think the filmmakers did an excellent job in making it a place that seemed as though it could be anywhere in the world, in any little town and could happen to any simple little boy. The costumes were likewise so real and basic, yet impacting enough that you could tell what the characters were like before they even spoke – Willy Wonka himself being a prime example in that wonderful purple coat and top hat.
Speaking of Mr Wonka, I think Gene Wilder did an enormously fantastic job in playing this role. Certainly one of the best performances he has given throughout his career, particularly since he was not at all a singer before he landed this role. He’s mad and crazy and more than a little scary in some moments but there is also something that is just so sincere and endearing and loveable to this maniac of a man who invents the most impossible things.
But having said all this let us now turn to the second adaptation of Dahl’s book, the 2005 film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Straight away you can tell that this film is completely different in approach to its predecessor, which I think is a great thing. I remember when it was first announced that this film was going to be made there was a lot of discontent with the idea of trying to recreate the magic and wonder of the original film. Thankfully Tim Burton had enough sense to steer well clear away from this wonderful piece of cinematic history and not therefore corrupt or spoil it in any way.
Instead, he returned back to the source material and went thru it with a fine toothcomb, seeking to get all the little details right and to be as faithful to the original novel as possible. Despite how much I adore the first movie, I really love this aspect of the second one. You can see that Burton has an enormous admiration for the full picture of the world that Dahl created in his book.
I think the fact that filmmaking has come so much further nowadays in terms of special effects than it had back in the 70s is a big contributing factor that makes all this possible. Little things like the tangent of Prince Pondicherry and his palace of chocolate, that only appear for a minute or two in the movie, are so much easier to do logistically and economically these days compared to what they used to be. We can have more and more fantastic sights like the fudge mountain, the pink candy boat, and a single guy playing a thousand little Oompa Loompas in the movies we see today because the technology is there and is common enough that these wonderful things can be placed seamlessly in without any disruption to the unity of the film.
Considerable mention must also be made of the way Johnny Depp really threw himself into the role of Willy Wonka and made it his own. His portrayal couldn’t be further from Gene Wilder’s. The makeup and costuming play a significant part in this, however, it’s the strange delivery and mannerisms that Depp puts into the character that sets him apart as a new Willy Wonka for a new age and a much darker one at that. His comic timing is exemplary and helps to break up the tension that builds in some moments of the film.
Ultimately I think that Roald Dahl’s original book is a great story and a story that is worth telling over and over again. The fact that there are two film adaptations is a strong testament to that. The first one has a real heart to it that I think resonates with every generation to encounter it in some way. I think it really speaks to the child in us all.
The more recent film, on the other hand, is visually more compelling. And while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is much closer in likeness to the book it is based on, nevertheless I think it fails to connect with the broader audience that its precursor does. While the performances are good and the visual effects are stunning, there is just that little quality that is missing from it. Perhaps it’s the pure imagination.
Despite all this I really like both film adaptations, however, the former is my personal preference between the two. Yet Johnny Depp just really cracks me up a lot of the way thru the latter. So, I think that in the end its great that such a marvellous story has been retold in a more modern way so that new audiences can come to love this wonderful story as well. The question is, I guess, will the more recent film have as much staying power? Time will only tell.
P.S: If you ever get a chance, watch Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory with the audio commentary of the five original kids on. A great treat for fans of this film guaranteed.
Gallery of Images
Posted By:
34 Comments
Subscribe to Comments FeedLeave a Reply
Book of the Month
Y The Last Man Vol. 5In this final Deluxe Edition hardcover collecting Y #49-60, Yorick and Agent 355 prepare for their ultimate quest to reunite the last man with his lost love, while the person, people or thing behind the disaster that wiped out half of humanity is revealed. Then, Yorick Brown's long journey through an Earth populated only by women comes to its dramatic, unexpected conclusion.
i like the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory but although it was darker there was some parts that were stupid , i never read the book but i dont think the part had tho scene in it but maybe i’m wrong . anyone here that read the book , was it as stupid ?
anyways besides that it was good.
I thought the 2005 was one closer to the book, but in saying that the music was alot less timeless and more gimmicky.
It defentaly did have its stupid parts but givin the type of movie it was, the second you see Willy Wonka you should know its going to have dumb parts.
Didn’t like the style, presentation, or music of the new one. I love Johnny Depp, but I hated his performance here. Love AnnaSophia Robb, but her performance here was the weakest I’ve seen it. Like Freddie Highmore, but again, didn’t think he did a great job of it. Even if you ignore the similarities to Michael Jackson with Depp’s Willy Wonka (Which again, have nothing to do with children), I still think this was an uninspired mess of a remake.
Everyone always brings up that it’s the more faithful representation of the book. That may be, as I have never read it. But that being said, Wikipedia still says that neither of them are connected to the point that they can be called a direct adaptation. In addition, I still felt that the new version was a soulless version of the story. Stuck somewhere in between doing it’s own thing, and going through the motions.
The rooms, the songs, the characters all felt like empty shells to me. And that’s the type of remake I hate with a passion.
“Watching the film now as opposed to when I was a kid, you can tell straight away just how amateurish it all is. You can see the cardboard and tape and coloured balloons and know that it is all fake.” – That’s it being dated, not so much amateurish. Star Wars used cheap camera tricks to pull off it’s scenes, and that was what, 6 years later? Likewise, E.T. used strings to make things fly. Star Trek (5 years earlier) used toy models for their ships. It was just was just what you had to do at the time.
The thing though is that the 2005 movie is not a remake of the 1971 film. It’s a film adaptation of Dahl’s book.
And I quote:
“Everyone always brings up that it’s the more faithful representation of the book. That may be, as I have never read it. But that being said, Wikipedia still says that neither of them are connected to the point that they can be called a direct adaptation.”
Let me explain my use of the word “amateurish” cuz I think now that I really should have used a different word to convey my meaning. Yes, that was exactly just what you had to do back then given the technology available. But certainly watching it now that I am older, I can see that it is all a trick, but I really like that about it too. Compared to today’s films, their efforts were amateurish. That’s not a criticism, just a simple statement. Certainly when you compare what the second film was able to do technically in broadening the scope of the world created and that they were able to do it in the seamless way that current technology allows you to do, the two films are world apart.
I think also when I was watching the “Pure Imagination” documentary on the DVD that writer David Seltzer described a lot of what they were doing as amateurish and said that they really had no business messing around and doing what they were doing in making this movie. So I think that comment really clouded what I was saying there.
Yes, the 2005 film is closer to the book but you are right that it is still not a direct adaptation, like the 1971 wasn’t either. Both took creative licence with aspects of the story to make it fit better in the movie format as opposed to the book, as they saw fit. David Seltzer came up with the whole having a villain in Slugworth thing which wasn’t in Dahl’s original screenplay so perhaps that was one of the reasons that Dahl didn’t like the movie in the end, who knows.
I think that if the 2005 film had of just stuck to being a direct adaptation it might have been a better film. All that stuff about Wonka’s childhood isn’t in the book and could IMO have really been done away with. The extreme weirdness and maybe Michael Jackson-ness of Depp’s portrayal didn’t match up with the childhood character so I think that was a big contributing flaw of the film.
It certainly has a lot of things wrong with it and yes, I agree that is does miss a bit of that soul. But I still majoratively like it and can watch it because I do like that it is that one step closer in terms of being faithful to the original work than the other film was, and also because it has some funny moments that are enjoyable to watch.
Does that explain my views a little better? My article was really a poor effort by myself this week so I apologise for that. Mega Australian summer heat and massive writer’s block do not mix well.
It may not be a direct adaptation, but it certainly is not a remake. It’s a movie based off a book and not a re-imagining of the 1971 movie.
Good thing I never said it was. I said it was a mess of a remake. It is a remake of the book. The first one was based on the book, even with the changes. That makes the second one a remake of the book.
Anyway, just because it was supposed to be based more on the book doesn’t mean they didn’t take elements from the first movie as well. They would have had to be completely unaware of the first movie in order to have not let it effect their ideas.
Yes you did say it was a remake. Multiple times.
“I still think this was an uninspired mess of a remake.”
“And that’s the type of remake I hate with a passion.”
I don’t care what wikipedia says. The film was an adaptation and not a remake of the older film. Even if they may have take some elements from the older movie, that doesn’t make it a remake.
The Narnia movies aren’t remakes of the BBC Narnia movies and the Lord of the Ring movies aren’t remakes of the animated movies from late seventies/early eighties. So Willy Wonka isn’t a remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I never said it was a remake of the movie though. When I said “Good thing I didn’t call it that”, I was stating that in regards to your last statement, “It’s a movie based off a book and not a re-imagining of the 1971 movie”. I never said it is a re-imagining of the 1971 movie. However, it is still a remake of the story. It’s the same story, told in a different way, based off of the same material. It’s not remaking the movie, it’s remaking the story in movie form.
The first film was an adaptation of the book, just like the second film was. The Second film wasn’t a remake of the first movie, but it was a remake of the property and franchise. If you want to argue that one was closer to the book than the other, then go for it. I’ve not read the book, so I couldn’t care less. But neither of them are direct adaptations from what I’ve read. Again, one may be closer than the other, but they both adjusted the story as they saw fit.
Look, obviously that argument could go on for days. If in 30 years, someone decides that the Potter movies didn’t come close enough to the source to please people, and they decide to do the whole series over again, is that not a remake of the property? Obviously, they aren’t “Remaking” the movies, they are remaking the books in movie form.
We can dance around the line of what is and isn’t a remake all day long. I’m saying this: It isn’t not a re-imaging of the movie. Never said it was. But it is still a remade version of the story. In any case where you are basing something off it’s original material (IE – Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc), then the remake is almost never going to be remade from the derivative works (IE – Animated movies, 1971 movies, BBC movies, etc). That does not stop it from being a “remake”.
I thought the 2005 version was fantastic. It perfectly captured the dark humor of Dahl’s book in a way the 1971 version just didnt, which is maybe why Dahl himself publically stated that he hated the first version. I wish he would’ve lived long enough to see Tim Burton’s version. I think he would;ve dug it
I’m pretty sure he publicly hated the movie because of the changes they made to his version of the script. That’s the problem most writers have concerning movie adaptations. I’m not for sure that he would’ve liked the new movie either, since they also had their way with the story where they wanted.
I don’t know what else to say if you didn’t see the darkness of the first movie. It was definitely there.
I still unwrap my candy bars like Charlie did on the street.
me too LOL
and I never got a golden ticket but i’m still looking. LOL
In any case, remake or not. Re-imagining or not. With or without the 1971 version of the movie, I did not find the 2005 version to be good. Just from the pure standpoint of entertainment value.
The movie was heartless, slightly creepy in a bad way, and just lacked the “it” factor that movies need to stick with me. There are a lot of movies that will come to mind when considering the timeless classics of all time. A lot of those are great, a lot are just there because of nostalgia or some similar feeling. But CatCF doesn’t have anything that makes me remember it.
Obviously, this differs between people. But for me, it’s not even close. There are very few movies in the world I will repeatedly watch. Willy Wonka is one of those. And the funny thing is that it hasn’t always been that way. I’ve paid attention to the movie for 10 years, tops. So for me, it doesn’t even have nostalgia going for it. When I’m not even comparing the two movies, I still have no interest in the new movie. And I was actually looking forward to the movie when I heard it was announced. Johnny Depp and Tim Burton could have made a really good version of the story. Add in Danny Elfman, and I felt it was a sure fire hit. I didn’t want to compare it to the original at all, because I expected it to be quite different. A darker version. Unfortunately, I felt it was only darker in the sense of Willy Wonka’s childhood, which was more disturbing than dark. That creepy “I had a bad childhood, so I want to be a kid forever” feeling that Wonka gave out is what made me think of Michael Jackson the most. Granted, the look that Johnny Depp had in the movie didn’t help, at all:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Yi3tA5yIlkc/RzLAD3IWHSI/AAAAAAAABDg/DldNMroxD8g/s400/wonka.JPG
http://www.vh1.com/shared/promoimages/movies/c/charlie_and_the_chocolate_factory/wonka_jackson/180×180.jpg
Despite what wikipedia says, it’s still an adaptation and not a remake.
All movies that are based off of books are film adaptations.
adaptation =/= remake
I didn’t say it wasn’t an adaptation. I said it was not a /direct/ adaptation. You cut random words out of my responses.
And it is still a remake of the property in film form. No matter what you want to say it is, by definition, it’s still a remake.
1. to make again or anew.
2. Movies. to film again, as a picture or screenplay.
–noun
3. Movies. a more recent version of an older film.
4. anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt: The tailor is offering a special price on remakes.
You are using definition #3, and ignoring the other forms of the word. I’m specifically speaking of #1. The 1971 version was the book in film form. It was made anew, that means it was remade. Not FROM the 1971 movie, but that’s a moot point.
Anyway, I haven’t actually seen you make a point in this discussion other than remake vs adaptation. Are we just going to debate semantics for 3 pages? :P
Both movies are Adaptations, and whatever else they are really isn’t the point of the discussion.
Well at first I actually thought that you thought that the Johnny Depp version was a remake of the Gene Wilder film and so I was like “Woah what?!?”
But yeah then it somehow became about semantics. :(
It’s ok, I still love you. :)
I have to agree with SaberJ here. The Tim Burton adaptation of the story looked fairly nice, but it didn’t have a soul. The 1971 movie has much more heart, and Gene Wilder was a much better Wonka than Johnny Depp was, IMHO.
I’m curious, did you watch Willy Wonka on BlueRay?
No I wish! Just regular DVD for me.
I was thinking that the format may have been responsible for the sets looking cheap. One of the things that has made me skeptical of the HD format is that I hear a lot of films look terrible in the medium. For instance, the lavishly remastered Star Trek episodes look horrible. They were just never intended to be shown that way.
I think that all our discussion has shown that neither film succeeded as a direct adaptation of the book and were both working out of their own different agendas. The 1971 film was primarily made because a little girl thought the book would be a good movie and because a company wanted to sell a candy bar it was releasing. But as a film it can still stand on its own two feet separate from the book and be a great piece of entertainment. It took all the good aspects of the book and brought them to life on the screen, tweaking them where needed to suit the entertainment medium.
The 2005 film perhaps disappoints many people because in so many ways it is much closer in story and minute details to that of the original book and that gives us hope for a good and faithful movie. Having said that, as we all seem to awknowledge, it still went its own way and did things that fit the agenda/ideas of those making it. In doing these things perhaps the makers lost sight of the inherent soul and heart of the story and therefore the film suffered with audiences because of these divergences.
I disagree, I thought the 2005 version matched the cheeky, dark spirit of the book way more than the 1971 version
And I disagree. So there you go. An impasse. The was no dark spirit to the new movie. The older movie was much darker. I can’t compare it to the book, I can just go by your description. And I have to say Wilder’s seemingly uncaring attitude toward the incidents was much darker than Depp’s child like attitude.
I like and dislike both versions for different reasons. I think Veruca was better in the first movie, yet the orange oompaloomplas scared the hell out of me. I like Charlie in the new one, but I think Johnny Depp was downright creepy sometimes. I think they can be taken as 2 different interpretations with positive and negative aspects for both.
I love Wilder’s Wonka just as much as I love Depp’s. I just think Depp’s Wonka was in a better movie. And I love the orginal; I love the songs, I love the performances, it was just too nice. I liked how they made Willy Wonka this unpredictable nutjob who appears to have no idea how to run a chocloate factory- he just knows that whatever he’s doing is working.
Plus, Freddie Highmore was a WAY better Charlie than whoever played him in the 1971 version
I enjoy both the book and both movies. Obviously Tim Burton IS Tim Burton.. much like M. Night – his style is starting to get old. I just want to “dude, we get it. You’re dark and creepifying…. move on.”
yeah but Danny Elfman is a god… And Burton and Elfman go hand in hand. I’m sure they will ever get that old for me.
I love Burton and Elfman. They are definitely a good tag team. I just think that Elfman is doing a bit too much lately. All of his songs start to sound similar when he does so many movies. Still, a lot of his scores are still amongst my favorite. His Batman soundtrack is one of my favorites.
That said, I didn’t much care for the songs in Charlie & TCF. I don’t know if that was Elfman, or if that was because of the original lyrics.
Possibly…… but I would like something new in his bag’o'tricks….
His work on Milk is some of the best stuff Elfman has ever done
The original was so great (who can beat Gene Wilder?) why remake it in the first place, much less the second place?