Or, Legalese and Deadly Sin in the Chocolate Factory. Seriously.
Recently, (okay, like two weeks ago now) I got into a conversation with my working colleagues about deadly sin and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I don't know which spawned which, only that there was a connection between the two. (Attentive readers will notice this also gave birth to another entry on this blog.) During the conversation, I began to wonder about a couple of things: One, it seems so obvious (to me, anyway, with my religious classical childhood education and somewhat dubiously executed upbringing) that there is an original sin / deadly sin / godhead message in the story, and I wanted to explore that a little. Two, I was curious about why it was, at the end of the 1971 version of the film, Charlie Bucket is allowed to inherit the factory. In order to properly address any of this, I realized that I needed first to get some information inasmuch as I hadn't seen either movie in at least two years, and (gasp!) had never read the book. Now, over the course of the past week or so, I have read the book entire, and watched both versions of the movie. Having accomplished this with my rather obsessive use of time, I also feel the need to compare and contrast for content and quality, and so I will be doing that, too. In a limited, exclusionary sort of way. Nygah.
Wonka is God - More so in the first film version than in any other. In the 1971 film, Wilder plays Wonka as a caring and sensitive guy with a slightly impulsive mischievous streak, but a guy who knows, whether he lets on or not, that the kids will be okay, as long as they follow his rules. He is the creator of good, and in control. He actually refers to the garden at the beginning as "paradise," and Gloop is kicked out for eating the one thing you're not supposed to touch. Bucket inherits his kingdom for being virtuous and kind, but not perfect, setting the stage for redemption. Wilder's Wonka is completely in charge, master of the house. Book Wonka is more of a "take things as they happen" sort, but there is still the sense that everything is preordained, and he knows how to roll with the punches.
Depp's Wonka is an emotionally crippled man-child, not unlike your basic OT god, but his godhood breaks down because there are definitely things he does not know, is unsure about. Wilder would never argue with the children, fall down, or make testicle jokes. He is above and beyond. All three Wonkas of course, have a "chosen people" that they have rescued in the Oompa-Loompas. This is tangential, but probably only if the author of the post is a gentile.
This is especially interesting in the 1971 version when the "villain," a competing candymaker known as Slugworth, is lurking behind the scenes offering to compromise the children's chance at paradise if they only sell out to him. He, of course, represents temptation and the Devil, and it's particularly telling that he ends up being only an agent of Wonka's, placed there to test the faithful. For those of you whose religions imply that God and the Devil are merely sides of a coin-flat split personality, The Church of Wonka is for you. There are weirder religions. Scientology, for instance. Or Baptists.
In short, all three Wonkas offer the kingdom if you but only follow a few rules, and take the golden ticket in hand when it comes around. References are made to "the spirit of man," "balls of lightning," "archangels," and having more of a chance the more you want it. So - Wonka is capital 'G' God in the story, and it seems as though this is deliberate. As is this:
Sins and Virtues - Four of the five children who find golden tickets represent deadly sins. This is handles more vaguely in the 1971 movie than in the 2005 version, presumably because of the increasing ADD nature of the American film viewing public. In the book it is touched on, but again, less specifically, except for the Oompa-Loompa songs, which are pretty fucking specific. Dahl seeks to point out some things he sees going wrong with society - inattentive/overattentive parenting, too much television, etc. - and, deliberately or not, he uses the 7 deadlies as a framework. Augustus Gloop is Gluttony, Mike Teavee is Sloth & Wrath, Veruca Salt is Envy & Greed, and Violet Beauregard is Pride. They represent Lust as a group, but chocolate brings that out in people. They pay for the sins they personify. End of story.
By contrast, our little starving moppet martyr Charlie Bucket is a veritable bouquet of virtues, exhibiting justice, charity, faith, love, humility, kindness, fortitude, diligence and truth even in the face of overwhelming, crippling, poverty and ruinously bad luck. Whether his father is dead or laid off from his job, his mother is a dynamo of backbreaking labor, and his grandparents are old, tired people, given up on life. He lives in a shithole, slogs through snow past graffiti, garbage and people who give a damn, has inadequate food and clothing - in short, his life sucks. When he steals a moment of transcendent joy by illicitly ingestion of Fizzy Lifting Drinks, he breaks Wonka's rules, giving Wonka the right to smite him - er, not let him inherit the factory. Why does Wonka relent?
Because it's a redemption story, at least in the book and the 1971 version. There's no theft in the book, and Charlie wins simply by being more virtuous than the others. In the Wilder version, he returns the Everlasting Gobstopper rather than give it to Slugworth, showing that he has, if not honor, at least a sense of propriety or priorities. He redeems himself. In the 2005 version, it is Wonka himself who is redeemed, in the face of Charlie's never-ceasing example. The redemption message is intact in all versions, and it's the reason why Grandpa Joe and Charlie steal the drinks (other than the opportunity for a set piece) because you need that redemption message there. And because it builds tension.
Where I Step On Toes The 1971 film version of Dahl's story is better than his book. Sorry. The performances are striking and solid, and Wilder's Wonka is a literary and genius thinker filled with a manic intensity lacking from the elfish figure with a goatee in the book. The energy level is higher, the story is funnier, and the added songs are not inappropriate, what with the Oompa-Loompas being so musical anyway. Not every children's cautionary tale has cryptic, bladed tinker and a hallucinatory boat ride through purgatory. I still love this movie, though divorced from nostalgia, I find the obviously sexually odd Candyman at the beginning a little creepy, and wish he had been played by Sammy Davis, as was the intention.
The 2005 version of Dahl's story is also better than his book. Once again - sorry. The book is a little light on detail and characterization, and lacks the mood, depth and urgency of this film, which is beautiful in a sort of "The Future Works!" kind of way. Depp's Wonka is a troubled soul with a definite idea about his art that comes from within, well-played, and also the kids do a great job. Grandpa George becomes an important character. I could do without Wonka's backstory which somewhat diminishes a titanic figure, and I have seen all of Deep Roy I ever need to. Small folks should be ripshit at these movies - first the Nazis, now CGI. It's despicable.
I recommend the Wonkanization I underwent last week; watching both versions and reading the book in rapid succession is enjoyable, as it's a good story in any version. There's stuff in all three versions that's exclusive, and stuff that bleeds across all three.
...gabbin' about Genocide. Chewing the fat over...ethnic cleansing.
Recent Comments