Skip to main content

The Irresistibly Charming Wonka is Almost a Golden Ticket


Willy Wonka has always been far more powerful than the story he comes from. The boisterous and eccentric chocolatier in fact may be Roald Dahl’s most enduring creation, in not insubstantial part due to his portrayal by Gene Wilder in 1971’s Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, which changed the name of the original book to better reflect the character’s star status, much to Dahl’s famous displeasure. But that idea of Wonka has outlived him, he is a household name -and so it was only a matter of time before he got the Hollywood reboot treatment. The origin story of Willy Wonka -what a tepid concept.
Or at least it might be if it were not in the hands of Paul King, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay with partner Simon Farnaby. King, a director off of The Mighty Boosh, who broke out with his marvellously charming Paddington movies, was the man to make Wonka if anyone was. His brand of sincere whimsy combined with acerbic British wit is exactly attuned to a world of confectionery magic and pure imagination -even if it must be tempered by certain obligatory marks. Also, that song and dance sequence at the end of Paddington 2 primed the pump for him to make the leap into musicals -which Wonka is, despite the marketing hiding that fact at every corner.
It opens on a musical number in fact, over Timothée Chalamet’s charismatic young Willy Wonka arriving in an ambiguous early twentieth century European city. The film generally wisely avoids bogging itself down in lore, not interested in the minutia of Wonka’s origin. He enters the story with his flamboyant showman personality intact, already passionate about chocolate and determined to open a shop. He is subverted by a trio of powerful chocolate magnates led by Paterson Joseph’s Slugworth though and on finding a place to stay, is tricked into indentured servitude alongside a gang of other unfortunates. Yet he still finds ways of producing and selling his unique and delectable chocolate experiments amongst the townsfolk.
That 1971 film, or rather its most memorable moments, provides a tonal template that King is only too happy to abide by –extending as well a certain Dahl-like veneer to the very atmosphere of the piece. It is a fundamentally light movie: the world is constructed in a very elemental way (almost like a Muppet movie), every character is played up to a heightened caricature, and there is virtually no interest in typical prequel subjects like world-building or referential easter eggs. It is in fact, much like the Paddington movies, concerned more with charming, spontaneous storytelling than being a mere brand-extension; while at the same time acquiescing to the brand’s nostalgic appeal smartly through sensibility rather than cynicism.
And for an example, consider the man himself. Chalamet’s Willy Wonka is not Wilder’s Wonka nor Johnny Depp’s Wonka –it is entirely his own impression on the character, and one that very much succeeds at carrying the movie. Chalamet may be one of the biggest young stars in the industry today but he has had seldom opportunities to truly spotlight his versatility like this, to play silly. And he really shoots for the moon with this part, with ever a bounce in his step and a tremor in his voice waiting to burst into song -on which count he’s also not half-bad. But it’s not just the happy-go-lucky air he takes on, there is a genuine positive energy to his every delivery and action that is more often than not engrossing. There doesn’t seem to be any cynicism at play, even with those echoes of Gene Wilder -and it applies to Chalamet as much as to the rest of the cast.
As in the Paddington movies, King fills out his cast wonderfully with highly considered performers, usually from the world of British comedy. In addition to the aforementioned Joseph, there is Matthew Baynton and Matt Lucas as the other villainous chocolatiers, Olivia Colman and Tom Davis as a pair of deceptive boarding-housekeepers, Keegan-Michael Key as a corrupt constable, Jim Carter, Rich Fulcher, Natasha Rothwell, and Rakhee Thakrar as slaves in a launderette, Phil Wang and Charlotte Ritchie as a pair of lovers, and Rowan Atkinson as -what else- an incompetent priest. Sally Hawkins is also present, though vastly underutilized, as Willy’s mother in a handful of flashbacks; and as his young accomplice and almost co-protagonist Noodle, an orphan, Calah Lane makes an excellent impression.
However, we must address, if only briefly, the Oompa-Loompa in the room. Hugh Grant (or rather his face superimposed on a little CGI body) appears as a 1971-style orange-faced and green-haired Oompa-Loompa tailing Wonka for his apparent theft of LoompaLand cocoa beans. He featured heavily in the film’s marketing, which highlighted three of the four scenes he appears in, and is the movie’s one real concession to cheap nostalgia bait. He’s got a funny line or two, credit to King and Farnaby’s script and Grant’s typical talents, but I can’t deny he is a drain on the film’s spirits, and it’s for the best that he appears as little as the creatives could probably get away with.
It must also be said though that there is a limit to the film’s whimsy, and certain musical numbers especially come close to or cross that line. Imagery like Wonka and Noodle flying with a bunch of balloons at the end of a number called “For a Moment”, or much of the business-opening themed “A World of Your Own” that really plays heavy into a kind of hollow feel-good sentimentality in spite of its good construction, do show some of the cracks of substance in its commitment to sweetness.
Written by Neil Hannon, the songs are however very consistent to the vibes of the piece and those of the original film -to the point that when inevitably we get a reprise of “Pure Imagination” it fits in among the others snugly. A couple of them, like “Scrub Scrub” and “Sweet Tooth” are so natural I wondered if I hadn’t heard them before in that original film. They are all delightfully performed and produced, King making great use of his elaborate sets, perfectly sharp editing, and even visual effects where applicable -except of course the big CGI giraffe that features prominently in a few sequences.
The plotting especially into the last act is a little dull, and there’s barely a surprising beat in the movie behind the humour and optimism it is built on. Though the optimism is curiously tested by Wonka’s ventures frequently going wrong -his whole purpose around making chocolate a way to recapture and inspire the happiness he felt making it as a child with his mother. There is a grief-strewn undercurrent to all of his ambitions -almost a distraction from accepting his mother’s death; he is rarely unmoving or unmotivated, often with a child-like naïvety (to this point he is illiterate, and in the background of the film is taught to read by Noodle). I think it’s very curious how he is contrasted with Noodle in this manner and how the directions of their stories interconnect and even exchange once the film goes into uncovering her parentage. For both it ends in a wonderful honest place, even if shrouded in sentiment.
That I think speaks to King’s emotional eloquence, even as his methods so far across any of his moves have been deceptively simple. And Wonka is not so good-natured or inventive as the Paddington movies -something virtually guaranteed by its subservience to American studio whims, which King never had to contend with before. But it is still a very buoyant movie that justifies its intoxicating spirit and only on some infrequent marks shows the cavities. As sweet as a Wonka chocolate bar and nearly as good.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...