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

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day