The Wonka-y Debate

I’ve never been big on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It’s a fun movie, but some of its detours fall into parody and detract from the story. Additionally, Grandpa Joe’s portrayal isn’t flattering, which bothers me. But the biggest issue is Willy Wonka. And given how maligned Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is by even the late-Gene Wilder, who played Wonka in the former, I think a re-evaluation is in order. Because I don’t think the movies are equal in how they portray billionaires.

The 1970’s were an interesting period for films. Hollywood had dismantled its old studio system, and many upcoming directors and writers who’d grown up in movie culture were finally sharing their stories. This was the decade of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now and the first two Godfather films, but also Steven Spielberg’s Jaws and George Lucas’s beginnings with Star Wars. It was a varied and prosperous decade, essentially. And Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl, was one of its high points.

While distrust of governing officials, thanks to Watergate, was definitely present, the scrutiny of the wealthy wasn’t quite as frequent. It wasn’t off the table, plenty of movies criticized them, but there was still some restraint. The wealthy on film in the 70’s, from what I’ve seen, were greedy and inconsiderate, but only toward their workers. There was rarely introspection into their psyches, and how they conducted themselves in public and private. Given how Dahl’s book was a call-out of that, it’s a missed opportunity.

Enter Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the 2005 remake from director Tim Burton. Dahl had wanted a remake for decades, and it wasn’t until long after his passing that it began production. It made sense that Burton was picked for director: he was talented, he was interesting, he’d made money for Warner Bros. before and he was an oddball. Burton, though wealthy himself, understood weirdness, and being tasked with bringing Willy Wonka to life was a no-brainer. Doubly-so for Johnny Depp, a man notorious for playing oddballs.

Unfortunately, not everyone thought that. Despite its reception, the movie received plenty of backlash. In particular, Depp’s Wonka was derided for being uncomfortable and never hitting the mark. I was the oddball who found him charming, but I wasn’t taken seriously for the longest time. Yet while there’s animosity toward the 2005 adaptation, time has been kind to it. In some ways, I think it’s even better than the original.

I know some of you will be angry by my remarks, which I get: the 1971 film’s a classic, so how dare I? Well, I dare. I have fond memories of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but the movie’s aged awkwardly. I especially think its reverence for Wonka, which isn’t subtle, is creepy. There’s a scene in the first-half where a woman can’t decide between handing over her stash of Wonka bars to a kidnapper, or letting her husband live. Isn’t that weird?

I think so. And a lot of the early scenes are equally weird. Even if Wonka was a beloved celebrity, that worship of him never sat well with me. This is something Charlie and the Chocolate Factory actually understood. In that movie, Wonka’s a goofy, eccentric recluse who’s socially awkward and uncomfortable to be around. It’s pitch-perfect.

“But wait!” I hear you cry, “What about Gene Wilder’s performance?” With all due respect, while he might’ve gotten that in his mind, it doesn’t translate in the film. Sure, he has his moments, but we never get a true sense of his behaviour. Even his outburst at Charlie and Grandpa Joe is rooted in them stealing Fizzy Lifting Drinks and dirtying the factory ceiling.

The 2005 film’s its antithesis. Childish greed’s still a running theme, but much of the downfall of the kids in the factory stems from a lack of safety. Augustus Gloop falls into a river of chocolate because it’s open to him, while Veruca Salt is molested by squirrels while Wonka looks on. And whenever a child encounters misfortune, Wonka’s Oompa Loompas sing about how “it’s their fault”.

That’s another area the 2005 film nails: the Oompa Loompas. The original film had them as workers paid with cocoa beans, but the colonialist implications of their origins weren’t properly addressed. In the remake, the Oompa Loompas aren’t only a minority, right down to their skin colour, but there’s a scene involving Wonka travelling to Loompaland. I’m not sure if it was deliberate coding, but that’s overtly colonialist. Especially given England’s history with imperialism.

Even the reason behind acquiring the Oompa Loompas is sketchy: Wonka closed his factory to workers, Charlie’s grandfather included, because his competitors were stealing his recipes. He basically laid off humans and hired slaves he didn’t have to pay, all while controlling production. That’s really shady, but it speaks to labour law violations. And the movie isn’t subtle about this.

That’s why I think the Burton adaptation’s better than we give it credit. 2005 was a different time than 1971: Facebook and YouTube were in their infancies, PayPal was run by Elon Musk and Amazon was largely selling books. 3 years later, the housing recession would occur. And in the years since, not only have Facebook, YouTube, PayPal and Amazon become powerful companies, but their CEOs have made more money than most people will in their lifetimes. This isn’t including the stories since that’ve emerged behind the scenes, as well as the scandals that’ve stemmed from their personal lives. This wasn’t addressed in the 1971 film, presumably because we didn’t know any of it!

I think the 2005 movie, particularly Johnny Depp’s Wonka, nails this. Remember, he’s introduced in the most-off-putting way imaginable: by appearing behind the guests and commenting on his welcoming act going awry. And he never recovers from that, frequently making inappropriate comments and mocking the kids for calling him out. Even once Charlie’s the last one remaining, Wonka’s disgust at him clinging to his family, which stems from his own daddy issues, is pretty telling. But that’s how rich people generally behave. We’ve even seen the daddy issues via the Trump presidency.

There are valid critiques you can lob against Roald Dahl, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. For Dahl, his Antisemitism was inexcusable. Depp has his own share of uncomfortable skeletons, some of which are ongoing. And Burton’s casting decisions continue to raise eyebrows, something made worse by most of his recent projects being uncomfortable to sit through. But while I can’t defend them as human beings, the combination of their talents is present in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. More than anything else, that deserves respect.

Then again, you be the judge.