Why is Charlie so passive?
In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, why is Charlie so passive in the movie?
As the main character I would think he would do something during the big adventure in the factory but he does nothing. He faces no challenges. He is not tested in any way. He doesn’t even have the opportunity to make a single mistake.
He is simply the blandest and most uninteresting character in the entire group. He doesn’t even merit a song. I just don’t get it.
–Gilbert
Congratulations, Gilbert. You are now a studio executive.
The one consistent note Tim and I got from Warner Bros. about the script was, “Shouldn’t Charlie be trying harder?” To which we answered, “No.” And because Tim Burton is Tim Burton, they eventually stopped asking.
The world is full of movies where scrappy young heroes succeed by trying really hard, by being clever and saying witty things. But that’s not Roald Dahl’s Charlie Bucket at all. We didn’t want a classic Disney protagonist, so we left Charlie the way he was: a good kid.
Here’s what I wrote a few weeks ago about this issue:
However, Charlie is not a classic Protagonist. Charlie doesn’t grow or change over the course of the story. He doesn’t need to. He starts out a really nice kid, and ends up a really nice kid.
In terms of Classical Dramatic Structure, that leaves us one Protagonist short, which leads to the biggest change in the screenplay versus the book (or the 1971 film). In our movie, Willy Wonka is the protagonist. He grows and changes. We see his rise and fall, along with his nervous breakdown during the tour. Charlie’s the one who’s always asking – ever so politely, in the Freddie Highmore Whisper™ – the questions that lead to Wonka’s flashbacks upon his rotten childhood. (In Classic Dramatic terms, that makes Charlie an Antagonist. Not to be confused with a Villain. Are you sure you don’t want to read about some squirrels?)
As I pitched it to Tim: Charlie gets a factory, and Willy Wonka gets a family. It’s the whole want-versus-need thing. Charlie doesn’t need a factory. Wonka really needs a family. Otherwise, he’s going to die a giggling misanthropic weirdo.
Charlie “wins” because he’s genuinely good, in a quiet, unassuming way. He doesn’t get a song because the Oompa-Loompas only sing about rotten children.
I’m sorry that doesn’t float your boat, Gilbert, but I think the real issue may be how much you’re preconditioned by all the movies you’ve seen with plucky kids who outthink the adults. If you hurry, you can probably catch one at the multiplex.
Deciding which parents get to visit the factory
Articles
September 18th, 2005 at 8:41 am
Mr. August,
It’s cool that you’re up to answering questions like this one on your own blog. For what it’s worth, I thought Charlie was great.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:58 am
The thing we often forget when going to the movies is that the lack of change in a character is often just as significant as change — even more significant if the decision to have an unchanging protagonist was a truly wise one.
This still doesn’t suggest that Charlie is the protagonist since, as you said, he doesn’t need to change, so not changing isn’t dramatic.
Just wanted to give a shout out for unchanging protagonists.
September 18th, 2005 at 9:21 am
I had a discussion recently with a cast and director about a play–I pointed out that the protagonist and antagonist were not “typical”, and that it made a big difference as to how the script should be played. The Big Name “Lead” was not the protagonist, he was the antagonist, and the Big Name “Villain” was not the antagonist, but the pro. To make things more confusing, the Love Interest was the “Hero”.
In discussing the script, many of the actors were confused about the play because it does not fit the standard mold (and they weren’t sure why). When I brought up the interesting (and clever) mixed archetypes, everyone looked at me like I was nuts, and I was summarily dismissed as having no relevance.
Not all (screen)plays are the same–and it’s the quirky, different ones that encourage further reflection. But it takes knowledge of the differences to pull off the effect. It’s disappointing when someone doesn’t “get it”.
September 18th, 2005 at 10:07 am
Gosh, it suddenly made me realize…that’s what was bugging me. The protagonist was switched in mid-stream. I mean the movie was a fun ride. It was lovely and weird in all ways I like (and clearly audiences liked that too). But I have to say, something felt underwhelming about Wonka’s change. He got a family. But I didn’t really care. In the original Charlie movie, Charlie was a good boy who was tempted to go bad. He almost did…and his change was he made the CHOICE to be good. Before that he was only “good by default.” He was offerend the apple in Eden–or at least a lot of cash–and was rewarded, unexpectedly, with the key to the entire kingdom for turning down the insidious offer of money. Charlie showed true integrity…but he almost didn’t. I have to say, that was just so much more satisfying to me. The new Charlie is a different experience, and one worth having…just I think it has a few “cracks” in it. Hey, artists are always trying new things. And by the way Big Fish has no cracks in it. It’s a perfect little work of art in my opinion.
September 18th, 2005 at 10:13 am
And given that studio notes are usually completely wrong…but often pointing out SOMETHING is amiss…I wonder if they were actually trying to say, Charlie’s ’struggle’ doesn’t pay off. We start with Charlie and his struggle. He’s poor. Hungry. He wins a tour of the magic kingdom. But the pay off in the original Charlie movie for his ’struggle’ is the keys to that kingdom. I love the ‘passive’ protagonist and can think of half a dozen movies where just such a character works. But on some level there’s a struggle for them, and on some level they’re redeemed. I don’t know what Charlie’s redemption was in the new movie. And I guess I was introduced to Wonka’s struggle too late or too ancilliarily (that surely is not a word) to invest myself in it. Healthy writing debates. In the end who cares. Spider Man 2 was a mess of a script and it made billions anyhow.
September 18th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Oh man. Not saying John’s Charlie was a mess. Just saying there’s more than one way to skin a cat, and sometimes it’s irrelevant which way you choose! Nuff said.
September 18th, 2005 at 10:59 am
I think that as long as the characters in the movie are interesting and involving, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to go through changes - sure, change and transformation is dramatic and oftentimes fun to watch, but aren’t there interesting stories out there with great characters who do not change, but we discover more about them as the story goes on?
Aren’t there good movies with characters who don’t change? Does Scarlett O’Hara really change? I know she realizes she does love Rhett (in the last moment of three plus hours) but does she really change from a flinty, strong southern belle who will stop at nothing to get what she wants? Does Rhett change?
I pointed this out on another blog, but one thing I really admired about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was it was about two characters trying to change who cannot -
It’s not that change and or character transformation is bad, it’s not - I just think that it’s not the only way to tell a good movie . . .
Speaking of Tim Burton’s films, does Pee-Wee change in Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (my personal fave)?
September 18th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Oh, but in Eternal Sunshine (a screenplay I absolutely worship) the protagonists change tremendously. Guess it’s how you define change. In Sunshine, the co-protagonists experience a definite catharsis with a new view of the world and each other. Their love is new and solid and based on a more realistic outlook on the world. The girl finds some solid ground. The guy finds some acceptance that solid ground is illusory. Or something like that. Maybe. Whatever the case, in my gut, I felt they changed a lot.
September 18th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Maybe a character changes when we change as a result of experiencing the movie through them. That is the change is about us. When they prompt us to achieve that catharsis we have changed, and our experience of the character has changed–whether or not that character is still just as good a boy at the end as at the beginning. Sometimes the character has to transform into something else entirely…but other times the mere fact the character remains the same is what gives me, the audience the catharsis. When Charlie in the original Chocolate Factory movie gives back that everlasting gobstopper, he has decided NOT to change. He’s decided to remain the good, honest boy he always was. And that decision is emotional and touching and cathartic for me. And therefore I see him in a new, more mature light. He’s taken an action that doesn’t change him, but changes my perception of him. He helped me change…at least for a few minutes. I’m still an asshole.
September 18th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I side with John…
People that want Charlie to ‘do more’ certainly aren’t pulling from Dahl. Charlie is already good, even in dire circumstances, you can’t have him morph ‘bad’ without ruining the story, and ‘better’ gums it up too. Better makes the ‘good’ less, therefore ‘bad’, as it is now less than ‘good’. Good just is.
Wonka is where the work lies. But that’s a Dahl central theme, getting into the kids-eye view, always the bumbling adult that needs the tune-up.
September 18th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Do the characters in Eternal change? If I remember, Clementine gives Joel the same speech at the end that she does on their second meeting (I’m just a fucked up girl . . . ) it seems that since they couldn’t forget that they loved each other, they’re going to keep trying, but it doesn’t appear that they went through any substantial character change or transformation, do they? Perhaps it depends on the definition . . .
Any great movies that anyone can think of where the characters don’t experience a transformation (and don’t say March of the Penguins, please) -
September 18th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
I still say Clementine and dude change in Eternal Sunshine. AFTER they hear each other on tape and realize they already knew each other, and they’re just repeating themselves….they’re forced to look at each other and themselves and their ideals of love. They will continue to try to love each other knowing their frailties and the imperfections in the human spirit.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
“Any great movies that anyone can think of where the characters don’t experience a transformation?”
Indiana Jones and Jack Sparrow don’t change (someone may prove me wrong, but if there’s a character arc, I haven’t found it in a dozen plus viewings). I try to write light-hearted adventure fair like this, so I’ve been trying to study these two films, amongst others, and I think that the main reason they work is because they don’t exist at the thematic depth that most films do.
Anyways, I think the original question is an example of following the “rules” blindly. Yes, you should try to put conflict in every scene, yes you should try to write characters that change, but if you can find a way for the story to work without them (as John has, IMO), then there should be no obligation to follow said “rules”.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
You say that they change, but what’s the evidence in their actions, what happens and what they do, etc? Isn’t us (the viewer) who has changed?
September 18th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Actually, scratch that, or at least the part about Jack Sparrow. Jack doesn’t change because Jack isn’t really the protagonist, Elizabeth is. And if you look at it like that, then her arc does reflect a theme, and vice-versa.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
A character doesn’t have to change for the movie to be great. But the character must change others, including the audience. Like a fable. Point out the truth of life. Pee Wee did this brilliantly. And I believe John was going for that with his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie.
September 18th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
I agree with Adam. In a script I’m currently working on, which is based on a true story, the main character doesn’t change but he does succeed in changing those around him, except for the nine people who can decide whether he lives or dies. I thought about changing the protagonist but the movie wouldn’t have the same impact.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:31 am
I think people notice that Charlie doesn’t change, and immediately see that as a fault, rather than a conscious choice by the filmmaker’s. It’s just a case of certain people getting carried away with their knowledge of archetypes and rules. I think it’s great you don’t care which way the grain faces, and you’ll happily go against it and movie executives alike if you feel you version will lend itself to a better story.
Can I just say as well, how awesome this site is. It’s great feeling so close to one of the best screenwriters around today. Cheers John.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:36 am
I find it interesting that both the 1971 film and the new “Charlie” movie find it necessary to enhance the thin narrative of the source material.
In the earlier film, Charlie is “tempted” and given a bit of an arc. He’s not just the winner by default, he actually has to earn the factory at the end.
In the new movie, Charlie’s character remains the same as he is in the book, passive and good through and through. Though the studio was clamoring to make Charlie more active, Burton and John stuck to their guns.
They did, however, give Wonka the arc. Obviously, all of the Wonka/family material is original, not from Dahl’s version.
For all the talk of how much more “faithful” the new movie is, I think it’s clear that it would have been impossible to film the book as written, without at least some enhancements.
“Willy Wonka” changed Charlie and, oddly, “Charlie” changes Willy. There at least has to be SOME drama, SOME conflict, SOME growth, where the book itself actually had very little.
September 19th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Classic traveling angel stories wherein our hero/heroine is nearly perfect to begin with but improves the lives of those around them — Shane, Mary Poppins, Spitfire Grill, Chocolat, Finding Neverland, almost anything featuring Shirley Temple, Amelie . . .
September 19th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
I’ll throw in my two cents here. The problem with saying Willy Wonka is the lead character/protoganist is POV. In the first act, you establish Charlie as your main character, the story “moves” through his POV, and then you switch it near the 30 minute mark and it becomes someone else’s story. That’s problematic story-telling, “Psycho” withstanding.
And for the Indiana Jones argument, Indy is always left with a moral choice at the end and his decision is greatly influenced by his preceding adventures.
Jack Sparrow, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily arc as a character, BUT there is a twist at the end that sheds new light on his motivations throughout, so the audience experiences the epiphany rather than the character, which is just as satisfying as an arc. God, I sound like a blowhard
September 19th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Gotta say I prefer the ‘71 version… Gene Wilder is Willy.
September 19th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Gary –
If you watch the movie again, the first act, in addition to setting up Charlie’s situation, is largely about Wonka’s rise as a candymaker and what led him to close the factory. Even though the character isn’t on-screen that much, the opening is “about” him.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
But isn’t it done documentary-style a la the newsreels in Citizen Kane? That’s a distancing effect, and not from Willy’s POV. It’s probably exactly the way Dahl’s book reads, but it’s sorta like the 3rd act problems with “War of the Worlds,” it just doesn’t PLAY well. Just my unqualified personal opinion, and you guys made a well-reviewed hit film, so take it with a grain of salt.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
By the way, you’ve shown a lot of class by allowing and answering dissenting opinions of your work. My already high opinion of the site just took a quantum leap
September 19th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
If you’ve seen Big Fish, well there’s no doubt that John August is a superb writer. And hey, so much of Charlie was great too. And while we’ll all have our opinions of a finished film, and second-guess the choices, the fact is, the “right” way is elusive and ulatimely totally subjective. If the audiences like it, it’s successful…and the audiences did. I just liked Big Fish better that’s all. A more effective story without any distracting switches in central protagonist.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Oh, and Go is perhaps my favorite. That movie rocked.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
and in case you didn’t know, idiots, ulatimely is the smart person’s word for ultimately.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Adam–
That’s the second time you’ve triple posted on this thread! Isn’t that a record?! You also have one double post and a couple of single posts. I want to see a quadruple post! Okay, maybe not…
:: yes, I’m bored ::
September 19th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Interesting. I thought the same thing as Gilbert after I watched the movie. I think John defends his choice well. Although I have to say, Willy Wonka didn’t do it for me as a protagonist. Here’s the thing — the first, what, 30 minutes of the movie we follow little Charlie, we root for him, we want him to get the last Golden Ticket. And he does! But then we enter the factory and … where’s Charlie? Okay, he’s a good kid, we love him, but now we’re supposed to care about Willy Wonka? I don’t know, man…
September 19th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
You already care about Wonka, before you even get to the factory…his R&D was espionage-style stolen, resulting in his ‘madness’ of sorts and the ensuing factory closure. He was the victim. You feel for him. And then the mystery of why the trucks still deliver, and how the factory still hums, makes you care (and wonder) again. And then you care, as Charlie cares, the story having already established that Charlie is good.
The one thing that troubles me however, is Wonka’s blaming everyone for the misactions of a few. Grandpa used to work at the factory and the resulting shut-down, and the hiring of indentured servants of sorts, caused massive unemployment and economic ruin. So at the end, Wonka got a family sure, but the question of him bringing back the economic glory to the city, was passed onto Charlie. So we are still are mad at Wonka for his psychological breakdown, that caused the city to plunge into economic ruin.
Charlie got a factory, Wonka got a family. But Wonka never really made things right. Well you can infer that he would (pie talk) — in that giving him a family opened him up to humanity itself, but it was left hanging. It was as if Scrooge, after the ghostly visits, and learning his mistakes, didn’t do anything to make up for his Christmas-killing spirit. True redemption is action.
Wonka dealt with his childhood trauma, but he didn’t really deal with his rash decision to close the factory. And it full-circles, Charlie’s family can only afford one chocolate bar per year, why? As the town is a ghost-shell after the factory closed, like a town post-GM factory or military base pull-out, but it wasn’t just raw economics, it was Wonka’s irrational mental state. Wonka finally gets his head right, but he laid waste to a city. Now Charlie has to fix that. So we are still mad at Wonka.
(But this is the wayyyy over-analytical approach, def. not how the public views movies. Dahl was a success as he saw what kids saw. If you approach or write movies, only ever as the critics or film school type sees them, ouch).
September 20th, 2005 at 9:11 am
Interesting point Christopher. Although, I would say that Wonka made right by inviting Charlie’s family to live in the factory.
Charlie and Bob Cratchit have a lot in common.
September 20th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Sorry, I just don’t buy that you “feel” for Wonka. I find him intriguing, and the flashbacks are funny, but it didn’t tug my heart or anything. I felt for Edward Scissorhands, but Willy Wonka?
September 20th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
There’s no doubt that Wonka did the town harm by suddenly firing everyone and outsourcing (insourcing?) the employment to the Oompa-Loompas. But any meaningful examination of the socio-economics of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has to also consider this man has also somehow invented unmelting ice cream and a matter teleportation device. That sort of throws conventional analysis out of whack.
September 20th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Wow, I’ve never heard John get so defensive - “you can probably catch one at the local multiplex and.”? Sheesh.
Something to keep in mind: Just because the filmmakers made a conscious choice to keep Charlie passive doesn’t make it right for the film. Judging by most of these comments, those who saw the film are largely in agreement.
You can try to justify the decision academically, and it was great that John posted and answered this question, but you can tell by his reaction that it really struck a nerve.
Sure, other films set up expectations for us as viewers - but is that wrong? By and large, those expectations come more from an innate sense of story rather than, as John implies, audiences repeatedly being spoonfed a certain type of character arc.
Everyone I know who saw the film liked it in some way, mostly visually, but no one was overly impressed by the story. A few people I know cited “something was missing” and regretfully, I agree. That’s something not even a young actor’s Whisperâ„¢ can overcome.
September 20th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
“That sort of throws conventional analysis out of whack.”
Yeah. I doubly agree there too. It’s not like I take the potato-chip thin-slicing too serious, just a fun exercise. Pie-talk to the power of 10.
But you gotta know when to quit, else you become like those ‘High Fidelity’ vinyl types, that end up with no friends.
But you can’t include me (and a small army of friends) in the ‘most commenters’ tag, as I fully agree with the passive Charlie. It seems to me, that those most complaining, were weened on Wilder rather than Dahl. I found the backstory and the flashbacks compelling. Sure you root for Charlie, but you want to know what is this factory, how did it come about, why is it now fallen, and who is this puzzle-piece of a hermit called Wonka. To that end it was pure Dahl and a brillant adapt. And furthermore, as an appeasement, Charlie’s taking a stance, and not abandoning his family, could be considered quite ‘active’ in a sense. But it’s really just good, to betray his family would be to cease being good. It completes the circle.
I would have maybe added a brief 3 second shot of the town back to it’s former glory, Wonka, Charlie and family, hand in hand, after the ‘family in the factory’ ending shot, to make it perfect. Maybe a quick ACTION of Wonka and His New Family, at the Factory Gates, opening it up for the mobbed town, cutting a red ribbon, a fresh start. But then I am not Tim Burton, and I trust him more than I do me.
September 20th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
The movie left me cold. Wilder’s Wonka is so philopshical about his quest for pure imagination, he is truly a wonderful man in that story, looking for a child who is not greedy, reflecting on the world’s greed in general. I know Dahl was proud of that screenplay (that he worked on) regardless of the false media reports that say he hated it.
In Burton’s story (and John, I know the system well - I place the blame on one of Hollywood’s most egotistical directors who dosn’t even take studio notes regardless), Wonka is presented as an absouloute moron, who apart from walking into glass walls and showing a disgust of children - dosn’t really make any sense as a character. The added flashbacks only seem to paint a haze of non-clarity. Is Wonka a genius? A starved child? A broken heart? A manic loser? The same genius who created this vast chocolate empire or really a bitter, idiotic clux? The film really never hammers home the point, and by that, it’s so impossibly hard to rooy for Wonka. I know the book very well and not to lay any sense of blame on John, because we know John is a good guy.
However, my assitant in the industry tells me that Tim purposely wanted to spin his version of Wonka in the polar opposite of the 1971 version. Now, if your really intent on turning apples into oranges, just remember that sometimes your audience preferred the apples to begin with. Turning Wonka into a heartless caricacure is hardly something people will remember this film for. He gets a family in the end? Is that the spin Tim has applied? It felt so tacked on, that the film should have finshed some 30 mins earlier after they exited the factory.
I’m sorry, but this needs to be discussed. I have a feeling this film will NOT be remember in a few years from now, but the 1971 film will live on for generation. In a world of pure Imgination, you would of expected Mr Burton to excel. In this case, I believe we have been sorely let down. I know one bad boy who will be getting a song from a group of angry ommpoa loompas very soon.
September 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Hi everyone, I’m forming a discussion group in Burbank on this topic: “Why is Charlie so passive? And other John August debates.” Please join me at Priscilla’s Cafe, Saturday at 7pm.
…JUST KIDDING!!!
September 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Real Wonka, I seriously doubt that the media would lie about Dahl’s views of the movie for over thirty years for little to no apparent reason.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:45 am
A small contribution:
Charlie is what is called a “Be-er”: a character that accomplishes everything by “being”–or behaving–in a certain way (whenever Gandhi is portrayed in a story he’s always a “Be-er”).
Charlie is also a “Steadfast” Main Character: a Main Character that doesn’t change, but rather, changes the world around him by sticking to his original nature (”Job” in the Bible is also a Steadfast Main Character).
In fact, Charlie is a character very similar–structurally–to Job. He’s character that sticks to his original nature and fights the surrounding temptations by being faithful to what he believes.
(While the above analogy may send off Mel Gibson to buy all the rights of the next remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it also proves that Charlie is a classic Main Character. No doubts about it).
September 27th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Here are a few thoughts on this film from an ordinary viewer. I am delighted to have an appropriate spot to post them because CATCF has stuck in my mind like an Everlasting Gobstopper. I have gone to see it 4 times, and I can’t get it out of my head. Oddly enough, the only other movie I can think of that affected me this way was “Edward Scissorhands”, which came out when I was thirteen, and kinda lost its shine when I got older. First thing I thought after the first viewing of “Charlie” was, “WHO wrote this screenplay?” I’m glad he has a blog!
I LOVED the character of Willy Wonka. I did, in fact, care about him from the very beginning, because he’s this mad weirdo at the center of the story! After all, Charlie cares too. That’s why he wants to get that golden ticket. Who is Willy Wonka? He is, basically, a rock star. Only with something more unusual, at least in our modern day, than music.
In Dahl’s imagination (and Wonka’s), candy is a magical, subversive pleasure. Charlie, who only gets one candy bar a year (and hangs the wrappers on his wall), is the only one of the children to truly UNDERSTAND candy. He’s the only one who can inhabit Wonka’s world without corrupting it (as the industrial spies did). He’s a child after Wonka’s own heart, and the mad chocolatier was very lucky indeed to find a true candy-maker in a random sampling of five kids!
I like the unstated, but still present, theme of economics. After all, Charlie’s family is dirt poor because Wonka closed his factory. Yet Wonka, despite being the ultimate capitalist, a real self-made man, doesn’t give a fig about money. He just wants to make candy. And he doesn’t even care about making people happy with the candy. He’s just doing what fascinates him, exactly the way he wants to do it… though he does care about sales as an indicator of the public’s approval of the quality of his product…
I love the way he vascillates between unbearable awkwardness and the more “real” ripostes with the children. He can communicate with children and the senile grandmother, but he exists absolutely apart from the world of normal adults. The back story that John added only serves to make Wonka’s character more interesting.
I found it interesting that, throughout the movie, Wonka wears gloves– and never once does he taste a piece of candy, although it is his life’s obsession.
The fact that Charlie’s family live in a shack isolated on a cleared, rubble-filled lot is interesting. Are they the last remnants of some bygone era? And Doctor Wonka, the dentist. His house disappears when young Willy tries to return home after running away. Then, it too is by itself in a vast empty rubble field when Willy revisits his father, who still exists in isolation just as he was when Willy left him. This must be indicative of Willy’s own psychological state, as he apparently hadn’t thought of his own childhood in the years that he crafted his world of candy until he met Charlie.
Anyhow, I think that if I have kids, I will tell them that rock & roll is devil music and threaten to take away their records if I find them. That way, they too will become great.
That is all. FANTASTIC film. I can’t understand why few people seem to like it as much as I did. You guys must have made it just for me! Thanks.
September 30th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Wow, Calico! That was a great post! Took the words right out of my mouth, really, so all I really have to say is, “Ditto!”
I didn’t mind that Charlie was passive. That’s how he was in the book, so since this was an attempt (a successful attempt) to make a more faithful film version of the book, I am more than happy that Charlie turned out the way he did.
I’m a fan of the book above all else, and I have to say Mr. August did the best job I could ever have hoped for in adapting “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” to the big screen. And for that I’m extremely grateful.
My young cousins and nieces & nephews have not seen the ‘71 film, and I intend to make it so that they grow up on this new, much more faithful, and far more engaging, fantastical, and beautiful rendition of Dahl’s brilliant book. I’ve already started reading the book to them, and they love it. It’s the new print, with the pictures from the movie inside, and the kids just absolutely LOVE the boat on the chocolate river, which I am SOOOOO happy turned out to look exactly how I imagined it when I read the book.
Congrats to you, Mr. August, and to Tim Burton and everyone else who had a hand in making the best movie of 2005!
Joy
September 30th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Personally, I was delighted to see a movie that went outside the norm of cookie-cutter brainmush. Charlie was genuinely good and therefore, there was no need for him to change. The way that you handled him was perfect — much the same way as The Oracle (in “The Matrix”) was simply the fount of wisdom and understanding.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:20 am
You must be bored of people commenting on the 1971 version. I saw it on television a few weeks before I saw the new one, and I was close to tears on several ocassion.
The new one was brilliant in so many ways, the ‘oompa-lumpa’ - singular - in particular. What I also liked was the extension of the Wonka character, his background, history, and how there’s more at the end of the story before Charlie gets the factory. Excellent storytelling.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:12 am
[...] I laughed at this quote by John August (who is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s screenwriter): “Charlie’s the one who’s always asking – ever so politely, in the Freddie Highmore Whisperâ„¢ – the questions that lead to Wonka’s flashbacks upon his rotten childhood. (In Classic Dramatic terms, that makes Charlie an Antagonist. Not to be confused with a Villain. Are you sure you don’t want to read about some squirrels?)” [...]
April 8th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
I have to say, I DID think Charlie was an active protagonist. Just because he wasn’t running from an explosion or saving drowning babies didn’t mean he was passive, and just because he didn’t turn from bad to good before your eyes, didn’t mean he wasn’t making an active choice. Turning down the factory for his family when he wanted it so badly meant more — as far as I’m concerned — than him wanting revenge on Wonka, but then, at the last minute, not taking it. I guess people can’t bring themselves to pull for someone they don’t think they can identify with, but Charlie wasn’t unbelievable, not after you meet his family. Besides, the right thing doesn’t happen at the end of the day, it starts when you wake up in the morning.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:44 pm
I really like the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because it was something that made me leave my usual self outside the cinema when I was watching it. I was a fan of Roald Dahl when I was a child, and from what I can remember, Charlie was as good as what he was like in the movie. That was what made him different from the other children, the fact that winning was never his aim or intention. Enjoying the tour with his grandpa was. That was Charlie, and it ought to stay that way to bring out the whole purpose in the tour. Certain changes can make the movie different and stand out from the original, but making Charlie into a boy like Mike or Augustus certainly is not one of them.
But this is just my opinion..everyone is entitled to his or her own view. =)