Shelf Life: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
Filed under: Warner Brothers, Fandom, Home Entertainment, Shelf Life

This week, Spike Jonze's long-awaited adaptation of Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are finally arrives in theaters, rewarding us for years and years of devoted attention to the production's twists and turns. But as exciting as the saga of its making has been, we've been bummed out that there are so few stopgap releases offering a similar kind of creepy, beautiful melancholy for kid audiences (and especially, audiences that are kids at heart).
Then again, looking back at the legacy of so-called family films that truly offer something transgressive, much less a little bit trippy, there aren't a whole lot of titles that come to mind as consummate entries in that rewarding, rarified canon. All of which brings us to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. No, not Tim Burton's 2005 film about a dentist's son who overcomes his obsession with Michael Jackson impersonation with the help of an adorable street urchin; the 1971 Mel Stuart film that turned the stuff of kids' dreams into a palpable reality, while offering a few future nightmares along the way.
Whether by accident or design, Warner Home Video released Willy Wonka on Blu-ray last week as a home-video supplement to Wild Things, and both because of our affection for borderline-creepy kid stories and of course our appetite for all things high definition, Stuart's film is the subject of this week's "Shelf Life."
The Facts: Directed by Mel Stuart from a script written by original author Roald Dahl, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory was released in the United States on June 30, 1971, and grossed an estimated $4 million ($17.4 million or so adjusted for today's dollar) at the domestic box office, recouping its reported $3 million budget. According to various sources, the film's title was changed from its original Charlie & the Chocolate Factory because of a marketing tie-in promoting Quaker Oats' Wonka Bar, as well as an unflattering association with the United States' involvement in Vietnam, where members of the Viet Cong had been nicknamed "Charlie." The film was well-received by critics, and currently enjoys a 90 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Music, Scoring Adaptation and Original Song Score for Anthony Newley's efforts as the film's composer.
What Still Works: It's tempting to sing the film's praises in direct comparison to Burton's godawful remake, which got pretty much everything wrong that Stuart's film got right – starting with Wonka himself. Gene Wilder is simply brilliant as a man-child with a superior intellect and a subversive sense of humor; his eccentricities aren't affectation or just plain bizarreness, but a fortified shell of savvy awareness and deliberate idealism that protects him from the crass cynicism and prying entitlement of the outside world. In spite of the film's title, meanwhile, Stuart wisely keeps the focus on Charlie, who is not only the main character but the story's most important character; not only is Wonka's mystique a big part of his appeal (which is ruined with a terrible, cheaply psycho-analytical background story), but it's the purity of Charlie's spirit that galvanizes the story and gives it a payoff that means something – to both kids and adults.What Doesn't Work: Not a whole lot, including its sometimes inappropriate shifts in tone, language and behavior that by today's standards seem, to say the very least, creepy. The best worst moment in the film by far is the boat ride the group takes, during which a chicken is beheaded in the rear-projection background images, but there's a number of scenes where grown-ups talk and interact with kids in ways that contemporary audiences might consider... again, inappropriate. And as awesome as it is especially in retrospect, there's a degree of ambiguity to the fates of the other children (a "they'll be fine" from Wonka isn't quite convincing) that feels outdated; but then again, the alternative in the new one was to use CGI to show what happened to them – and that certainly wasn't any better.
What's The Verdict: As a longtime fan, I'm grateful to discover that Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory continues to hold up and then some. The story, the sets, the characters, and the songs almost all feel perfectly realized, and lose little to nothing in an era where computer-generated effects have all but completely replaced practical ones. As an imaginary species, the Oompa-Loompas aren't little-people caricatures, but a fascinating novelty for these kids (and by extension, the audience), and their tunes in particular are terrific. But most of all, the story's directness and its cleanliness chronicling Charlie's wholesome and unfettered goodness creates a really powerful parable about the virtues of responsibility and integrity and sensitivity that continues to resonate today.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-16-2009 @ 2:26AM
Michael said...
When the remake came out, a lot of people used that opportunity to bash the original version (the version I cherished as a kid and still love today). It's good to see that the pendulum has swing back over to the good version!
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 2:27AM
LordPaul said...
I love this film but I could have done without a few of the songs.
Especially the floating room thing, which really gets my goat for some reason
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 1:54AM
Julie said...
Inferior to both versions is my fifth grade theatrical production, which had two boys playing Wonka after it was deemed too big a role for one. That's fine and all, but they sang one song together and it made no sense. I was an Oompa-Loompa and the fire alarm went off in the middle of one of our numbers because we overdid the smoke machine. Memories...
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 12:21PM
gottacook said...
The 1971 Oompa-Loompas don't hold a candle to those in the Tim Burton version. The latter are tiny (as they should be) and inventive (as again they should be), and their songs actually make use of the lyrics in the original book, whereas the Oompa-Loompa song(s) in the 1971 version are simply godawful. Indeed the Oompa-Loompas in the newer version are fanciful and engaging enough to balance out the flawed Johnny Depp performance as Wonka, at least for me.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 12:19PM
vivster said...
I grew up with this one as a kid and I hated it. Still do, in fact. For me, it's too dated and generally creepy (especially the oompa loompas and their terrible songs). There's too much that ties it to the 70s to make it a timeless film. It doesn't help that the only thing that can explain the 70s is drugs. While I'm not crazy about Burton's recent remake, I definitely like it more than the original.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 8:38PM
MosquitoControl said...
Going to agree with vivster.
I grew up with this one and hated it. I hated most everything from the 70s, despite very barely missing them. I hated the browns and oranges of the 70s, hated the detachment of the 70s, hated the drugged-out feel despite being too young to really put together that the feel was, in fact, drugged-out.
I still dislike the film for those reasons. It's just drab to me, not dark. Depressing, too. No real highs in it, no real lows, just a constant "meh."
Never watched the Burton film. Not a Burton fan (his films are often beautiful yet terrible. Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood are great, Batman is ok, the rest are mostly unwatchable.) But I have no love for this version.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 8:41PM
lola said...
I grew up loving the book, then saw this version of the movie and absolutely hated it for all of the departures it took from Dahl's fantastic story. I've grown to like it a bit more (still can't stand the songs, or the Oompa Loompas. Or the absence of Charlie's father. Or the whole Slugworth subplot. Or the goose with the golden egg thing. Or the boat that wasn't made out of candy. Or the chocolate river that looked like it flowed with watered down Yoo-Hoo. Or... Yeah, I'll stop now. Sorry.) But I do enjoy Gene Wilder's performance, and I especially enjoy looking forward to showing BOTH versions to my kids and seeing which one they prefer.
Reply
10-16-2009 @ 8:46PM
Petro1734 said...
Other than Gene Wilder's manic performance as Willy Wonka, I was never really that into the film. Like Disney's Alice In Wonderland, some of it was cool, but it really never captured the feel of the book for me.
I prefer Burton's version. Hopefully, he can do the same for Alice :)
Reply
10-17-2009 @ 7:30PM
Radagast83 said...
I've found that while the new film may be more "faithful" to the original work (except the silly Dentist Wonka subplot where Willy would do the thousand-yard-stare) and I did not think that Depp really captured the essence of the character as well (In the new version Wonka *is* Michael Jackson).
I personally think that the 1972 film improved on a few elements. I don't like the CGI fest with the new Oompa Loompas, and care barely make out half the lyrics of the songs they sing (so even if they're using the original words from the book it doesn't matter).
Certainly the cultural impact can't be compared. The original will likely be remembered in 50 years, and the Burton version will be long forgotten.
Reply