*idolhands

A conversation begun by ~ShovelDuct and re-posted with respect since it was taking up too much of my deviation ...The One To His Heart.

The new movie seems to have inspired an entire subculture of fans, which, in a way, I think is very nice and sweet. But, personally, I liked the first movie far more than the new one. Visually, it was beautiful, but it was emotionally crippled. This was mostly because of Tim Burton's special addition to the story. Now, instead of a genius we have rather a xenophobic, effeminate introvert. Now, I really don't mind it all, the side of Wonka's personality they chose to convey is interesting and it does make for an entertaining, emotional story. But in this way they also chose to ignore much of what actually made Willy who he was. He was written innocent, witty, clever, imaginative, and rude. Johnny's Wonka does vaguely resemble the original in some respects, of course. In fact, though, he is a completely different character altogether. Gene was much closer to the written Wonka, though he, too, didn't quite capture him.
As long as the new movie gathers more Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fans, then it's done its job. But as far as the character is concerned, he was not accurately portrayed, and this has caused some very serious and disturbing side effects (such as his constantly being raped).

All this, though, has nothing to do with your picture, which is absolutely stunning.

My response #1:

I could not dissagree more with the things you felt the need to state here on a piece of art dedicated to the film and which you favorited, not to mention it is clear from my gallery that I am in awe of the film. I will suggest this though, perhaps Johnny's version hits too close to home for you - it is often painful, nay distasteful to face ourselves and the complex, unpleasent elements of our nature. However, it is through the study of exactly those developments after childhood which will define us as human beings - which will make or break us in life. Burton's film is a visual tapestry of which I find I can not get enough. Johnny's take on Wonka so closely resembles my own soul that I can not turn away. Genius can be as Depp/Burton is portraying it. Gene was more of an ideal, but BOTH to me are brilliant and BOTH were original and shocking in thier time. WWatCF did NOT do well in the box office, it "shocked" or "disturbed" people in its day and age. Don't you realize that Burton and Depp had to go in FAR greater directions to do the same in the age of the internet and in the face of a growing jaded youth? No, I commend them.

There is another, VERY IMPORTANT factor to consider if you must judge the films...Mr. Dahl, the original writer of the tale of course, did not approve of the first film. Now, I truly do enjoy it, BUT having tales inside my head which I deam worth spinning, I understand the insult of having ones story "raped". That movie is very little like his book and Mr. Dahl spicifically disliked Gene's portrayal (which will always be a favorite of mine and Mr. Depp's) BECAUSE Mr. Wonka was "too likeable". Yup, those are his words. His daughter on the other hand (since he has passed R.I.P.) is emphatic that her father would have very much approved of the film.

Now as much as I liked the original film, it never inspired me to read the book. This new film did and I was so surprised/impressed by how many things which I found disturbing was ACCURATE to the tale, including (and this my dear IS amazing) keeping the Oompa-loompas dark-skinned, as intended without the implication of slavery. THAT was amazing to me. If you know me at all, then you'll find that racism is a concern of mine and the film did not offend me in the slightest nor did I realize at the time that the Oompa-loompas even in the book have been changed from thier original intention. The issue specifically came up when making the first film hence the odd coloring of the Loompas. And yet, to me, the idea of slavery does exist still (though not strongly). Um, in the book, Mr. Wonka is a very interesting character indeed. Oh my. I think Dahl is quite the scamp and there is no end to how one could "interprit" his various meanings especially in children's tales. But here is the thing, children grow into adults and in truth we are ALL children...we never really grow up. While I enjoy the 70's tale, I felt this THE strongest in Burton's film. It was impossibe not to feel it through a man who was still child-like himself and a child wise beyond his years. And actually, while I see so much in Mr. Depp's portrayal (my GOD, I've never seen so much acting done WITHOUT speaking!), layers and layers, I also see myself in Charlie. And there, right there, in that tiny spot where they overlay and they both NEED each other...that is where my attention constantly falls...between pain and love and all the things that blossomed in this drawing as I imagined it to perhaps do the same inside Willy's soul.

If you wish to debate how characters should be used in fan fiction, then you will fail with me there as well. Certainly I have things that I like and dislike, personal tastes, then things which a good writer can even through this bring me to enjoy but I will not state what should or shouldn't be done with a character. We are portraying ourselves in fan fiction, rape can be a very symbolic act in writing or fantasy. As you are a teenage woman, and familiar with other and this modern day and age, I know that I do not need to lecture you on the common sexual tastes of young women these days. Wonka, if in your mind is overtly the victim of such an act (which I do not find at all), is certainly not alone. There is a slew of anime, manga and video games that I am barely familiar with and could easily mention as references.

I thank you though, for the compliment, perhaps it will gain from you a second insight into the film. I must admit that my second and third viewings were far more pleasing than the first...*chuckle* since I KNEW what was coming and could anticipate it with wicked glee "MUMBLER!" rather than be in a constant mild state of shock and fear (which is how you are SUPPOSED to feel). Burton did his job and I was one of the first to have doubts. If only Gene could take it with more grace since no true insult was ever intended, but I fear it is the wound of ego and not something the actor takes well. You see, I read his autobiography as well.

I've not started a "forum discussion" and am uncertain how to, but I have a feeling that this exchange truly belongs in place such as that. However, since this is my most sincere ARTISTIC dedication to the film...I am responding to perhaps shed light on why I was suddenly commpelled after 3 YEARS of drawing nearly nothing...to draw this.

We could compare "Wonkas" all day.

~ShovelDuct's response #2

And I see no reason why we shouldn't, as it's plenty entertaining. I loved Kiss Me Like A Stranger. I went nine times to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory while it was in the theaters and enjoyed it each time I saw it. I particulary like Freddie as Charlie, he was exactly as I imagined him to be. I loved how their poverty was expressed. The Prince Pondicherry part I was delighted with, absolutely thrilled that they had included that, and so beautifully.
There's a terrible insecurity about him, an out-of-touch, alien quality. He is expressed as not quite human, so pale that he is almost grey, those dark blue eyes that don't twinkle but rather gleam. The page-boy hair, the plastic gloves, all suggestive of his detatchment from the human race. He is a tragic character, just a child emotionally and mentally, intelligent but spacey. Not quite to be admired, but rather pitied. And sometimes he's positively frightening, with those teeth...
I'm afraid I can't pinpoint why exactly he doesn't fit the bill of my personal idea of Willy Wonka. I'd read the book and seen the original countless times before I saw the new one. Hey, it is nice, isn't it, how Gene's Wonka was so intellectual and worldly with all his quotations while Johnny's is reletively detatched and simple? Of course, these are all just my current impressions, which I'm pretty poor at expressing, and I do apologize if they happen to rub you the wrong way (pardon the expression, too). You clearly have a sincere passion for this wonderful story as (believe it or not) have I.
In a walnut-shell, they are just not the same person. I love Johnny's character, I really do think he's marvelous, but I cannot connect the dandical neurotic to the little old pointy-bearded man who went into space in a glass elevator and defeated the knids. As interestic as it was, the story of Wonka's origin is a rather played-out Burton theme. It has it's advantages (like making us wonder how his eyes turned blue and when he lost his accent) and emotionally it brings a interpretation of the character into focus that would otherwise be lost. But it wasn't Tim's story, it was Roald's. And I do think it is a shame that it has never been made into a movie with its integrity intact.
The Oompa Loompas were written as being pale-skinned with golden hair. Deep Roy has been in multiple Burton movies, and Tim likes to use the same actors. I doubt Deep Roy's being dark-skinned was intentional.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it all, or perhaps you are, or perhaps neither of us are. I can't really be sure.
PS: My favorite part of the book wasn't in either of the movies, the part with the square candies that look round. What's you're favorite part, I was wondering?

My response #2

You show far more good graces than many on the internet to worry about my feelings at all. Your gracious comments there are most accepted. I'm not really offended, but I did feel the need to state my passion exactly.

I find the man in the book is quite fanciful: long velvet coat, large extragent bow tie, top hat, he dances around and is actually more clever than he is letting on. I find that element true for all the characters. Depp's character has two things that gene's doesn't...a child-like appeal and that quality which you call alien is "magical" to me. He is meant to be disturbing, his appearance and manner should have an unearthly appeal. I agree that is there and I agree that it is very much on purpose, that something was being hinted at (to my mind) in the vein that the book hints at it. Again though, I feel the book has VERY dark undercurrents while the movie has dark OVERcurrents (if that is possible) with the gentler message or sweetness underneath.

Actually, when I saw Depp's Wonka I thought..."Right, what WOULD a person isolated for 20 years with nothing but Oompa-loompa yes-men act?" I immediately got it. And why would a full-grown man persist in being obsessed with candy, what sort of man would come up with such fantastic ideas. And more...how does he manage to create them?? I love these questions, I love how each media poses them and I find different answers in each.

I'm not here to argue or discuss all of Burton's films. *eyes get sleepy* I'm lookin' at one film not debating his entire creative nature. The idea that Willy Wonka has a DENTIST for a father is ironic genius to me. Actually, fancy words aside...it's funny. No, I didn't need an origin, but if one must be had...that was very clever. It adds to the obsession with candy and the child-like rebellion. Christopher Lee makes Willy look like a puppy after we'd all been scared to death of him!! That's impressive and also interesting. Charlie has no reason to help this man and yet..he does, which adds another layer to that character as Wonka hides behind a little boy at the front door. So really, how tough is Willy (despite those death glares in the factory). He's more human. Doctor Wonka also poses more magic and questions concerning both characters and I like that too. But you don't have to. I'm lucky, I didn't go into the film with pre-concieved notions since I hadn't read the book and because I was curious as all get-out after seeing the commercials.

And what of a candy-maker with too perfect teeth? That's interesting too on multiple levels. Our American culture lately is OBSESSED with perfect teeth and Burton's showed what perfection taken to an extreme does do, it becomes inhuman and creepy. Yet, we persist in perfection and most certainly so does Willy. And so you go..why? And why didn't he get married and why does he need an hier? Because he is a man that damaged, that deranged. Why didn't Wilder's Wonka marry or have children? Why didn't the book version? No, I never considered Wonka as a homosexual but the fanciful demeaner of the character in all versions, childhood fairytale stirred with adult reality...why not a gay Wonka? And I don't mean that to be perverse, nor do I need to find any of the Wonka's gay, it is however quite timely to at least suggest it. Burton does this as well. You could say he suggests more than that, I did not see that upon my first multiple viewings of the film but intellectually considering things is never disturbing to me. See, that's what is good to me about STORIES; we can play out questions/feelings/theories and no one gets hurt.

Are you kidding me?!?! The first film BUTCHER'S the book! Book Wonka is NOTHING like Gene's interpritation!! He never speaks so fancifully!! And half of what Gene said, by the way, is nonsensical. That is, the reference is off or so obscure that one can't figure it out. (which is OK by my, just realize that not all of it is "wise"). And Charlie is a brat-like in the first story, not charming or gentle as he is in the book. There is a reason Dahl made him that way, if I understand the suggestions or undertones. And the storyline is a mess!! But...I love it. It's funny, it's beautiful and it captivated me every time I saw it. However, unlike the current film, I do NOT find it to have deliberate undercurrents or many ways to interprit the film. Burton's version is provocative and becuase of my nature...mmm...I like that aspect very, very much. I live in such realms.

You MUST go back to the ORIGINAL book!! Not the thing on shelves now. I wouldn't feed you incorrect information. That is lying in my books. I detest lying or people who spew things off without knowing what they are talking about. I have deep reasons for feeling that way which also connect me to Wonka and other interests. Yes, it was intentional to keep the Loompas dark. And see...you didn't think about it. You just accepted it because it was Deep Roy (who deserves an Oscar for the work he did). Burton THOUGHT of that, that's genius. Further, you may read about such choices regarding the Loompas in a BOOK about the makeing of WWatCF. I keep a few photos as a dedication in beginning of my journal if you care to see or know the title.

For the record, and I was confused too, Willy has purple eyes. Yes, I know they look blue-ish but from Depp himself. They are violet.

What one reads into anything is pure semantics. There are no real answers, as there are no real answers to the questions posed by the tale. I am completely absurd for my involvement in this fandom. The only way I explain it is..."it ate my brains." Fascination, mn, it's like cupid's bow.

My favorite part?? Impossible. There are too many subtle qualities, my favorite part is what is not said. The line of "My dear old fish, go and boil your head" isn't bad for one-liners though. Dahl's way with words in general is like candy.

I made an effort to include the candies in my tale. You know, Burton did actually design those candies, marvelously clever but they did not get used along with many other designs for the film. To be expected, look at what they did manage to include.


And so, if we'd like to continue, or anyone would like to RESPECTFULLY join in then by all means go ahead...

--
はじめまして! _{Artist, Writer/Poet, Photographer, traditional medium mostly, anime, sci-fi and the bizarre.}