Poop. I forgot to bring home my copy from school. Tomorrow.

In terms of the movie and the book, I can't say I have a preference for either one because they both have their own unique value. The songs in the movie are great and Wilder was a good choice for Wonka. But, there are lots of hidden gems in the book like Square Candies That Look Round and The Nut Room.

Charlie is a flat character because he doesn't change from beginning to end in the book (typical of all Dahl's work), but he's a good person. The good person is rewarded while the bad people are punished. That's probably what we're supposed to learn from him.

Speaking of typical Dahl protagonists, Charlie is in nearly every book. Sometimes he's named James, sometimes George, and even Matilda. They're always repressed innocents who end up with their wildest dreams in the end. The formula works.

Let's see if this gets the ball rolling...

marydell | May 23, 2005 10:32 PM

It's hard for me to comment on the first movie since, I confess, I only saw it once, in college, after smoking a lot of weed. How strange that there weren't any Oompa-Loompas, since (at the risk of stating the obvious) they're the Greek chorus of the book, singing in unison about what we all were thinking anyway. I guess that's what I think about their songs; I wouldn't call them vicious since they only mirror what the reader (and Charlie and Grandpa Joe) believe anyway.

What you mention about Charlie greedily spending the dollar is also interesting, since in the book he goes through a long moral dilemma and finally decides it would be okay to spend just ten cents on candy as long as he brought the other ninety cents home to his family. Then, of course, he spent a second dime, and if that chocolate bar hadn't held a Golden Ticket, who's to say whether he'd have squandered the rest of the dollar too? I suspect he would not have, as most people (even starving little boys?) get sick of chocolate after two bars, but I certainly didn't think of him as greedy. He was just a deprived, goodhearted kid.

daisy | May 23, 2005 10:33 PM

Sick of chocolate after two bars... Ha! I wish!

Interesting to think of the Oompah Loompas as a greek chorus. Looking at the book from the racist angle, there's certainly a lot of material there, but I don't think that is something that needs pursuing. You can find racism in everything if you try. To me the Oompah Loompas come from the same tradition as the Munchkins - and I guess that too is the Greek Chorus.

I think maybe Willy Wonka represents the positive and negative sides of business - rich, ruthless and unstoppable, but also generosity and immense creativity and with the capacity to bring both poverty and wealth to a society.

Danny

Danny | May 24, 2005 10:26 AM

I'm not convinced that Charlie wasn't greedy. He was starving and did plan, but if you think about the fact that his family had to save all year to buy a 10 cent bar for his birthday, that dollar probably could have fed them for a decade. I exaggerate, but not only did he think of himself before he thought of those who sacrificed so much for him, he went for a second bar instead of following his original plan. And I think he would have bought a third and even fourth. Charlie loved chocolate.

The only reason I focus on that moment is because it's the only insight we really have into Charlie. The flatness may be typical of Dahl's protagonists, and clearly we're supposed to believe he's "good," but that interpretation is complicated by his behavior.

Andy | May 24, 2005 4:21 PM

As far as protagonists go, I much prefer the more human ones who are subject to make mistakes and misjudgments since they always seem to be more realistic, in my opinion. It didn't bother me that Charlie bought a second chocolate bar. He's a kid and his actions seemed realistic under the circumstances. Besides, one could argue that he had a "feeling" about how special the golden ticket would be to him and his family. The fact that he took a second chocolate bar could be interpretted as a gesture of hope in a weary world. After all, most of us would admit to siding with Medea even though she was a murdering psycho. It's her children from crying out loud, how could you not sympathize with a furious mother! I always end up hating a perfect and altruistic hero since they are just too unrealistic and ultimately "honey-coated" annoying. Besides, out of all the characters, despite his faults, he is still morally better than the other characters. I guess you could say that the point of the book is not that you have to be PERFECT but that if you have a good heart and you are good person that you win in the end.

The one thing that no one has mentioned yet is the underlying darkness to both the film and the novel. I mean what kind of creepy, 55 year old guy is in love with his own candy factory? And what's up with that scary tunnel ride? Wilder really hammed it up but if I recall correctly, that was one creepy trip. Wonka is dark and sarcastic almost to the point of being slightly mentally unbalanced. I'm just saying, the guy lost half of his Gobstoppers somewhere along the way! I think that's why Burton was drawn to that character and ultimately the remake of the movie.

adria | May 27, 2005 5:37 PM

I am very, very, very happy to be able to see this story again!!!!!! I was 7 years old when I saw it and I have not seen it since then again. I did not have any idea that there was a book with this story either. All I remember is that there was chocolate everywhere!!!!! How I dreamed of being any of those kids, no matter how bad or good they were!!!! :-) I guess it showed my lack of everything at that time! Anyway, I am glad I will be able to refresh those memories!

Jorge Luis | July 15, 2005 6:27 PM

I'm a bit late coming back to this thread, but Adria makes a good point. All of Roald Dahl's books are dark, but that's probably why kids love them so much. Nicety nice nice is boring.

Jorge, I'm also looking forward to seeing the movie. It'll be sometime next week for me. Woo!

marydell | July 18, 2005 12:19 AM