July 21, 2005
They'll Find it Disturbing???
OK. I said I wouldn't blog about this, but the inner child in me will not allow me to remain silent. I must speak out on one of the great traumas of my young life. A trauma so deep and pervasive that just the thought of creating its physicality by typing about it on my keyboard makes me fear for my continued sanity.
I am talking about the time when I, as a child, saw "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."
This is the first one, with Gene Wilder as WW. And now the perfectly sane and non-twisted mind of Tim Burton is bringing us a second remake of the Roald Dahl book, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" starring that other paragon of cinematic normalcy, Johnny Depp.
If this type of thing thrills you, then by all means, go see the movie. But please think carefully before taking along your young child. Here's what the Nick Jr. parents' movie guide has to say about the appropriateness of this film for the six and under set:
They'll find it disturbing when the children are punished for not listening: one of them turns blue and blows up, one falls into a chocolate river and is then sucked up into a tube, another is miniaturized and has to be stretched back on a taffy rack.
They'll find it disturbing?! Heck-I find that disturbing! And mind you, I happen to be a horror/science fiction/mystery fan. I remember when I saw the first WW film I had the idea that all these "bad children" were being murdered, dispatched with in the most gruesomely creative ways. You might say, my first slasher film--years before I saw "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" or "Nightmare on Elm Street." I only got it, years later when I saw the film again as an adult, that these children did not actually die. (There is one brief exchange in the latter moments of the first movie where Charlie asked where the kids went and WW says they're OK... I must have missed that as a kid. No likely due to the PTSD the movie had already caused me to suffer.)
Then there is something else about this movie that puts it off of my "must see" list. I can't quite put my finger on it...but I think that the colorful, widescreen visions of all that candy and chocolate and sweets will be for some kids almost--pornographic. Especially for today's kids, many who get such things in their own lives only as an occassional treat. (Or, in our case, when they visit any of their grandparents.) Like I said, this notion is vague. Don't ask me to explain any further.
Now, I've been in conversations with other folks around my same age who had the exact opposite reaction to WW. Some of them had read the book first. Some didn't. And, I generally am a fan of Burton's work--even if I think it very clearly is "adult" in nature.
But, my daughters will not be seeing "Charlie." Maybe they could handle it. Afterall, they love watching "Teen Titans"--a far cry from "Care Bears"--with their comic book connoisseur Daddy. And they are big fans of "Alice in Wonderland," another work with...shady (if not dark) elements, which I previously read chapters of to them at bedtime over the course of several weeks. They might handle "Charlie" just fine.
But I have a feeling I'd be quite disturbed. Again. (*shudder*)
Posted by perry032 at July 21, 2005 04:40 PM | TrackBack| Printer-friendly version
There is nothing disturbing about this movie. Rent American History X.
Posted by: eric at July 21, 2005 07:35 PMYour excellent cultural critic of the movie actually makes me want to see it (okay, just a little bit). Johnny Depp has never been that appealing to me. But, IF I do go see the movie--and that's a big IF--my soon-to-be 4-year old will be at home with a babysitter. And, his absence in the theater won't be simply because Toy Story scares him (there ARE some pretty creepy moments, if you look at it with a preschooler's eyes).
Posted by: Laurene at July 21, 2005 10:11 PMI don't think I ever saw the first one, and doubt I'll see the second.
My daughters certainly won't be seeing it. (2 and 3.5)
eric, I have heard that American History X is quite disturbing. (I still wanna see it!) The diff w/WW-Charlie is that these movies were supposed to be for *children*...
Laurene: It's funny you mention "Toy Story"--My kids (5 1/2) generally have no probalem w/"cartoon violence" such as "Teen Titans" and "The Incredibles." But what *does* get to them is sadness and unkindness. There is a part near the end of "Are We There Yet" where the Mom is telling Cube's character he can't see the kids anymore because of his irresponsibility. My kids BURST into tears in the theater: "But Mommy, he *loves* those kids and they love him...Mommy they're going to be so sad if they can't see him anymore..."
Okolo, yeah I guess with your little ones it'll be the "Heffalumps Movie" at the dollar show for you! LOL!
Posted by: Yvette at July 22, 2005 10:29 AMA critique like this makes me wonder how many film critics have children. Seriously, film critics are such a pretentious lot, that unless there is a dark underbelly or some depiction of brokenness, the film is nothing but a waste. Or...it's just mindless children's entertainment.
I think I'm just entering the re-birth process of becoming like a child in my view of what is virtuous in filmmaking. Not childish morality, but childlike in emotional sensitivity / vulnerability. I am keeping my eyes open for movies that expose children to the tenderness and power of relationships versus a concrete and limited view of right and wrong (apart from relational impact).
Posted by: Gregg at July 22, 2005 12:29 PMHm. I haven't seen the new one yet (drat!) and I don't have kids. However, I read the book fairly regularly, and I can say with assurance that if the film is twisted, then it's being faithful. The book is twisted. It's supposed to be. Roald Dahl disliked children, IIRC. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could be viewed as wish-fulfillment fantasy, as all but the quiet, well-behaved ones that don't bother the adult get 'disposed of' in various incredibly entertaining and apropos ways.
Of course, I love the Gashlycrumb Tinies, too. :-)
[Edit from Yvette: http://www.edwardgoreyhouse.org/index.html]
went to go see it last night with my daughter (age 7, almost 8) while we are still on our trip in DC. she wasn't really disturbed, just annoyed that there wasn't any music she could sing along to. the big appeal for the old version was the sing-song music. the oompa loompah(s) (if u could say seeing many, many versions of one counts) were creepy, yes scary. i was totally creeped out. the music showed vision and creativity but was not quite the sing-a-long songs of children's film. visually, all burton films are stunning. i went just to go see what was in the mind of the madman. i wasn't totally disappointed. the film actually felt closer to dahl's story.
i LOVE short stories by roald dahl. there's one where a wife clubs her husband with a big leg of lamb, then cooks it and serves it to the investigating police - what a way to destroy the evidence! he's funny, dark, and tells captivating stories (no matter how and when they are translated for mass consumption).
love your blog. i have it bookmarked and will be coming to visit often!
Posted by: rae at July 30, 2005 08:06 AM