Musings in Search of a Muse

There are many times I wonder why I bother putting my thoughts into this blog, let alone movie reviews. Even with deep reflection I can't recall a time when I consistently kept a journal, even when it was required for school assignments. Often I would simply jot down scraps of memories just before the assignment was due. Surprisingly, the teacher or professor would comment that I showed great initiative to keep a narrative as detailed or as pertinent as the work showed. Hmmph. So, though I do enjoy writing, maybe I write because it is a great way to keep in touch?

My vanity isn't such that I believe those who know about this current effort frequently visit my site. In fact, I know virtually no one does. It isn't that people don't like me or that I'm not that interesting -- trust me, I do have a handful of friends with Internet access and they seem to more or less enjoy my company. So, I guess I had better be writing because I have something to say that is unique and original.

This is where we come to the movie review. Almost. There are many great places to get movie reviews. One of my favorites is from Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. Rather more often that not his views and mine are in concordance. When we do disagree it is often because he tends to look for deeper meaning or some ineffable value beyond mere entertainment whereas I find value in any movie, even if only to make fun of it much like is done on Mystery Science Theater 3000. There are also some great places to get pre-biased reviews from writers that you might find like-minded socially, politically, or religiously.

In the latter category is something from Christian Spotlight on Entertainment. Their review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is so well written, insightful, and creative that once again I wonder why I bother writing my own. In respect to common Christian concerns (violence, language, sexuality, morals, to mention a few), the review brings up salient points that I agree with or at least find notable. Here is a highlight and I recommend reading the whole piece:

As a Christian viewer, I see this tale about an eccentric chocolate maker and a boy who embodies all that is good as a first-rate morality tale for children and adults. As you sit there look deep inside the story that surrounds you and drink in not just the lush images, but the spiritual significance that echoes our Lord’s warnings about making wrong choices and the inevitable consequences involved.

Here’s the key to understanding choices and their consequences: God has set in motion spiritual laws for human beings that lead to good or bad results, depending on the choices we make. God tells us that if we rise above our selfishness, we build good character. If we fail to understand that, we fail to understand a great deal about God and His plan and purpose for us.

Building upon this, there are several aspects of the film that engaged me. For example, the imagery is stunning, as seen in this still from early in the film:


Director Tim Burton has a pop-artist's eye tinged with a darkness that transmutes shapes and colors from countenances we would routinely accept as innocent and friendly into like representations that mask an inner turmoil. The trees are clearly trees, but they look unhappy, even the candy ones. Charlie's house appears to suffer from osteoporosis rather than simple decay and neglect. Disingenuous characters have an obvious glaze to them beyond a simple veneer of humanity masking atrophied souls. As with his other films, this artistic idée fixe can sometimes be too much. I found myself too often (and to my distraction) recalling Beetlejuice (1988) and The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993). A few critics assert that the burning of the puppets early in the movie is an example of this perspective taken to an extreme, but I see it not as unnecessary violence, rather as a clever commentary on social values and a curious insight to Mr. Wonka's psyche.

All this is a cradle in which Johnny Depp crafts a character that has a boy's crushed, but not broken dreams wandering lost in a man's body. Some comments I've read label the character as psychotic and I wouldn't disagree that some manifestations are present. But here's a person who, through the misguided words and deeds of a father simply trying to show love, felt that his passion and intellect was disregarded. What we see in Willy Wonka is the result of a broken relationship. Depp portrays this with such nuance and skill I sometimes forgot there was an actor under that ridiculous haircut. He didn't play this for comedy. It is clear that he took a purely dramatic orientation and I would be surprised if a nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy by the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences would be seen as an insult.

The cinematography follows suit to the art direction and is simply splendid in the big screen IMAX format that I saw. It isn't in 3-dimensions, but something about a 3-story tall screen really changes the experience. There are parts that might be improved with the traditional theater aspect ratio and I might have to see the film again as a comparison.

All-in-all, a superior film on many levels. It is good, simple entertainment, a visual feast for the artistic, a study in dramatic acting, and a fine morality play in seven acts (each of the children, Wonka, and the public). I would be remiss, however, if I didn't address the question that has haunted this production from the day of its announcement: Is it better than the 1971 version with Gene Wilder? This is a very unfair question because it is like a comparison of toffees and Tootsie Rolls. Both are candies, but different candies. Each film has merits and I would likely watch each for different reasons. The Wilder film is much more light-hearted on all levels and makes me laugh more often. The Depp film is a thinker's film because the story matures into a conscience-driven statement. Youngsters would be the likely audience for the former while teens and adults would likely get more out of the latter.