Use the code TREE for 40% off World Anvil with the link worldanvil.com/?c=mltt Or else try it out for free!! By the way, I don't care what people says about the "I've got a golden ticket" line. It's a great song very well performed without need of great effects and backing or anything. An old man just singing and dancing it's a small house. It's cosy
dont forget what happened to the man who got everything he wanted...he became Wonka who shut himself away and was paranoid enough not to trust anybody but an obedient child, hes essentially a Shut-in. I think Dahl said the roll was the last straw and that Wonka was portrayed at odds to how he had been written and that he was written as a dishonest person. personally I found the book version much warmer. As a piece of work not connected to the book it is good film however. Another interesting thought however is that charlie is Wonkas childhood and they are in fact the same person figuratively. I would be interested in an analysis of the Charlies thought the books and films
Actually what I found helped was reading Roald Dahls first Autobiography "Boy" a lot of his characters are drawn from his life and incidents, I would be interested in your thoughts about the author and his relation to his characters.
You left out the worst thing. When Charlie gets told he lost, because Grampa Joe encouraged him to break the rules, what's Grampa Joe's next move after being called out? Immediately he tells Charlie 'lets go find Slugworth and sell the gobstopper' since Wonka cheated us by... catching us. What a guy!
While Charlie's mother sings "Cheer up Charlie", To me it feels like she's given in to the vicious cycle of poverty, and wants Charlie to accept his fate at the bottom. She's not evil by any stretch, she's just given up.
I kinda agree. Cheer up Charlie is a little bit of a doomer theme. "Things are bad but make the best of it." I do like however she will see still wants things to be better for her boy, so it can only go up from here.
Even as a kid, I remember regarding the morality of the film (and especially the book) being strange, but not in an overly troubling way. I just always interpreted Charlie's universe, this weird British-American hybrid world of no specific place and time, as being kind of cynical and sinister, and quite dog-eat-dog, but nevertheless wanting Charlie and Grandpa Joe to come out on top. I think a lot of Roald Dahl's stories were more about seeing wicked people get punished than anything else, and since the wicked children get punished, the moral logic of everything else in the story is kind of an afterthought.
I personally really love all the random cutaway scenes around the world concerning the Wonka craze. The kidnapped husband one is just top tier hysterical 🤣
It's odd to me that you interpret Charlie giving Wonka the candy back at the end as doing his bidding or doing what he's told. To me, it's Charlie doing the right thing when it's not popular with others like Uncle Joe. He does the right thing by returning the candy because he doesn't want to stoop to a mean and vindictive level. He does what he believes is the right thing to do, even at great personal cost. While it was glossed over in the film, it's still hinted that Charlie's mum is doing her best to instill such values while she tries to prepare him for the harsh life his humble background is preparing for him. Part of breaking through the roof is Charlie breaking through the ceiling that his previous life held over him. The fizzy lifting ceiling is the midway point for that metaphor as it could've crushed him by industrial machinery just as a lifetime in a coal mine or factory would've done. That scene held the kernel of 'doing the right thing' but he chose to listen to Grandpa Joe and keep it a secret to avoid punishment. At the climax, his deceit is brought to light and he assuages his personal guilt by owning up to it and returning the candy becomes his penance for a clean slate to restore his moral compass.
Well as I say, the interpretation I make isn't one I entirely buy, and it's obviously not the original intended meaning (although I think Gene Wilder himself intended to add a little extra darkness to wonka), however it's still a meaningful interpretation for me because giving back the sweet is technically the right thing but it's also doing the straight forward, moral thing within an arena stacked immorally by those with more power. Doing the good thing towards a man who might not be good. There is some slight merit to re-examining it in a modern lens, or to consider what this might be saying (intentionally or not) about capitalist ideas. So yeah, basically I had fun with a slightly tongue in cheek over-thinking of the film... but I still think doing so provides meaning in its own right
Charlie's decision not to steal from someone who at the moment seemed undeserving makes the gesture even more noble. Right and wrong is independent of Wonka's behavior.
Watch Charlie in that whole scene where Wonka yells at him, and Charlie returns the Gobstopper, and it's pretty clear to see that it's not an attitude of "awe", "loyalty", "love", "obedience", or anything like that: it's one of those "never meet your heroes, you'll only be disappointed" moments, Charlie is disappointed and disillusioned and hurt at this point, as much because his grandpas was let down by Wonka as for anything else, considering that his grandpa was so angry, he was even suggesting that stealing the Gobstopper to give to Slugworth might be the right thing to do, a suggestion that Charlie doesn't take... and at no point does Wonka ever tell Charlie to give it back. If Charlie isn't being obedient and loyal to Wonka - who at no point issues any moral instruction to Charlie - and Charlie isn't being obedient to Grandpa Joe or to his mother (who doesn't know about Slugworth to our knowledge), nor to Slugworth himself, who IS Charlie being obedient and loyal to, the Oompa-Loompa people? Charlie had just been yelled at and "swindled" by Wonka, and had just survived a frankly weird and terrifying tour of the factory after several children came to nightmarish ends, and could probably not have been blamed much for helping Slugworth to steal the recipe at Wonka's expense, for enough money to buy a new house, but would it have been the right thing to do? He'd live the rest of his life, we must assume, in that house, with his family, all knowing that Charlie stole from and betrayed Wonka, no matter how unpleasant Wonka seemed, to get that house, and anyone trying to make excuses for Charlie would have to live with the guilt of those excuses as well. Nope, Charlie's giving the candy back, because Charlie is motivated by simple honesty and integrity. Nobody told him to do so, he didn't need to be told, and that's why he really won in the end: he was made heir to the factory because of his honesty and integrity, and with that inheritance, he also won all the chocolate he could want from that factory, and all of the wealth produced by the factory needed to buy his family a house honestly - "everything he could want", based on everything we are shown to be true about Charlie from the beginning of the movie. He might have made a couple missteps along the way - getting talked into the Fizzy Lifting Drink thing by Grandpa, for example - but who expects perfection from Charlie? Not even Wonka expects perfection - Charlie doesn't win through perfection, simply by doing the right thing when it mattered, even when it would have been far easier and more rewarding to sell out to Slugworth after being "swindled" by Wonka (who, after all, never owed Charlie or his grandpa anything!)
TLDR Charlie knows stealing is wrong, even if it’s from a bad person. Nearly everyone is this story is flawed, even Charlie. But he learns that being a good honest person above all else will lead him to good things (even if it’s not material things). He won.
An issue with the resolution is that they also established that Charlie is afraid of the man asking everyone to give them the gobstoppers for profit, so he giving it back to Wonka could also be interpreted as he making sure there's no reason to meet that man ever again, not so much to be a good kid, but out of fear because Granpa Joe was very ready to take him to the man out of spite
I don’t think the movie shows Charlie losing himself in the hysteria. He buys one loaf and a few chocolate bars in total. Everyone else is buying shopping trolley’s at a time. By the case. By the truck load. Ransoms. Forgeries. And so on. It’s a common form of snobbery for poor people to be criticised or charged with the same or worse greed by spending what little money they have on a little of the comforts and pleasures that the haves can have in relative abundance.
Slugworth is working for Wonka, he knows where the winning tickets are, and probably by working with the shopkeepers who'll get the winning ticket. You'll notice it's only kids who get the winning bars, not adults, nothing in the rules says a kid has to win, but 5/5 are won by kids. Also it's the shopkeeper who offers Charlie the regular wonkabar, and only after he sees how Charlie eats the first bar. He grabs a bar from behind him that's the centre of the display, something no shopkeeper would do(you want to keep the display looking nice to encourage purchases). Wonka designed each room for each kid, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had an idea of what they wanted and looked for it explicitly, especially a certain kind of impulsiveness that'd make them break the rules in order to test them.
the "he lived happily ever after " strikes me as a sinister line. mostly because of Wilders delivery. It is like the joke is, that after the set up, you expect that something bad happend, but than he lived happily ever after. But actually living happily ever after es a bad thing to happen to you. Or perhaps it is code for something bad happening to you.
Ironic how Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film focuses more on Charlie while the remake film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory focuses more on Wonka.
Wonka did not want to brainwash Charlie into running the factory the wonka way, he wanted Charlie run Charlie’s way. The way a child would run it. An adult would run it like a normal factory.
In addition to that, Wonka clearly sees Charlie as a kindred spirit. I think the new film helps illustrate why that is subtly, poignantly and without too much fuss. Leaving enough of an enigma to preserve the ambiguities in Wilder’s portrayal.
Edit: he put it in the video! He literally says, "run it MY way". I could swear I remember Wonka specifically saying that he wanted someone who would run the factory his way, while in the Wonkavator. I just watched it. I'm 95% sure he said that.
@@veggiesarefruits Wonka trusts Charlie to run it his way because he already sees him as a kindred spirit. Not because he's successfully brainwashed him.
This movie has always made me deeply uncomfortable and to explain I might ave to overshare a bit, but I have CPTSD and the adults in my life were constantly lying and I had to guess when they were being honest and which times were secret codes for something and which were blatant lies. This affected how I saw movies. The Wizard of Oz, famous for lies, was honest once he was called out. When Darth Vadar told Luke that he was his father, I thought it was a lie so strongly that it confused me when I learned others didn't think he was screwing with Luke just to win a battle. And I think you helped me to understand why this movie creeped me so much. Lies over lies and the adults just going along with the lies, the hypocrisy, the greed, all of it. It made me so uneasy. Thanks for the videos!
@@billvolk4236 I got Uncle Joe in your reference but who is the other? I'm guessing Wonka but I can't imagine what the disability faking would be, maybe it;s been too long since I've seen this to remember but that Wonka creeps me too much :D
@@Archie0pteryx I think he means when Wonka fakes having a limp. personally I don't see Grampa Joe as faking a disability, I always interpreted that his excitement magically cured him
I love that Wonka somersaulting out of the factory after previously limping out was improvised by Gene Wilder, to convey how unpredictable Wonka really was.
What do you mean, improvised? Gene Wilder told the director he wouldn't take the part unless he could do that. This happened before filming even started.
@@ShirDeutchI think OP was pretty much just saying "it's cool that Gene came up with the idea". Doesn't really matter when it happened, the underlying sentiment remains the same.
@@ShirDeutch you're not wrong, and whatever you choose to prioritize is valid. I do understand the difference between improvisation and advance-made plans, and you're right, it's a pretty big one. I should've mentioned that - I DO take your point. I was trying to establish common ground between yours and OP's comments. I'm sure you would also agree that regardless of when the decision was made, Wilder managed to encapsulate the whole of Wonka's personality in a single action. I wanted to establish said common ground because - and please don't take this as an insult, it's not as serious as all that and truly just boils down to a difference of priorities - it seems a bit pedantic to point out this difference without acknowledging what OP was trying to say. Neither of you were necessarily wrong, you see? You might inadvertently embarrass someone that way. I see what you're saying - improvisation versus planning. But, isn't the actual POINT of OP's post kind of irrelevant to that? Is it not nitpicking semantics? Wilder's interpretation of the character is the crux, rather than how quickly the idea of said interpretation came to him. Sorry for the long response, just wanted to make sure I was clear this time.
As for Charlie buying the chocolate when is family needs food, I say why not? He works hard and has obviously been helping to provide for them long before the opportunity for the golden ticket. Shouldn’t he have a little bit of satisfaction for himself?
Yeah, we see the poor little guy buying bread for the family, buying his grandpa a gift of tobacco, being polite to everyone in spite of his situation, helping his mother with a grueling job, keeping up morale in a household that has burned out just about as far as any family in a movie like this has ever burned out, when you consider that several thoroughly exhausted and hopeless elderly adults are forced to share the only bed in a rundown one-room shack where his mother works for cabbage soup, pausing from time to time to tell her son not to get his hopes in life too high above their lowly station because there's nothing special about anyone in their world, least of all them! Charlie's only happiness in life seems to come from helping his family out however he can, and occasionally enjoying a chocolate bar when he can get one. Even winning that golden ticket seemed to be as much for his grandpa as for himself! He wins at the end because he's conscientious and honest, and declines an offer to "earn" enough money to save his family from poverty by selling his soul and taking Slugworth's bargain to steal from Wonka - sure, it's a trick to test Charlie's worthiness to be made heir to Wonka's kingdom, but Charlie doesn't know that, and we have no reason to think it would make a difference if he did know it: when he returns the Gobstopper, Charlie seems disappointed and disillusioned by his experience so far with Wonka, but doesn't complain (grandpa complains, but not Wonka), and quietly does the right thing and turns to leave in spite of what was surely a great temptation by then to go to Slugworth out of spite, and for the money. Charlie was a pretty good kid, especially compared to the others in the movie, but a good kid by any standard! For crying out loud, let the poor guy enjoy his chocolate! He has precious little else to brighten his life until the end of the movie!
You did make some very good points at the end. Just a small thing I noticed about the endings to the Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp films. In the Johnny Depp film, Charlie actually rejects the chocolate factory offer at first when he learns he’ll be separated from his family, or his family won’t get any of the support Wonka gave him, which does take Wonka aback as if he was expecting Charlie to immediately abandon his family for the chance to have q whole chocolate factory, but is surprised when he doesn’t. So maybe that could be an interesting contrast to bring up between the two different Charlie’s?
Exactly. The Johnny Depp version (actually Dahl approved), is what actually happened. And the new Wonka is His propogandaized version of his origin. And, the gene wilder version as his propogandaized version of how Charlie got ownership of the factory.
Where did you get your information? We can only speculate but his wife said that Dahl would’ve loved the Tim Burton’s version. I think she knew her husband better than us.
One of my best friends hates this movie because as a kid she saw pretty much all the icky creepy traits in Wonka you described! She says that it scared her because the message seemed to her that if you weren't obedient something horrible would happen to you and people around would see it as a reasonable punishment
Sadly some people are like that but they were kinda terrible but even if you’re not terrible people can still paint 🎨 you as terrible because they’re goody goodies
But that’s true, not the part of just punishment but the reason for booing man stories from around the world was because the child could get killed living in a very dangerous world. Kidnapping to animal attacks have happened to. children who disobeyed their parents. Plus the book emphasizes that it comes down to parenting. The first kid is taught poor eating habits that will kill him in the future. The rich girl was spoiled by he parents and would have been on the streets, killed or many other things that happened to a spoiled Adult. The guy chewer I never understood but her over confidence and lack of respect of those around would also hurt her in the long run. Mike tv was a child who was addicted to television and a know it all. He would have suffered greatly as an adult. The story was not about obeying but guiding the next generation to be functioning adults, not just for society but for themselves as well. Wonka is a strange person, but not stupid. He knows that life has consequences.
@@MrSophireyep everything ur saying was basically a balance of good & evil & not to fall for the very temptations of the world cause ppl will do the most deceitful crap to get what they want & that’s all I truly truly took from this movie.
I thought Charlie won because he didn’t keep the gobstopper to give to the spy. It’s been years but it wasn’t about following rules. It was about not being treacherous. The real test was the setup. The rest was an excuse to kick anyone that falls for the spy scam.
Technically, yes. However it's when you wonder "why be honest and good to the man who is incredibly treacherous, manipulative, and lies constantly?" Is there more motive to unpick? Well, sort of, in my opinion
@@mylittlethoughttree Why do the right thing, regardless of how good or bad the other person is? Because it's the right thing. Charlie did the moral and ethical thing of not taking what wasn't his, The Gobstoper Recipe, and profiting off it. It has little to do with Wonka as person and more to do with Charlie as a person.
The “what happened to the man who got everything he ever wanted” line was foreshadowing for when Charlie would live to see a geoengineering climate apocalypse, and have to create a train to save humanity.
Zoe Bee did a great video on this subject with theory that Wonka is symbol of capitalism and mindless consumerism and Charly won cuz he abide by the rules of capitalist and obediently consumed
I think something people in this era in the developed world do not comprehend is not the lack of choices but the lack of awareness that choice is even a thing. My grandparents were born prior to and children during the U.S.'s worst agricultural and economic disaster (The Great Depression) prior to the establishment of a social safety net. The closest thing to career aspirations or education aspirations a lot of people had was the hope someone doing better than you would come along and tell you what to do. We have people approximating this level of poverty now but the difference is people today do not feel like that level of poverty is "normal".
I don't think Grandpa Joe is necessarily bad. If anything, he represents the cynicism of adulthood. He's probably spent his life in poverty, and his grandson is the one ray of sunshine he has, so he's trying to vicariously hold onto that childhood sense of hope and wonder through Charlie, hence why he encourages him to dream big even if it's foolish to do so. That's part of the reason why I don't have a problem with Grandpa Joe singing "I'VE Got a Golden Ticket." Like he says in the song, most of his life has been miserable, and not only is he ecstatic that Charlie is getting this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, but he chose him as the person he most wanted to come with along and share the tour with. Needless to say, it's probably the greatest day of his life, and since this movie seems to run on fairy tale logic, it's no surprise that he'd find a way to muster up the energy to walk and dance again. Even then, it still takes him a bit to find his balance because his tenure of being bedridden is a symbol of how trapped he's felt through poverty and old age, but once the magic of the golden ticket awakens the child within him, and he's now able to share in this experience with the person he loves more than anyone else in the world. That doesn't mean that Grandpa isn't a scoundrel and has a knack for getting into trouble--giving us an idea of what kind of kid he likely was--so when he encourages Charlie to sneak a drink with him, it goes to show that despite the fact that Charlie is a good kid, he's still a kid and can succumb to peer pressure like anyone. The difference is that Grandpa Joe, being the cynical adult, wants to get back at Wonka for being crappy to them, but Charlie, being an innocent kid, acknowledges that Wonka's mistreatment is no excuse for what they did, so he rejects the quick and easy offer for a reward because Charlie's a good boy and doesn't want to feel like he cheated his way to success by screwing someone else over. Whether or not that was a wise decision is a different discussion, but that's the message I think the movie was trying to tell, for better or worse.
I guess that makes sense. All the other kids broke the rules of their own accord, whereas Charlie was pressured by his grandfather, which is why Wonka was more forgiving.
@@me-myself-i787 I think that's also why he's so livid with Charlie at the end. He couldn't give a damn when the other kids cause trouble because after meeting them and quickly identifying how poorly they have been raised, it's almost as if he expects them to misbehave, but he expected better from Charlie, so after he finds out that Charlie and Grandpa Joe broke the rules and stole a soda that he explicitly said was off-limits, he's more than just angry. He's also disappointed and sad.
When I first watched this as a child, I came to the same conclusion. I couldn’t understand why anyone would prioritize chocolate over food. The grandfather suddenly able to walk only after a ticket was found. The whole movie just seemed absolutely absurd. Even the ending confuse the hell out of me. You did a great job breaking it down. Thank you.
Wonka does not kill any children, in the copy of the book I had when I was a child, there was an illustration of the other four children walking out of the factory, Augustus was slim after being squeezed through the pipe, Verucca is covered in rubbish, Violet is blue and Mike is 7ft tall after being overstretched. I guess the same thing happened in the movie, although not shown
You neglected to touch on the fact that Wonka's quote Said, "the man who suddenly got everything he wanted" not THE BOY. he wasn't talking about Charlie, he was talking about Wonka just before he in appropriately hugged a small child that he doesn't even know.
I found your interpretation fun even with its flaws. I definitely disagree on a lot and I’d like to point out that it being “troubling” as you say towards the end, is why I think we all love it and still make theories today. I for one don’t want some sequel that tries to be squeaky clean for a modern audience. It won’t be the same, just a shell of itself.
These videos help me unwind so quickly. You always bring a very soothing quality to whatever you're discussing. I think I'd guess you're a therapist even if I didn't know. But it seems to me you're a writer more than anything. Analyses consisting of some lovely bits of prose. Thanks for the effort, I hope you know it's evident, and it matters.
Grandpa Joe is not a bad or lazy person! He could simply walk and dance again via the power of 🧜♂️ MAGIC 🧚♀️ Lots and Lots of Whimsical Magic! It didn't work on the other grandparents because Grandpa Joe still has child-like wonder and believes in magic. Like flying in Peter Pan.
Yes, that was always my read of it. Grandpa Joe is still able to reach the childlike wonder and belief in magic. That’s why he and Charlie get along, too.
So, i was watching Mr Sunday Movies talking about the Depp movie, and in it he says he always used to think of Grampa Joe as a dick, but then when hes older thought "oh... he's just depressed" idk if thays accurate but its an interesting way to think about him
I just remember being put off by this movie as a child in a way I can't really explain. I think it's because ...you can present ideas and concepts to children. The age of that child makes a difference. Too much contradiction confuses a child. They will pick up on it but they are left in a state of confusion where they either just believe something or they don't trust anything. I think I was on the "make up your mind about what this movie is, I don't trust this" team. It wasn't exactly a popular opinion
This is what I meant when I commented on your community post! The movie's story and message are so confusing lol, it makes no sense. I feel like all or most of these issues are made better in the Tim Burton movie. And the characters are a lot more consistent (and more sympathetic) there, too, imo. Charlie isn't just rewarded for being compliant, he actually has a mind of his own and refuses Wonka's offer at first, putting his values and family first! Which forces _Wonka_ to have an arc of his own and become better, deal with a past trauma (even though, yeah, there is some mixed messaging there, but... anyway)... There is room for them to develop an actual, organic-feeling bond. I know I'm in the minority, but I just like the 2005 film better... Even though Gene Wilder is SO much fun as Willy Wonka...! It would be so cool if you made a video on that movie too! To give us a comparison... Great video ❤
I can't remember the 2005 one at all well, so I'm really excited to watch it. We were gonna see it tonight but then we realised chicken run 2 was out, so watched that instead
Yeah, I don't think that the earth would be able to support that amount, especially given the self serving materialism of our present day civilization.
I'm willing to bet that Charlie's mum wasn't necessarily misinformed about the total world population, just that, at the moment of comforting Charlie, couldn't be bothered to remember the exact number off the top of her head and instead resorted to the use of hyperbole to drive home the point of Charlie's odds of winning and how he shouldn't set himself up for disappointment by setting his hopes impossibly high. That's my take on it, at least.
Speaking of troubling, what about "The Polar Express". The whole film is about rewarding the decision of a child to jump in a transportation medium with a stranger on fear of losing out. Maybe a questionable moral makes a children's movie more fun?
I remember watching this as a kid and thinking Willy was probably one of the scariest "good guys" ever. Still to this day he creeps me out. He's straight up killing kids lol
Wonka never killed anyone: it's a bit more like he handed the kids ropes, then stood back and quietly said "no, please, stop..." while irresponsible parents indulged spoiled kids in putting the ropes around their own necks and putting themselves in danger. Nevertheless, Wonka is pretty scary - that's not how you'd normally expect a kid's movie adult to behave, and Wilder's delivery is absolutely uncanny, unearthly, ambiguous, and eerie - deadpan or monotone when it should be animated, and overly animated when it should be even and calm, cryptic and weird when we should most want clarity, and overly detailed when it's least necessary. None of this works out at all to a comforting character, and I think that is what make's Wilder's Wonka such a successful and memorable character for those of us who appreciates this sort of thing as adults! (It's not for everyone, of course, but I always loved creepy things, from childhood up to adulthood, and this movie would not have been the same if Wonka had been written and played as a comforting, straightforward, saccharine character!)
Thank you for the video, it was a very interesting talk. The discussion on Charlie being an obedient child (and therefore a good child who is rewarded for it) reminded me of Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio film I saw recently, and the director talking about how the original book of Pinocchio equates obedience with being good, and how he wanted to explore that in his adaptation (and, in my opinion after watching the film, ultimately deconstruct it). I don't know if you plan on making a video on Pinocchio, but I recommend the stop motion film if you have not seen it already.
In Grampa Joe's defence about the Tobacco, through out the film he insists that he's giving it up. Slugworth does get a minor mention in the original story as one of the spies who forced Wonka to close his factory ( PreOompa Loompa's ) after they steal his secret recipes. Also it's quite clear that another reason why Charlie has his hopes pinned on winning a Golden Ticket is cos of pere pressure from his classmates at school ( I'm sure we've all been there ourselves as kids at times ). Even his somewhat obnoxious teacher gets caught up in the mad frenzy to win a ticket that he finishes the class early when it's announced lol.
Charlie buys the final chocolate bar for his Grandpa Joe, which was the big difference between all the other ticket finders who bought bars in droves with the express purpose of finding a golden ticket. His was the only selfless discovery
Looking back it does feel pretty satirical, although to be fair I'd say there's a lot of satire in the book, like Mike TV. I remember being confused by Willy Wonka in both movies and not understanding his morals or what on earth was going on at the end
Ahhh this is going to be a treat! I never actually much cared for the book/film in itself but I love Gene Wilder as an actor so much that it's hard not to be utterly capivated by his portrayal as Wonka. Any modern retelling of this story has never interested me for that reason - just isn't the same without him!
I always found this movie quite disturbing and confusing. I saw it for the first time when I was around 8ish, and I cried so hard and was so concerned that the teacher was forced to turn it off. When seeing it again, older, I still got weird vibes from the story. Everyone seemed to think it wonderful, so I believed it to be so
If we take into account the potential illusions to Wonka as the devil and his chocolate factory being a kind of Dante's Inferno then it becomes a horror.
Okay, when you look at it *this* way, I guess Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory is weirdly dark, but I saw the movie in the theatre as a child, loved it, and so did everyone else I knew.
I also loved the movie as a kid and still do! I think the fact you can accurately reinterpret the entire movie in a satirical lens that the filmmakers probably never intended, I think that only adds to my love for it
From the perspective of someone who did not grow up with Dahl's books or the Gene Wilder Film (just wasn't/isn't a thing around here) the fascination with this movie is quite bizarre.
Charlie just wanted to make his family happy and provide for them and his dream came true because he was honest. Willy Wonka was a liar but the thing about him is we never know what is a lie and what is truth. Why would an evil person want someone who is honest enough to pass his to run his factory when he himself runs his factory with lies, trickery, etc. That's the real contradiction here. If Wonka lies, then surely when he said he wanted an obedient subserviant sucessor who wouldn't come up with ideas maybe that was the lie?
This analysis put into words a lot of what made me uneasy about the film as a kid, but that i was too young to understand. I never liked Wonka (the person), but could never identify why, especially because he does seem like he's supposed to be the good guy when you're a kid. Honestly, the whole movie freaked me out as a kid, and still kind of does.
when he buys the chocolate after thinking the last ticket was found he says after eating the first bar, maybe just one more bar , for my Grandpa Joe. So he did not buy it for himself as you said
For me Charlie/Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory occupies a similar space as Alice in Wonderland; something that can be over analyzed to death and a lot can be drawn from these stories because simple children's stories and fairytales can tells us a great deal about people which is why they have such staying powering; like Miayazki they just hit us straight in the hippocampus and make us feel all the feelings. But in the same breath they are simple children's stories that are also just supposed to be taken at face value as either a morality play or a silly story written as Christmas present for a little girl. But isn't that the beauty/insanity of literature and art in general?
Perfectly worded. I don't find that lessens the meaning and fun of deliberately overanalyzing them, but it always needs to be done with your tongue in your cheek
I just noticed, at the end he says "don't forget what happened to the MAN who suddenly got everything he ever wanted." MAN. Not boy. So WONKA was the winner.
"Yes, it could just be a simple bit of perforative humor, or it could be an indication that we can't trust him as a character going ahead." No, you're not over analyzing. We KNOW it's the latter, confirmed as a conscious acting choice. This was an ultimatum put in place by Gene Wilder, or at least that's what he claimed later. He said that scene was his idea, and he refused to do the movie if they didn't include it. He said: "because no one will know from that point on whether I am lying or telling the truth." Edit: Side note, I wouldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure Slugworth IS in the book. That plot certainly isn't, but I think there's a throwaway line or two talking about how the factory shut down, and lists some competitors (including Slugworth) who caused Wonka to shut down for secrecy. Other side note, I wish they'd put together a book of concept art from this movie. I'm always struck by completely inexplicable background details like the half room at the end that are just there with no explanation and would love to get some commentary on it. Some of it probably does come out of more single sentence descriptions from the book that are part of Dahl's worldbuiding, but others I'm sure are original to the art team from the movie. As viewers we usually appreciate when a movie really puts in the work to make sets and costumes and all the other visual elements really detailed and convincing... that gives a story a level of richness that isn't necessarily considered when talking about the movie quality, but it's an important part. I just love it that extra bit more when the backgrounds aren't *just* impossibly detailed... they're impossibly detailed with things that don't really make sense within what we know of the movie, or contribute directly to the story. And that's next level as far as I'm concerned, because it makes it feel as though there really is a whole world in there that doesn't revolve around the story we're seeing.
I always got the impression that Wonka had things planned almost from the start; that he was aware most of the children coming to the factory were brats and would misbehave. A man with his wealth could easily have the children observed before they even come to the factory and he knew that almost all of them came from families of wealth and that almost all of them were spoiled brats. Essentially he set them up to see if they were well disciplined enough to not take the bait but they did. Charlie did too with the fizzy lifting drink but he was misguided by grandpa and in the end he redeemed himself by admitting it was wrong to take something that wasn’t his to take (as well as also causing the shaft to have to be cleaned and sterilized) by giving back the everlasting gobstopper. There were two messages going on here. One: children should behave and listen to adults which means show respect and politeness. Two: it’s not right to take things that don’t belong to you. The whole satirical capitalist propaganda message about people buying things that they don’t really need; and buying too much of it, and yet at the same time glorifying wonka, a capitalist who got wealthy from people doing exactly that: buying massive amounts of his candy probably more than they need to and as a result he becomes a candy magnate is something i always noticed in the movie but it never really dawned on me that while condemning massive consumerism, the movie also praises it. It does make one wonder, why do we consider wonka a good guy? Because he became wealthy? He only helped himself to a better life (not counting the Oompa Loompas because do we know if their lives are better?). What has he done for society other than sell us his candy? I think to show wonka as more of a good guy they should have showed him funding good causes to help the local community and even the world community. That he was helping to put an end to poverty. That he was investing in other businesses so it creates jobs for those needing work. Of course poverty couldn’t be completely gone otherwise the plot line of Charlie being poverty stricken wouldn’t work.
It all makes sense if it Wonka is an analogy for luck and capriciousness (rather than an icon for consumerism). He's arbitrary, dangerous, mercurial - and so is life. The film (and the book) makes it quite clear that yes, you can stack the deck by leveraging privilege, but there's always a random element, too. The thing people are hunting for isn't goods or richness - it's whimsy and wonder and excitement and risk. They're gambling. Grampa Joe getting out of the (safe) bed to walk is a gamble. Entering the chocolate factory is a gamble, too (not actually the prize). Roald Dahl, for all his more questionable aspects, was an expert at viewing the world through a child's eyes - and to children, the world is a swirling, confusing mess, full of terror and potential, and powerful adults are these figures that create seemingly arbitrary rules and punish them for inexplicable reasons. There isn't a consistent moral through-line (apart from 'be good') because Wonka is an agent of chaos in a chaotic world. The gobstopper was probably added in as a narrative mechanic to give Charlie some agency, but it kind of works. As a side effect. adding the gobstopper subplot reframes Charlie as part of that arbitrary world too, rather than a paragon (as in the book). Charlie's act at the end then becomes an uncalculated, unintentional gamble. He's acting on instinct and according to another arbitrary moral framework of what goodness is - and he's rewarded for it because, by a fluke, he makes the right move at the right time. We're supposed to be happy because once - just once - the right kid gets lucky.
I think the differences between Charlie and the other kids is the character of the child consistently. Charlie may have a moment of weakness (he is a literal child, so perfection of morals or the best decision making sould never be expected) where me may buy a chocolate bar instead of bread when he had money he didn't earn for once (maybe he thought in that moment that he found that coin because some higher being was giving him a sign, or because he on impulse wanted something when he would never think of himself). He is a caring, responsable child who knows right from wrong but is still a child. Where charlie may gobble down chocolate when given the chance to eat his fill without guilt, a character like Agustas was considered a glutton becauae he consistently ate what he wanted, when he wanted without limit. The other kids show consistently their flaws that Wonka would find undesirable and therefore why they were unsuitable. Charlies mum didn't, to me, put down Charlies dream so much as try to comfort him when she was trying to be realistic and gentle. It seemed more like giving him hope there is always another dream to dream. Grampa Joe may have had the ability to walk but tire easily, had pain, balance issues or many other reasons. He may have been in bed for warmpth also, they were very poor it is likely their house was drafty or cold. The excitement could be motivation enough to get him moving. The slugworth storyline just really drives home the idea that Charlie is the heart Wonka was looking for. Slugworth offered things that would appeal specifically to Charlie, meaning wonka probably knew at least a bit about the kids before arrival, and even knowing what could be given to his family Charlie still "did the right thing".
Every one of those kids was seperated from the group just as charlie was with the fizzy lifting drink. Every one of them was obviously given the opportunity to do the right thing and they clearly failed the test. The test was honesty and integrity not blind rule following or perfection.
Quick correction: the second chocolate bar Charlie buys after finding the coin in the drain is for his Grandpa Joe, he says it before he buys it; it was not, as you insinuated, an act of selfishness. It was this unselfish act that won the Golden ticket (which was actually Grandpa Joe's ticket since that bar was a gift intended for him).
iPhones are just far easier to use. And if you’re an adult and you can afford it you get an iPhone. It’s like buying a nicer car. Yeah people with Toyota Camrys say they’re great and they are but if you can afford a Tesla or a BMW you get one
Mrs. Bucket was way off on her estimate of the world’s population. Assuming the movie takes place in 1971 there were less than four billion people on earth.
I like how a reasonable case could be made that Willy wonka is just fucking with people until he somehow shrinks a kid into the size of a mouse with magical technology.
Well it has set a high ass bar that only snow piercer could get close to that is an R rated wonka story that takes place in a post apocalyptic world with a bullet train and wonka and the Oompa Loompas died and the newest wonka movie that came out is absolutely amazing and a perfect origin story for genes wonka but it still couldn’t come close to this or snow piercer because of how high the bar is but we need an R rated joe and wonka movie that is R from the same team that worked on saw repo the genetic opera and devils carnival cast change make what’s his name Jeremy Alan white that is a perfect wonka and have Timothy play uncle joe that would be dope
As a kid I really did think wonkas success and madness about his candy was beacuse he was some sort of magic user and was actually killing the kids and using them to make Candy
20:30 It was a good thing for Charlie to be a little selfish. Giving to others is a great thing but if you don't reward yourself sometimes you'll burnout. The first bar he was pressured into and with all that hype I doubt he got a chance to really enjoy it. But when he bought the two it was just for the joy of the treat and for a moment to free himself of people's expectations of him (a heavy burden for a child). For a real-world example... For the last 8 years, I have worked full-time at a homeless shelter for minimum wage, but I love my job. But doing a charitable job, doesn't mean I shouldn't have a moment to be a little selfish. For me, it's a hot bubble bath, a pint of ice cream, a shot of vodka, candles, and some music or a good audiobook. I have seen real suffering and the people I take care of don't have such a privilege but doing for yourself every so often recharges those batteries.
That's a good point. It's also what grandpa Joe argues, a boy needs some fun, and he's totally correct. I still do find it valid to also interpret the situation as I chose to do this video, though. Especially when chocolate ends up becoming this symbol for "the thing that will change your life" but I don't seriously believe my interpretation was the filmmakers intended one. I just find it a fun way to reexamine the movie
Please do the Tim Burton adaptation. Your insights to the Gene Wilder version were quite interesting; I would love to hear your thoughts on the remake.
I really don't think it's meant to be satire considering a lot of the changes made to the film compared to the book, including the name change, were made so they could release a real line of chocolate with it. It's very much literal capitalism at work. And with the current climate it's extremely hard not to feel bitter about it in hindsight. That said, Gene Wilder was a legend and a lot of the most iconic parts of this film were improvised by him. Including Wonka's stunt right when he's first introduced and the monologue on the boat ride. So it's kind of hard to tell what the filmmakers intended with Wonka's character when so much of Wonka's character in this film came directly from Gene Wilder who, I think, just wanted to make him a memorable presence. And he did. Food for thought though.
I very much agree. I think that's really the heart of the inconsistency: the writers doing one thing and Gene doing another. I don't think it was intended as a satire at all BUT, it's still the most consistent way I could find of looking at the film...and in that sense, it accidentally becomes a very meaningful interpretation
Oh I agree. I mean, realistically we know there is always a corporate decision or behind the scenes explanation for all things in hollywood, and if we ALWAYS look at it from that angle.... Well, that's not the point, right? Stories are meant to inspire thought, we're meant to draw meaning from them and forget whatever is behind the curtain. I just think that in this case it's definitely interesting how much the "buy the chocolate over the bread" message bled into the actual narrative. I also think that it holds up as a different type of cautionary tale when viewed through modern lens, if you're willing to not see the ending as the happy ending it was originally meant to be.
Technically, the next episode is done, I've just not actually edited the video for it. It kinda dropped down in priorities basically because my views nosedived and I'm trying to get it up again/earn what I need for my bills, before I put it out. Based on the last spirited away one, it won't get too many views and might upset the algorithm, so I'm waiting for a safer moment to focus on it. Not ideal but that's just one of the downsides to navigate of a channel my size
I feel like this movie in hindsight had mixed messages mostly because they changed certain aspects from the book (which I didn't read), and also because like you said in the beginning of the video this movie was made to promote buying chocolate/candy in real life. So there's that. I'll be honest I don't know if Hollywood is ballsy enough to make Wonka a villain. I'd love that personally, but I don't think it's going to happen because Wonka is usually always seen as a whimsical, eccentric, "good guy". Plus, if Hollywood did do that (make Wonka a villain) they'd essentially be making the Coporate CEOS/Execs of the world a villain. Which I don't think they would ever do.
I don't they'd do it either. If they did, Paul King would be the wrong choice for a director but, at the same time, if they don't explore that angle, then they risk painting themselves into a problematic corner because trying to frame wonka as good will get harder and harder
25:34 this goes hand in hand with VerliyBitchie’s video about capitalism and Harry Potter, the weird mixed messaging and the “it’s okay when the good boy does it, these other kids are just bad”
I found the cutaways surrounding the chocolate kinda funny not gonna lie. I mean it showed everyone would do anything for Willy Wonka’s chocolate. Another funny detail I noticed is some of the expressions the actors make when they’re looking at Wonka. Like when Wonka puts in clothes into the pot that was too cold, Charlie and Veruca’s actors gave an expression of discomfort and a little weirded out. It’s the small things you can enjoy
The eliminations and final scene can be viewed in a whole new light when you realize that Wonka's assistant Wilkinson, posing as Slugworth, was on the scene within minutes of Veruca and Charlie finding their golden tickets to meet them. This would be impossible unless both tickets were planted and Veruca at a minimum was a predetermined finder, since the winning bar, and Wilkinson himself were inside her father's factory. And because he knew Charlie's route home, he was most likely predetermined as well. This also means the store owner had to be in on it as well when he handed him the winning bar. The money was planted, the whole thing was a setup.
Grandpa Joe is supposed to be odd. He brings a lot of character to that movie. Can you imagine it any other way? It would be a boring story. One of the things I hated about the Tim Burton film was that his Grandpa Joe did not have the same childish mischief that brought so much to the original.
Think you nailed it, as someone who grew up at that time I was lost in the wonderful side as you. Also remember something we didn't know then, which is Hollywood loved Cocain
18:49 NOPE! THAT'S ANOTHER MISTAKE ABOUT CHARLIE/GRANDPA! He actually bought that second bar (bar number 4 in total) for his grandpa! He only opened it once he overheard them saying the last ticket was fake! And even then he never bothered eating it...
The fact that Grandpa Joe was a hidden antagonist blew me away. He pretends to be disabled, so his daughter and grandson are forced to work to support him. Once Charlie gets the winning ticket…”it’s a miracle! “Grandpa Joe can suddenly walk, and even dance! He pressured Charlie to break Wonka’s rules (drink the fizzy liquid, give Slugworth the Everlasting Gobstopper, etc). He was the true “monster”.
The smoking thing w grampa and the cabbage water...... back in those days, you were a weirdo if you didn't smoke.... so that was just as part as eating
The movie was literally simple af & idky we’re goin through a psychological breakdown.. The movie was only to show the balance of good & evil while showing what one will do for their own guilty pleasure.. But the moment Willy Wonka actions changed it was the show just could be the actions u can get back when falling for temptation.. ALL EVERY CHILD & PARENT FELL FOR WAS THE TEMPTATION OF GETTING WHAT THEY WANTED WHICH WAS WHAT WAS IN THE FACTORY
Wonka was pulling all the strings to get those five particular kids, and forced the golden tickets on to them. This is proved by the prensence of "Slugworth" in each case. Wonka selected each child as exemplary of a different type of moral deficiency. This was all a lesson for Charlie, the selected uncorruptible heir. Which is why Wonka was so pissed he drank the fizzy lifting drinks. Grandpa Joe corrupted the uncorruptible child. But when Charlie decided, of his OWN FREE WILL, to return the everlasting gobstopper, in spite of Grandpa Joe's exhortations, he saw that Charlie had not been corrupted.
One thing I see in this has to do with the "Slugworth" red herring. We can assume that the other kids (and their parents) felt that Wonka screwed them over (even though THEY were the ones who disobeyed & disrespected HIM), so they probably had no problem handing over the Everlasting Gobstopper to "Slugworth" for the money & to destroy Wonka. Charlie, being the only kid to hold no malice to Wonka, refuses to do what Grandpa Joe suggests & THAT's why Wonka says he's won. Wonka sees that Charlie, even in the face of losing EVERYTHING, even the one thing that was given to him as a gift, cares for the integrity of Wonka's company, so he reveals that "Slugworth" is actually Mr. Wilkinson & that the company will now be his. After all, who better to learn under Wonka than someone who was willing to keep it intact, even if he couldn't be a part of it. He made a mistake, but he's still a kid. He holds no malice & accepts when he's done wrong, the first sign of growing into a good adult.
What’s frustrating, the not buying bread but buying candy wasn’t a character flaw as Charlie had been given a small chocolate for his birthday! Through I am confused about the adults being all crazy over it; as the contest was children only. Well movie plot was bonkers, Wonka was lucky he didn’t have 5 crazed adults. As I am sure they skipped making it ‘ 5 children, just 5 mind you, and no more’
Just came across this video. I think you've got everything spot on and agree with all of the points you made. However I think you missed one. if you were talking about the child you'd say "Boy or girl" "But Charlie, don't forget what happened to the MAN who suddenly got everything he always wanted" even the ending of a weird contradictory movie was spoiled because it's what Wonka always wanted, not charlie himself.. Now whilst charlie might of wanted all of this, and it's his dream that both Joe and wonka pushed on him wonka wasn't speaking about charlie in the closing moments, hence isn't charlie being groomed by those that have authority, and not something cute and cuddly.
I think that Charlie does not make a choice between the two strong influences (Wonka and granpa Joe) at the end of the movie. Children are impressionable and that can be dangerous for them. Therefore, children need to be protected. During the film Charlie is influenced by Wonka, granpa Joe and even his mother. However in the end he listens to the advice of his mother. He does not know he will win anything by giving Wonka the candy back. Charlie chooses to do this because, deep down, he knows its the right thing to doe. In essence childer are good (pure) and need to be guided in there lives to overkomen al the strong influences that can easely harm them. Guide them to the point that they know what the right thing to do is. Even under the pressure of influence of others. This also means that Wonka does not "win" in the end. Charlie his good nature will always surface and therefore Charlie is not going to go along with everyting that Wonka wants. Hopefully Wonka gets what he needs from Charlie. Guidance in the rest of his live. Guidance to again be somebody that knows what the right thing to do is. That is my interpretation of the film.
Of course "Slugworth" knew where all of the kids who got the Golden Tickets were. Mr. Wilkinson worked for Wonka, so he probably knew where all of the tickets were in the first place. Hell, Mr. Wilkinson was probably in charge of the distribution. By the way, Mr. Wilkinson is one of my favorite characters in the movie. I love how you only see him as the fake Slugworth, a dark & cruel man, but then, when he gets to reveal himself, he's a gentle man, but he's socially awkward.
Entire movie is a metaphor, the everlasting object is the soul. Slugworth is the devil. The kids are spirit, the adults are the body. Augustus is stuck like constipation. Veruca goes down to the furnace, (HELL), etc. Returning the everlasting object, (soul), to the creator results in him at the end going literally up to heaven.
What if I told you that that contract was humanly impossible to follow? The whole thing designed to give Wonka a pretext to deny the prize. Not because he ever intended to fully enforce it, but rather always was the final test. A shrewd, calculating master of misdirection who set everything up to test that after getting there by indulgence if they could overcome their base urges to be someone that could be trusted to run his wonderful world. A morally grey mad genius who sees a six to seven foot tall pre-adolescent or completely caked in garbage (and possibly mildly singed) or a permanent blue tinge as relatively unharmed. They didn't show the after kids, but perhaps should have. Great Glass Elevator could make for an interesting movie........
I feel like, in the future, if they do make a “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” adaptation following the “Wonka” prequel with Timothee Chalamet, they could play into how Wonka now is basically just become like Slugworth and Fickelgruber and Prodnose. With overtly exploitative contracts and lacking in the good will that his younger self had. He’s cornered the chocolate market from nothing and now he doesn’t want to let go of it. Firing all his workers for secret formulas, putting others out of business or simply buying them up, in contrast to his actively helpful and supportive younger years. And when at the end he tells Charlie that he’s inherited the chocolate factory and can adopt all of Wonkas ideas into his impressionable mind, Charlie’s like “No, that’s your pure imagination, not mine. I have my own ideas for chocolate. I don’t want to be a vessel to carry on you think of” And Wonka realises that Charlie is how he used to be. Perhaps Charlie goes off and with the good will he’s built with his friends, family and neighbours makes his own chocolate shop that becomes popular in its own humble way and because of that, Wonka has no more ideas so now all his chocolates taste rubbish He then eventually comes to his sense and starts helping Charlie out with his moderate chocolate business
For me, the layers of unspoken darkness in this film are part of its appeal. I do have a childhood nostalgic feeling watching it, but seeing more under the surface makes it compelling for me as an adult. No idea if that was intended by the filmmakers. As you said, this was meant to be an ad for chocolate bars. Also, Grampa Joe jumping up and getting on with things is lifted straight from the book. But I agree with you, even as a kid I questioned why he'd been faking his invalidity, and if the three other grandparents aren't faking theirs as well.
How about how the bad kids represent a deadly sin. Augustus= gluttony. Violet=envy or pride. Veruca=greed. Mike=sloth. Also in earlier versions of the book the oompa loompas were actually African pygmys. It was changed for obvious reasons.
