Archive for category Childhood Revisited
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Childhood Revisited, Film, Music, Uncategorized, Writing on June 4, 2010
Wonka and his infamous "pimp" cane.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory – (1971)
Director: Mel Stuart
Starring: Gene Wilder, Jack Alberston, Peter Ostrum
Screenplay by: Roald Dahl, David Seltzer
(I apologize for the delays with the Childhood Revisited saga. It’s been a tough couple of months, and as I started working on 2 side projects, as well as providing the occasional write-up for Destructoid [along with the day job], which left me struggling to do weekly writeups. So while I won’t be getting back into the weekly C.R. reviews, I’ll try and provide one or two every month. No promises, as I also like to write about other things. :) )
I had the recent pleasure of watching The Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was a lot more fun than I expected. And with my recent foray into all things animated, light, whimsical and fun, I thought it would be fitting to try re-watching Willy Wonka. (I wonder if I should review James and the Giant Peach at some point.) It was supposed to be a Valentine’s Day write-up, then an Easter one, but I missed all those dates, so now it’s simply a regular one. I’m a bit rusty with my analysis of these things, so forgive me if it seems a bit “off.”
NOSTALGIC LENS: Every so often, there’s a not-so-subtle push to rear kids via their (supposedly) most-loved passion: candy. This and books like The Chocolate Touch used thinly-veiled metaphors to teach lessons through the delight and, uh, power of confectionery. I liked candy, but didn’t LOVE it, so I pretty much tossed aside the lessons as pointless to me. As for the movie itself, I remembered bits and pieces, but nothing that stood out, save for the chocolate river scene. Oddly enough, the part that freaks people out the most – the psychedelic boat ride – was completely gone from my memory.
DOES IT HOLD UP: I love the 70s completely unironically – from its overall sense of fashion and style, to its endearing exuberance to its cheesy TV shows, lame game show concept, overwrought music, and “whatever” dance styles in vogue (the commitment to these entertainment styles is what makes them stand out). 70s films were, overall, of two types: deep in a bizarre sense, and comical in an ironic, detached sense. One of the reasons Star Wars stood out was that its blockbuster sensibilities was so novel and straightforward and played everything real.
Willy Wonka makes great use of the latter aesthetic, being such a whimsical, devil-may-care type of film. I’ve never read the original novel, but even I can gather how much it deviated from it. (Apparently Dahl hated it.) It’s a musical, yes, but even through its melodies and comedy, the film just breaks from its original narrative not only for song cues, but for random gags attributed to a specific point in the story. It’s two insane stories in one: a international assault-search for golden tickets in Wonka bars, and a tour of Wonka’s eccentric factory with goofy yet semi-dark consequences, and during each section, we’re treated to almost variety-show-like moments that seem to take in the full extent of filmic styles of the time. The separate beats seem off but are remarkably held together by a strong and coherent style, a fun cast, and a catchy batch of tunes.
This ten minute clip is the perfect epitome to showcase what I mean. The slightly awkward “child in the chocolate” part is undermined by goofy faces and Wonka’s witticisms – which is then undermined again when he is sucked up the tube into god-knows-where. Scary? Not for long – a goofy whistle and a Oompah Loompah song calms the nerves and teaches you a quiet lesson, kiddies. That’s fine. And then it’s a boat ride into a drug-fueled TUNNEL OF HORROR, because why not?
Then it’s back to the fun stuff.
Willy Wonka is a huge risk of a film, because there’s no reason for anything to happen the way it does. There no need for the music numbers, or the side jokes, or the abject weird tunnel scene or any number of visual elements; nor is Wonka supposed to be a laureate of classic literature and poetry. But it’s there. And if there’s one thing that the internet has taught me, it’s that if you’re going to do something for no reason, you might as well do it amazingly, like if you were to, oh, let’s say, do a live-action version of the song “After Today” from A Goofy Movie.
Of course, not all of it is random, and I’m happy to say that the parts that do matter are just as great as the parts that don’t. Gene Wilder is a great Wonka, that perfect mystery of a character who’s both carefree and careless, who carries the film during ever dark and light moment with nary a concern in the world. All the children were surprisingly great, even being mostly one note, although I will give special mention to Veruca Salt, played by Julie Dawn Cole, for being such a great spoiled brat and really owning the character. The set design and cinematography is exquisite, the gags still hold up, and the music is exceedingly endearing: tell me you don’t want to sing along to “Pure Imagination”:
Still, its dated aesthetic is still apparent, and as I mentioned earlier, certain gags come off a bit stilted and awkward. (And that ending is so tacked on and rushed that it’s really disappointing). But overall, its enjoyable and, unlike other musicals, the songs aren’t way too long.
IN A NUTSHELL: Want makes this movie truly work is that, despite its visual datedness, it’s still really a delight and would definitely hold up for children today (which I couldn’t quite say for something like The Goonies or Wizard of Oz.) It’s emphasis on kids and their behavior, against the backdrop of sugary goodness (which will NEVER grow old) makes Willy Wonka a particularly, yet truly, timeless classic.
NEXT FILM: Cats Don’t Dance
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Childhood Revisited, Film, Television, Uncategorized, Writing on December 28, 2009
1965 version of "It's on."
A Charlie Brown Christmas – (1965)
Director: Bill Melendez
Starring: Peter Robbins, Tracy Stratford, Christopher Shea
Screenplay by: Charles Schulz
Time to end 2009 with a bit of controversy: I think Charles Schulz’ Peanuts is a better comic than Bill Watterson’s Calvin and Hobbes. Don’t get me wrong, both are excellent, iconic strips that defined sense of the human condition through the eyes of surprisingly cognizant children. Calvin, however, seemed more aggressive in dealing with the hardships and realities of the world, able to cope via his imaginary stuffed animal, made-up sports, and exaggerated snowmen. Peanuts had no such outlet. Life sucked, and the children dealt with it.
I think Watterson’s reputation is hinged partially on his isolation and his unwillingness to allow his characters to be marketed or “sold out”. Admirable, certainly, but I believe that if something stands the test of time, no amount of toys, dolls, TV programs, shot glasses, and pillowcases will in no way diminish the impact of the icon (see: the early Simpsons). Besides, it’s not exactly easy to market Peanuts. Other than Snoopy (and maybe Woodstock), you’re not really making dolls of the Peanuts cast. Items derived from the comic are manifested through representing idyllic scenes; calendars, snow globes and posters. You’re not giving a child a stuffed version of a bald, wishy-washy child. (They do make them, I doubt they sell too well.)
More pro-Peanuts later in the piece.
NOSTALGIC LENS: Somehow, Peanuts had always appealed to me, whether it was this special, You’re a Good Man, Snoopy Comes Home, or the weekly strips in my local newspaper. While I wasn’t too much into the educational/religious aspects, I did adore watching Chuck try so hard to just enjoy life, but to have crap happen at every turn. Surprisingly, he still is adamantly perseverant, and perhaps that what made him so appealing to me.
DOES IT HOLD UP: I always imagine the theme of Peanuts to be a rigid determination to stand up against the constant pressures of realities that falls upon even the most innocent members of society. Simply put: “Life fucking sucks, even for children – but fuck it.”
The comics exemplify this the most. The cartoons seem oddly askew to the newspaper strip, however; it’s like comparing Richard Pryor’s stand-up to his film roles. Sure, you can see the similarities, but the material is just an odd shade of the original content. The cartoons tend to be comic series designed in animated form, and for the movies and specials, they still maintain the four-panel style in delivery (bit, bit, bit, PUNCHLINE), but, somehow, have a innate beauty to them, a real sense of melancholy and splendor that pervades the awkward timing and continuity of the actual program.
A Charlie Brown Christmas, the first animated Peanuts show released, showcases all this; its positives (vaguely dark and esoteric humor, intriguing direction by Melendez, a beautiful score by Vince Guaraldi) and its negatives (terrible segues, incomprehensible elements to the story, weak voice work from children) combine to create a child-like sense of whimsy and innocent foray into the true meaning of Christmas.
Charlie Brown reminds me of a young Holden Caulfield. A lost soul trying to find the real meaning of the holiday among the falsities, “phonies,” and commercialization, Brown wakes up depressed for no reason as the kids around him seem more in-tuned into the Christmas spirit. He’s looking for the true meaning, but, why bother? He didn’t get any Christmas cards from anyone. His dog got a free pile of bones. He was chosen to direct the Christmas play, but he sucks at it. What is it all for, Brown wonders?
Linus, the show’s educational mouthpiece, tells us:
Even in 1965, this was ballsy. CBS executives were horrified, seeing such a blatant speech delivered in a Christmas special. Melendez tried to talk Schulz out of it, who apparently convinced him by saying “If we don’t do it, who will?” Melendez and executive producer Lee Mendelson were convinced this would be a flop. But, like a Christmas miracle, it was a hit, the speech becoming the most memorable part of the show. While today the ultra-religious element doesn’t hold up, what with the Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and other holidays celebrated at this time, the feel of the spirit, espoused in that speech, seems to resonate more than the speech itself.
I think Charlie Brown’s story around the tree is much more resonate and significant to the special’s appeal. When told to get a tree for the play, instead of a fake, metal, colored pine, Charlie Browns grabs a dying real one, a clear reflection of himself and inner troubles concerning the holiday. Of course, he’s un-mercilessly ridiculed for it, but, due to Linus’s speech, he feels that at the very least, he could save it; i.e., save “real Christmas”.
The Peanuts children may embrace the season’s commercialism, but they also have the heart and mindset to understand the season’s abstract meanings of togetherness and spirit. Schulz’s point is that Christmas’s can be both about gifts, products, and advertising (this was originally sponsored by Coca-Cola, after all), and still maintain the importance and impact of the season’s meaning. You can have your cake and eat it too.
This is why I love Schulz. You can be a sellout and still purport beauty and meaning.
IN A NUTSHELL: A Charlie Brown Christmas is as endearing as I remember it. I adore how the show’s essence takes precedent over its flaws; it’s almost like an art film where its nonsensical elements are secondary to the feeling the special exudes. Also, on the DVD, the It’s Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown special was on it. While it wasn’t nearly as rich as the 1965 show, it still was a lot of fun, with an excellently played gag with Sally and a screwed up line.
I will take the month of January off from the CHILDHOOD REVISITED feature, as I will be going on vacation and focusing on a few other writing projects. I will update with current status of how that goes. I will return to this in February, with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory!
CHILDHOOD REVISITED – A GOOFY MOVIE
Posted by kjohnson1585 in Animation, Childhood Revisited, Film, Uncategorized on December 20, 2009
This is the first time I've seen Goofy pissed.
A Goofy Movie – (1995)
Director: Kevin Lima
Starring: Bill Farmer, Jason Marsden, Jim Cummings, Kellie Martin
Screenplay by: Jymn Magon, Chris Matheson, Brian Pimental
Goof Troop wasn’t that good of a show. While the attempt at animated, goofy ,domestic comedy was admirable, it was clear that the writers were better at stories with theoretically no limits. They tried to “wacky-fy” typical household scenarios, plots you’d see in an average sitcom, but without the sense of irony or true freedom to push for true physical humor (anvil drops, explosions, and so on). The DVD had an episode of Goof Troop on it, and while it was better than I expected, its flaws are still as prevalent as before.
So it’s no surprise that none of the show’s writers are credited on A Goofy Movie, a more adult look at the now-teenage son of Goofy, named Max, as he runs the typical route of being himself and accepting/avoiding his embarrassing father. And a cute girl’s in the picture, too, so there’s that. We’ve all seen this kind of thing before.
NOSTALGIC LENS: I don’t think I enjoyed this movie too much, but I did see it quite often, which makes me think there was something I enjoyed about it. I think the animation was rather nice for what it was at the time. There’s a cool, if out-dated dance scene at the end, though.
DOES IT HOLD UP: That irony and self-awareness that wasn’t present in the TV show? Running on all cylinders here. The new set of writers that were tapped to script this movie has a much better handle on the domestic drama, on the complications of father-son relationships, of teenage angst and the role of defining masculinity through nurturing over the years. Well… the Disney version at least.
Loser kid Max Goof pranks the last day of school with a huge mimetic performance of hit R&B singer, Powerline. This prompts a call from his principle to his father, Goofy, er, Goof, who scares him into thinking he’s on a one-way ticket to the electric chair. In a panic, Goofy forces his son on a road trip to bond, in order to influence him to do good things instead of life. Awkward goofy moments follow moments of togetherness and so on. Nothing you wouldn’t see in any other generic bonding film.
Of course, since it’s a Disney film, and it stars Goofy, we’re treated to some fun, wacky moments and typical music. And, since we’re not forced with some Princess that needs to be redeemed or beautified, the moments are more enjoyable than you expect them to be. Decently smooth animation and fluid movements helps in that regard; and can I say I did enjoy the songs a lot? Other than “On the Open Road,” which is more or less a “goofy” tune for some visual and audio humor, and “Nobody Else But You,” a way-too-easy, sum-it-up redemption melody, the music has some engaging 90s-esque sensibilitites. (And even those songs aren’t mind-numbingly grating):
Powerline could be a legit singer if he was real.
For the first half of the film, A Goofy Movie follows the usual plot points and beats, nothing too exciting but fun nonetheless. A particular amusing stop at a possum-themed, hillbilly tourist trap exposes some of Max’s hatred and embarrassment for his father — which is redeemed later when he and his father come together while trapped in their car from a silly yet vicious Bigfoot. It’s interesting to note that the writers do a decent job of keeping the adults’ overall misunderstanding of the teenage lifestyle. The principle, for example, completely confuses Max’s Powerline costume for gang member garb. I know that Twitter may be out his league (also it being 1995), but geez, watch a damn TV show once in a while.
But then, suddenly, the movie shifts, HARD, on a dime, during a moment where Pete and Goofy chat about their respective kids in a hot tub. After the typical high-spirited montage, things take hard edge at a sea-themed motel. Notice at 4:00, the sudden visual darkness and the serious tone the conversation takes. Farmer and Cummings, who spent the bulk of their movie speaking in their comic, sillier voices (Farmer maintains that levity even during the scene where Goofy and Max bond), get, literally, deep in the water.
Cummings delivery, “Hey, my son respects me,” is chilling. There’s a scary undertone here. There’s some implicit questioning and criticisms of the other’s parenting techniques, of how to best raise their child. Goofy doesn’t seem so goofy here; it’s the first time you will ever see him truly worried, concerned, reluctant, or angry. The rest of the movie tries to lighten the mood, but that hot tub scene hangs over every single frame that comes afterwards. This is a good thing, mind you.
The final scene is a little, well, goofy, but it’s too be expected. And the denouement is a sweet, if melodramatic moment where Max gets the girl and has a better acceptance of his father’s behavior. It would be a little overbearing had that hot tub scene not ratchet the drama up to Powerline 11.
IN A NUTSHELL: I was surprised by my overall enjoyment of the film. It seems the weakest element was the entire river/waterfall scene, a mediocre, on-the-nose section dedicated to the mending of relationships. But again, it’s a Disney film, so I’m not railing on it too much– and besides, that motel scene already won the film several points, giving the lesser compelling elements a pass.
December 28th: A Charlie Brown Christmas