Thursday, October 24, 2019

Don't Fast Forward This One: Did Charlie Really Deserve the Chocolate Factory?

These "Don't Fast Forward" posts are my thinking points for specific movies. They're not meant to be reviews. 

The ending of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is probably nothing new to many people. And that probably goes for the previous hour and half, too. 
The movie is far from being an obscure picture. Very much the opposite. So, my take on the ending is probably bleedin' obvious.
But I've heard arguments claiming the end of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory taught an objectionable lesson. Some argue Charlie Bucket, the protagonist of the movie, is rewarded for "bad behavior" which is a terrible lesson for the film's young audiences. But is Charlie actually rewarded for bad behavior? 
This argument bugs me a bit because it's one of those opinions I know isn't the case.
In any good story, the protagonist needs to have a flaw they need to overcome. Otherwise, they usually have something they're trying to achieve or accomplish. There ought to be some kind of imperfection or struggle. It makes the character more relatable, and gives the audience a sense of hope that no matter what sins we've committed in our past. All is not lost.
In Charlie's case, his misdeed is a rather small one, but it's a misdeed none the less.
During the tour of Wonka's factory, Charlie and his grandpa Joe decide to lag behind and take a swig of some bubbly "fizzy lifting drink" Wonka previously said wasn't ready for consumption. He instructed his visitors not to drink any. 
As they chug, the gas causes them to float higher and higher. At first it's fun, until they float dangerously close to fan blades in the ceiling.
They both cling to the sides of the wall to avoid getting caught up there, until Grandpa Joe realizes that burping will release the gasses, and they'll float back towards the floor. They both think they got away with it, until the end of the movie.
There's also a point in the movie when Wonka shares a secret candy with his visitors - Everlasting Gobstoppers. It's a candy that won't dissolve no matter how long people suck on them. They're "everlasting!"
He makes each child promise not to let theirs fall into the hands on his adversarial competitor, Slugworth, as that would lead to Wonka's ruin.
At the end of the movie (SPOILER for those living in caves over the last 40 or so years and haven't seen this movie), when Charlie goes to collect his life time supply of chocolate promised him when he found the Golden Ticket, Wonka refuses and calls both of them out for breaking the rules by stealing some of his fizzy lifting drink. He tells them that they touched the sterile walls which now have to be sanitized. And according to the huge contract Charlie signed before the tour, the promise of chocolate is null and void as a result.
"You get nothing! You lose!" he shouts at Charlie and his Grandpa Joe.

Grandpa Joe grows angry and vengeful calling Wonka a crook and tries to retaliate by telling his grandson, "C'mon Charlie, if Slugworth wants a Gobstopper, he'll get one!"
But though Charlie already broke a rule, he's not about to break a promise.
Instead, he defies his own grandfather and through his actions admits what he did. He turns back to Wonka, and hands him his Gobstopper. Why? Because Charlie knows he doesn't deserve it for breaking this one rule. 
In my more youthful days, I saw this as Charlie loosing his appreciation for Wonka. I thought his returning the Gobstopper meant he simply didn't care for him anymore. But that really doesn't make sense as it would be a really conceited action. Though Charlie isn't a perfect child, he's certainly not conceited and dense like the other kids on the tour. 
And unlike the other kids who broke a rule or two, Charlie fesses up as expressed in his actions. That's what made him stand out above the rest.
"So shines a good dead in a weary world" Wonka says to himself when he's given back the Gobstopper.
As Charlie is honest and humble enough to take responsibility for his own actions, and give
something up because he knows he no longer deserves it, Wonka praises him. His honesty and integrity is just the sort of characteristics Wonka wants in a successor for his factory.
Wonka doesn't reward Charlie for stealing. He initially chastises him by denying him the reward - the lifetime supply of chocolate. 
But he rewards Charlie for admitting to what he did, and giving back what he was originally privileged to get but is no longer deserving of. A penitential act, indeed. 
If Wonka wanted an absolutely flawless child, he'd never find one.
Incidentally, this is something I hated, hated, hated in Tim Burton's remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 
Charlie Bucket in Burton's version is portrayed as absolutely flawless. He's so squeaky clean, Charlie is left being completely unrelatable. I mean, he's so perfect, I'm surprised Burton's movie doesn't end with Charlie rising from the dead to redeem us all. 
There are good kids, but no kid is flawless. Whether a child is a good child can be determined by how they deal with their shortcomings, and work to overcome them. This is what distinguishes Charlie from the other kids in the original 1971 version, making him the better choice for a successor to Wonka. 
With Burton's movie, there's nothing for Charlie to overcome. Burton's Charlie just takes the tour, looks innocent and cute, watches the other kids get picked off one by one, and then gets his reward. Boring! No lessons. Nothing for audiences to take away. The entire movie is a hot mess, but that's another blog post for another day.
The idea that Wonka simply rewards Charlie despite his misdeed completely misses the point of the ending. So, because of his honesty and humility, he deserved the factory when all was said and done.



Friday, October 18, 2019

Don't Fast Forward This One: Is Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy a Forgettable Comic Book Movie?

I came up with "Don't Fast Forward This One" posts as quick discussions about movies, or specific aspects to specific movies. They're not reviews...just thinking points.

I've read that Warren Beatty tried to get a movie adaptation of the comic strip Dick Tracy created by Chester Gould since 1975.
He finally succeeded in 1990. I was about second grade when Dick Tracy was released, and I was a fan. I even dressed as Dick Tracy for Halloween that year, with a cheap yellow trench coat and plastic fedora hat that had to be Scotch taped before Halloween arrived because I wore it too much before then. I even had a toy two-way wrist radio watch that digitally told time (I think?) and would light up red when pressing the small button on the side.
The movie is a fireworks show of color and sights. It looks like a modern film noir. I struggled unsuccessfully to come up with another movie Dick Tracy resembles. I couldn't find a single one, and I'm open to suggestions.
Dick Tracy came out a year after Tim Burton's Batman gave audiences a new perspective on the caped crusader, completely opposite of Adam West's campy Batman from the TV series of the 1960s. No doubt many audience members were unfamiliar with Frank Miller's dark Batman graphic novels at that time. These took comic book readers away from the corny 60s Batman before the movie took general audiences in that same direction. Burton, I believe, took inspiration from Frank Miller.
Aside from the cinematography, what makes Dick Tracy unique and important is (like Tim Burton's Batman) its demonstration of how a comic book movie can be a serious movie.
The movie is set around the 1940s. A small gang of mafia members (Little Face, the Brow, the Rodent, and Shoulders) are mowed down by a couple of tommy guns in the hands of rival gang members, Flattop and Itchy. Little do Flattop and Itchy know, this massacre was witnessed by a young street kid named..."Kid."
As Dick Tracy investigates, gangster "Lips" Manlis (Paul Sorvino) is forced to hand over his Club Ritz to notorious rival gang leader, Al "Big Boy" Caprice (Al Pacino). Big Boy then gives Lips a "cement bath" and then forces him to spend the rest of his days with the fishes.
Big Boy is determine to take over Lips's little empire, which includes his girlfriend, Breathless Mahoney (Madonna).
Tracy knows Big Boy is behind Lips's disappearance, but needs evidence and Breathless's testimony. What he uncovers in his investigation is bigger than he imagined.
The Dick Tracy comic strips first debut in 1931 by Chester Gould, before Superman and Batman.
They were colorful, silly, and offered a huge rogues gallery for Tracy to fight, each with a visually distinct characteristic stereotypical of mobsters - Pruneface, the Rodent, 88 Keys, the Brow, Lips Manlis, Ribs Macca, B.O. Plenty. The list is long. The idea behind these appearances is that crime is just as ugly on the outside as it is on the inside.
So, with the 1990 film, this silly and cartoonish comic strip became a movie experience that's gritty, even gory at times with scenes of criminals getting sprayed with bullets. It followed the example of Burton's Batman that a comic-based movie doesn't have to be corny or slapsticky.
Let's face it, the Superman movies had some of that. It didn't make those movies bad (well...the first and second Superman, anyways. Let's not talk about parts three and four.)
Dick Tracy demonstrated just how serious a comic movie can be. It's a triumph in its visuals, in its cast of big names (Al Pacino, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty...even Dick Van Dyke, James Caan, Catherine O' Hara, and Kathy Bates make cameos), and in its action special effects.
When the movie was released, Dick Tracy's profile was everywhere. Playmates produced a short lived toy line. McDonald's put out one of their sweepstakes games. Nintendo had a video game - a terrible video game! And then, it all just faded away into a footnote.
The story line has been often ridiculed as being uninteresting and lacking.
But Roger Ebert, who said Burton's Batman was "disappointing" called Dick Tracy a "masterpiece of studio artificiality, of matte drawings and miniatures and optical effects." He even claimed Dick Tracy outdid Batman, writing that it was a "sweeter, more optimistic movie."
He does criticize the movie not going into the villains a little more, claiming the movie glimpses over them too quickly. Well, ok...I agree to some degree but with all the villains in the movie, doing so could have been a little too much, and could have hindered the flow of the story.
What Batman started for comic book movies, Dick Tracy took to a new, and yet-to-be-matched, level. It may not be the best comic to movie adaptation. It is definitely far from the worst. Like Batman, it hoisted the genre to more respectable heights. Where Batman turned campy and silly into dark and gritty, Dick Tracy added color while keeping things dark. What Batman started, Dick Tracy helped solidify. I believe modern comic book movies (SpiderMan, The Avengers) can find roots in Warren Beatty's movie. It shouldn't be trodden on, and thrown into the heap of comic book film flops.


Also, as I mentioned the TV series Batman, the show's producer, William Dozier, made a pilot episode for a live-action Dick Tracy series that was similar in style to Batman.
However, as ratings for Batman were dropping at the time, ABC and NBC declined to purchase the series.
The show starred Ray MacDonnell as well as a very young Eve Plumb as a character called "Bonnie Braids." Plumb later stared as Jan Brady on The Brady Bunch.
According to tvobscurities.com, the series was going to be played straight when compared to Batman. Judging on the opening title sequence, found here, the series definitely looked like it would be similar to Batman. (Sigh...what could have been.)


Friday, October 4, 2019

Freaked (1993)

I wonder if they're still casting 'Gremlins 3?"

Director
Alex Winter and Tom Stern

Cast
Alex Winter - Ricky Coogan
Michael Stoyanov - Ernie
Megan Ward - Julie
Randy Quaid - Elijah C. Skuggs
Alex Zuckerman - Stuey Gluck

The term "cult" is used often to describe a lot of movies. I think it's often misused. "Cult" is meant to describe generally unpopular obscure films that manage to have a fan base for the simple fact they're bad or obscure yet still entertain.
For example, some audiences consider A Christmas Story to be a cult film. But the thing is, though it was a low-budget movie, and faded for a short time after its 1983 release, it's well established in pop culture now. It's by no means an obscure movie. Low budget doesn't mean cult.
Freaked is a movie I hadn't heard of until a few months ago. It definitely has a specific target audience- a specific group of fans. It's Airplane meets Tim Burton, meets Pee Wee's Playhouse, meets that weird animation scene Rob Zombie did for Beavis and Butthead Do America.
This flick cost about $13 million to make (mostly towards its special effects), but it only made back a little over $29,000.
According to IMDB.com, some audiences believed this was going to be a sequel to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure as it stars Alex Winter and an uncredited Keanu Reeves. It also stars William Sadler who starred as the Grim Reaper in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey in 1991. They must have been sorely disappointed to learn that wasn't the case.
A lot of celebrities are in this movie - Brooke Shields, Randy Quaid, Megan Ward, Mr. T, and Bobcat Goldthwait, and a cameo by Morgan Fairchild.
I just cannot say it's a good movie, even if I believed it to be so. I just can't. I don't think it's meant to be a good movie. It's meant to be a comedy filled with gross-out humor, pseudo science fiction, with one liner after one liner and sight gag after sight gag.
There is so much happening here. And it definitely accomplished what it set out to do.
Directed by Alex Winter and Tom Stern, both of whom were in the Bill & Ted movies, it's a gross and a high energy movie.
Winter plays a former child star, Ricky Coogan, who shares his story on a talk show hosted by Skye Daley (Brooke Shields) of how he became so hideously disfigured...or, "freaked."
His story begins with his accepting a contract from a giant company called E.E.S. (Everything Except Shoes) that'll ensure he promotes a toxic fertilizer called Zygrot 24 in South America.
The E.E.S. CEO (William Sadler) offers Coogan $5 million, which he can't refuse.
So, Coogan flies down to the South American town of San Flan (snicker) with his buddy, Ernie (Michael Stoyanov). While on the flight, he finds his "number one fan" - a 12-year old Alfred E. Neuman looking kid named Stuey Gluck (Alex Zuckerman), He's constantly referred to as a troll throughout the movie.
Gluck begs Coogan not to promote the toxic stuff, but he ignores the pleas.
When they finally land in South America, they stumble across a group of environmental protesters.
Coogan sets his eyes on one cute protester named Julie (Megan Ward).
In an attempt to hook up with Julie, Coogan disguises himself as an accident victim, body bandages and all, and tells her they're also protesters.
She agrees to join them for another protest elsewhere. But as Julie is driving to the next location with them, she figures out it's really Coogan, and now she's stuck with them.
While driving, they decide to make a stop at Freek Land - a local freak show.
When they arrive, they end up kidnapped by the demented proprietor/ scientist, Elijah C. Skuggs (Randy Quaid).
Skuggs turns them into freaks using some green slimey chemical, and keeps them to show them off for his tourists.
While being held captive, they run into other freaks - Ortiz the Dog Boy (Keanu Reeves), a human worm (Derek McGrath), a cowboy that's really a human cow (John Hawkes), a bearded lady (Mr. T), and Sockhead, who actually has a sock puppet for a head (Bobcat Goldthwait), to name some.
Coogan explains in the interview how he and the others managed to escape Freek Land.
Among the stop motion special effects, the jokes and gags, and the makeup, what impressed me was Winter's makeup and dialogue. Half of his face was mutated, and the prosthetic teeth and lips kept him from being able to completely close his mouth. He clearly had to say his lines off-camera, so they could be dubbed in. There's no way he could have spoken coherently without being able to completely close his mouth. It is done so well. His tone matched his mannerisms and body language perfectly. It sounds like a small detail, but I'm sure filming a majority of the movie unable to close his mount was no small feat for Winter. His character drooled and spit a lot after being transformed. I read on IMDB.com that this excessive saliva was real, caused by the prosthetics.
I couldn't take my eyes off this movie. So much went into this movie, or so it seems.
One running joke that made me laugh was the "spiritual connection" between Coogan and Gluck.
Through this connection, Coogan is able to show Gluck what he's become, and Gluck makes a crude, childish drawing of what Coogan looks like, all "freaked-out."
He tries to take his drawing and his story to several major newspapers. As he does this, we see the silhouettes of Gluck and each news reporter through the translucent doors of each paper in a film noir fashion. Each one ends up physically throwing him through the glass on the door.
One newspaper does take the story, and offers to pay the kid. When the reporter tells someone off camera "show the kid out." Gluck responds, "I know the way out" and chucks himself out the window. It's funnier when you see it.
I never heard of this movie until about six months ago from the date of this post. I laughed a lot. I was overall entertained. And Alex Winter put a lot into this movie. Through the saliva and heaving makeup, it showed.
There are also two walking Rastafarian eyeballs with guns making sure the freaks don't escape. I'll just lay that little tidbit of movie fact right here, and let the reader deal with it themselves. I just can't explain this part of the movie. It's not lazy writing. I just can't get myself to do it without making it sound less sensical for the reader than it is. Again, two Jamaican eyeballs with guns are walking around FreekLand.
Freaked is definitely for a specific audience. It's as though Alex Winter and Tom Stern had an idea and just went without, throwing caution to the wind. If that was the case, then good for the both of them. They managed to get some big names attached, and...boom! Freaked! They made a legit cult movie. The idea behind it came from both directors' show The Idiot Box. 
I don't know if this flick is available on DVD or not. I think it is? Regardless, I found it on YouTube, and watched it that way. I doubt the studio would really care.


The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

" There might be a lot we don't know about each other. You know, people seldom go to the trouble of scratching the surface of thing...