You know, about a month ago on TGWTG.com, ERod made a follow-up video on excellent voice actors. While he did list even more people I think are brilliant, one of the names he didn't mention was Jeff Bennett.
Bennett has done voice acting for television and film for over twenty years. If you were to look up his name on IMDB.com you would probably find AT LEAST fifty shows and movies you might know him from.
How good is he? Well, let me put it like this. You know how the straight-to-video Disney sequels usually star professional voice actors (because Hollywood schmucks won't give them the roles they DESERVE in theatrical animated features)?
Well, not only has Bennett done some fine voice-acting work in those, but in "Lady and the Tramp II" he did the voices for Tramp, Jock, Trusty, and the Dog-Catcher. That's right, he played a lead character, an irritable Scottish terrier, a cartoon bloodhound with all his iconic mannerisms, and a non-threatening human antagonist who sounded like Don Knotts. If you ever find yourself watching that movie, just bear that in mind. One guy played all those very different characters. (Even with my vast knowledge of movie trivia, I still have a hard time trying to wrap my brain around that.)
Naturally, being the animation nerd that I am, this compelled me to want to write a Top Seven List.
Why only seven? Well, for this list I have set up some ground rules.
First of all, these have to be active characters with names.
Bennett plays a lot of incidental characters and that includes panicking bystanders. He also plays one-shot characters, half of whom don't even have names. So when it comes to his TV credits I tried to pick RECURRING characters, folks who show up on more than one occasion in the series they're featured in. (So Mitch the store clerk from "Animaniacs" is out.)
And I'm also refraining from choosing characters who are basically caricatures. While good voice impressions require a distinct talent and are undoubtedly funny, you need more than that for the basis of an actual character. (So his Dennis Hopper character from "Animaniacs" is out too.)
So, without further ado, these are my Top Seven Favorite Jeff Bennett Characters.
Number 7
Foghorn Leghorn and Yosemite Sam in "Looney Tunes: Back in Action"
Something that almost every voice actor experiences is to play a pre-existing character. Sometimes it's an animated adaptation of a book or a comic, sometimes they have to replace actors who have left the show, or sometimes they get to play characters who have existed in cartoons for decades. This is the third category.
I've written an article as to why I don't like "Looney Tunes: Back in Action", but in said article I mentioned that I did like the animation and the voice acting. This movie had greats like June Foray, Billy West and Joe Alasky.
In this, Bennett plays the roles of Foghorn Leghorn and Yosemite Sam. Their parts in the movie are very small, but then again nearly all the classic Looney Tunes characters get tossed aside and are at best thrown in for a cameo.
However the fact that these two actually share a scene together kind of makes it worthwhile for a mildly funny joke about Blackjack.
Sam yells, "Hit me!" and Foghorn responds by hitting him with a two-by-four.
"He's the boss."
Admittedly I did think that was kind of funny.
Maybe it's just kind of surreal to me to see Foghorn beat up Sam. Also you've got the two characters that the one actor plays, and they're actually interacting. While it's not too much of a stretch, in part due to the fact that Mel Blanc played even more characters, there is a real contrast between the bombastic Yosemite Sam and the more laid-back Foghorn Leghorn.
By the time I saw this movie I had known Bennett from some other shows (which I will get to on this list), and I never would have guessed that it was him doing Yosemite Sam's trademark yelling and rambling.
Foghorn and Sam. I may not like this movie, but the cartoons are still the best part.
Number 6.
Johnny Bravo from… "Johnny Bravo"
While I know Johnny Bravo is probably the most iconic of his characters, I sort of put him low on the list because I never watched much of the show. For the most part I just didn't get the humor of it, but I can't deny Johnny Bravo himself is actually an entertaining character to watch.
He's one of those jerks you often run into at social gatherings, the ones that try to assert their "manliness" onto the world even though they've really got nothing going for them except hair gel. Or, in more crude terms, a douche-bag.
But Bravo is actually more likable than your run-of-the-mill douche. While most douche-bags are just a**holes, Bravo's more of a dumb-ass. He thinks he's hot stuff but he's really just a schmuck and the chicks don't want him. It's like he's so pathetic that to watch him try and fail is kind of adorable. (Like watching a chihuahua trying to perform the feats of a doberman.)
What's also kind of funny is that Bennett's voice for Bravo is really just an Elvis impression, and yet that on it's own is funny to listen to. He puts so much personality and gusto into the character that it's no longer just an Elvis voice, it's Johnny Bravo.
Number 5.
Baloney the Dinosaur and Baynarts the Woodchuck from "Animaniacs"
While these two never interacted in the show, I put them together on the list because they were both memorable recurring characters.
I had to put Baloney the Dinosaur this one on the list because it's one of the most memorable parodies on "Animaniacs", a parody of that friggin' "Barney the Dinosaur". I just love that voice because it sums up the worst of children's programming: unrealistically happy and utterly mindless. You hear that voice and you know the creature that's speaking is something that only has empty space between its ears and a permanent smile on its face.
Baynarts the Woodchuck, on the other hand, is at the opposite end of the spectrum. He's a furry critter who wants to make an artist of himself in Hollywood, but he never succeeds.
In the cartoon "Hollywoodchuck" he auditions for a movie with hopes of becoming a real actor, changing his name to "Charlton Woodchuck", but in his first movie he gets pummeled, almost eaten, stung by bees, and blown up.
In "Nutcracker Slappy" he is the director for a Slappy Squirrel cartoon and he wants to make something artistic and symbolic, but that doesn't fare well with the traditional comedienne Slappy who goes off-script and winds up stuffing him inside a walnut shell in a fit of frustration.
And then in "The Kid in the Lid", a parody of "The Cat in the Hat", he plays the role of the pet woodchuck who tells the kids to throw out the Kid in the Lid (aka Yakko), but his efforts are rewarded with the house getting flooded and Baynarts gets stuck in the toilet.
Baynarts's voice sounds like it's coming from a cute and cuddly critter, but he takes himself with real dignity.
(And, in case you haven't seen those cartoons, Bennett's voice for Baynarts is similar to his voice for Pip in "Enchanted". And his voice for Baloney is like if Bullwinkle J. Moose had a frontal lobotomy AND was high on nitrous oxide.)
Number 4.
All of his recurring characters in "Freakazoid"
Yeah, I know I'm kind of cheating here, but honestly Bennett played five characters that appeared on the show more than once, and each of their parts were kind of short. But they each had very distinctive voices and mannerisms that, again, you wouldn't guess were coming from the same man's mouth.
"Freakazoid" featured a slew of funny villains, three of which Bennett played. The haughty Cave Guy, the suspicious oddball Mr. Jeepers, and the spooky boogeyman Candle Jack.
He also loaned his voice to a couple heroes who would appear in separate segments; the overly-dramatic Huntsman, and the fussy Lord Bravery, both of which were very funny in their own right.
Honestly, all I can tell you is to actually watch "Freakazoid". Not only for Bennett's incredible versatility, but the writing on the show was damn funny. Lord knows when I just listen to it while I work on drawings it gives me the good pick-me-up that I need.
Number 3.
Ace from "Powerpuff Girls"
This was actually the first character I remembered Jeff Bennett for. Now, on the show he played various crooks, monsters and bystanders, and in the Gangreen Gang he also played Grubber and Big Billy. But for me Ace was the one who stood out.
While I love just about all the villains on PPG Ace was always one of my personal favorites because he was such a wise guy.
For the most part he and his buds were just punks who would trash stores and deface other people's property.
But I think he stood out to me because of the episode "Buttercrush". In said episode, Buttercup (of all people) develops a crush on him and wants to hang out with him. Ace decides to take advantage of this and while he has Buttercup distracted his boys try to kill her sisters. Good thing she accidentally smashed a wall and unveiled his plan so she could save her sisters and whoop the Gang's asses.
Part of the reason I love this episode is that Buttercup barely has any lines, but you know what's going through her head. At the end when she gives Ace the beating of a lifetime you just know she's thinking, "YOU DON'T MESS WITH MY SISTERS!!"
I also love that episode because it's probably one of the sneakiest, most devious plots to be conjured by a PPG villain. Actually gain the trust of one of the girls and take it from there.
It's believable. While Buttercup is like the last girl in Townsville you'd expect to ever have feelings for a guy, seeing as how that love stuff is gross, with her rebellious nature it makes sense that she would have a crush on such a bad boy.
Also I love the design of Ace; in this hyper-stylized world, it's like he walks the line between being ugly and cute.
… Not that I myself had some kind of crush on him when I was a kid…
(Ahem!) Moving along!
Number 2.
Jack Ryder/The Creeper from "Batman TAS"
The character of Jack Ryder only appeared in the final season of "Batman TAS", and the Creeper only appeared in one episode. Much like Harvey Dent in the first season, we got to see the guy as he was before he became his alter-ego.
For those who haven't seen this episode here's the basic plot.
While filming a news story Jack Ryder is sprayed with Joker's laughing gas and then tossed into a vat of chemicals. Instead of killing him, the combination instead turns him into a yellow-skinned (though it looks more like lime-green to me) green-haired maniac who's going to get back at the Joker. And by happenstance he also falls for Harley Quinn. (But, let's be honest, who DOESN'T love Harley?)
At the end of the episode Batman does figure out a way to restore Ryder's sanity, but it's also foreshadowed that the Creeper may return in future episodes.
And then a few episodes later the show ended. (If this were a video you'd see my ultimate "Disappointed" face.)
Don't you just hate that? A show gives you something to look forward to in the future and the network cancels it. (Grrrr….)
Interesting trivia note, though: when Bruce Timm originally pitched his idea for "Freakazoid", this was what he had in mind. A good-guy version of the Joker.
Honestly, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of the Creeper. He was like Jim Carrey as the Mask; cartoony, insane, a bit destructive, but benign. An episode or two in which Batman has to work with him and put up with his antics would have been pretty interesting, or at least entertaining.
While the voice itself doesn't really change, the character does. You can really hear a distinct difference between the straight-laced Jack Ryder and the nuttier-than-a-fruitcake Creeper.
The Creeper; how many people can upper-cut Batman without turning around?
And my Number 1 Favorite Jeff Bennett Character is…
Bradley Uppercrust, III from "An Extremely Goofy Movie"
Yeah, that's right. A character from a straight-to-video Disney sequel is my favorite. Why? Because he really is the best part of the movie.
If you're wondering what my opinion is of this Disney sequel, it's okay. I'd argue it's among the "Least Awful" Disney sequels. It has some good character animation most of the time, but you'll see a lot of continuity errors. You might get bored, but you won't get sick. (Unless you're allergic to ESPN tie-ins, to which I say, "Ingest in small doses".)
One of the problems the movie suffers from is the characters aren't very interesting, not even the pre-existing ones. While the character animation is very energetic and dynamic, most of the jokes aren't that funny. (Though that joke about the gloves always gets a chuckle out of me.)
The basic story is that Max has gone off to college and to his dismay Goofy has to attend classes with him to get a degree. In addition to school there is also the College X-Games competition which the Gamma House, led by Bradley Uppercrust III, has won just about every time. How? They cheat, with methods that would probably be investigated and found out. (Seriously, is there no security and surveillance at these games?)
Granted, Bennett plays other characters in this movie (including a receptionist who sounds like Harvey Fierstein), but I picked Bradley because he freaking OWNS this character, man! It's like the voice has merged with the animation.
Bradley is probably the best character in the movie because he is somehow simultaneously cool and hammy. It's like if James Bond was a villain on the Adam West Batman show.
He kind of reminds me of Professor Ratigan in that he loves what he does, and that is cheat at every turn. He takes pride in him and his buddies cheating.
I really found it interesting that for a guy with a name like "Uppercrust" the story didn't try to hammer in the idea that he's rich and therefore evil. Instead he commands the other Gammas like a pack of trained dogs, and that's kind of entertaining on its own. (In fact, he's kind of like Ace without the skin condition.)
Also when I really think about it, how long has he and his buds been competing in the College X-Games? Unless he's studying for a Master's degree, how long is he planning on staying in college for these tournaments that he's clearly just in for the glory? There's no financial reward or scholarship or endorsement contract mentioned, so what do you win at these games aside from a trophy and publicity?
Bradley can also get pretty threatening too. When Goofy says he's going to leave the team, does Bradley get pissed!
"Nobody quits the Gammas!"
Dude! It's just a sports competition! And there's nothing at stake except your undeserved reputation! The only reason you want to win is to keep your place as a winner! And Goofy makes an interesting point that if you're such winners then you don't really need him.
Seriously, this dude got issues!
Not to mention he's a f***in' sociopath. At the end of the final race he doesn't even bat an eye at the possibility he might have killed his right-hand man and Max. (They survive, of course, but still!)
But also in the voice itself, Bennett doesn't make him sound like Chris Walken or Dennis Hopper. This voice is one of his more normal-sounding voices and yet he still stands out as the most interesting and entertaining character in the entirety of this mediocre movie.
Bradley is, by all accounts, a two-dimensional villain, and yet because of Jeff Bennett's performance, he really FEELS like a well-rounded character.
I hope you enjoyed this list, my friends, and that was the tip of the iceberg, at best! I haven't even gotten into Bennett's singing parts!
Originally written in 2006 as a part of my college application
Originally written in 2006 as a part of my college application
To Chat with a Cheshire Cat
What do such memorable Disney characters as "Winnie the Pooh", "Kaa" from The Jungle Book, and the "Cheshire Cat" from Alice in Wonderland have in common? They were all played by character actor Sterling Holloway, who retired in 1978 and passed away in 1992 at age eighty-seven. He mostly played supporting roles in comedies, musicals, and westerns. He is most well-known as a voice actor for a number of Disney shorts and movies. I'd want to spend an evening with him because I'd like to get to know him as a person, not just as the voice behind Kaa and Winnie the Pooh.
One reason I look up to him is because he worked hard to get into the movie business. He started off in a theater troupe when he was a teenager and had attended both the Georgia Military Academy and the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. I also look up to him because unlike most of the big-time Hollywood actors of today, his physical appearance was more along the lines of odd but average, something that just about anyone can relate to. He had bushy blondish-red hair, blue eyes, and freckles. Because of his youthful charm, most of the characters he played were supposed to be quite young, like a soda jerk or a messenger boy.
However, I think the major reason I look up to him is because I had grown up watching the animated movies and short cartoons he appeared in. By the time I turned seven, I could identify his voice if I was watching an old cartoon on the Disney Channel.
The animated characters he had played also intrigue me regarding the personalities, and I say this as a writer as well as a cartoon-watcher.
When he appeared in Dumbo as "Mr. Stork", it was probably the only time that an animated stork had been portrayed as a sober delivery boy, giving it more human characteristics. I mention that this character was sober because there are several Warner Brothers' cartoons that portray storks to be incompetent drunks.
In Bambi, he played a small role as adult "Flower", the bashful skunk. He's a sweet "little stinker", but as a loveable skunk he's not in your face as much as the well-known Pepe Le Pew.
"Winnie the Pooh" has always been an enjoyable character because as "a bear of very little brain", he had the optimism and kindness of a two-year-old child.
As "Kaa" in The Jungle Book, he was a sneaky, slimy villain, but too clumsy for his evil intentions to succeed. When I was younger I'd always thought that Kaa was just funny. But now that I'm older I also consider the reality of Kaa's power to be a bit scary. For one thing, Holloway's voice was almost hypnotic as he sang "Trust in Me", which I found surprising because before then he had sang as fun-loving characters (as far as I know.) The concept of Kaa hypnotizing his prey so he could eat it is scary because of the idea that someone or something else can take hold of one's mind or emotions. That's what makes Dracula scary, and technically one's actions are controlled by their emotions when he or she is passionate, has a desire, or is in love. It might not always be a bad thing, but it is a spooky reality nonetheless.
In The Aristocats, he played the mouse residing in the manor, "Roquefort". Roquefort was probably the very first cartoon mouse that I had seen to get along with the cats, and I was a bit confused at first because I had seen cartoons in which cats and mice are always fighting. But when a mouse treats a mother cat and her kittens like his own family, you know that they have a great friendship for animals that are naturally enemies.
My personal favorite is the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, because it was one of my first movies when I was about two years old. I remember at the time I could only identify the colors flashing in the trees as he sang "'Twas Brillig" off-camera. I've always liked him as that character mainly because he's just a weird feline, but also because he had a bit of a teasing, somewhat condescending tone like a ten-year-old boy annoying his little brother. The Cheshire cat was also very mischievous when he was trying to get Alice in trouble with the Queen of Hearts.
If I could spend an evening with his ghost (or something like that), I would just want to ask him some questions, again, to understand him as a person. I would ask him: What made you want to be an actor? Was your career as an actor particularly hard? When getting started or in progress? Your voice and your appearance are technically what made you famous. Did you have any limitations or problems because of which? Was there anyone or anything that has influenced you? Did you have any kind of trouble while you were in school? What sort of advice would you give to someone who wishes to pursue an acting career? Was there a point in your life that was particularly hard for you? Do you have anything to say about the recent westerns, musicals, or comedies?
I'd like to know if his opinion on Hollywood would be as mixed as mine. When I say "mixed", I mean that I find certain aspects about Hollywood that I like, but others that I dislike. I often find Hollywood to be very shallow and superficial, mainly because of what I think is an overuse of special effects and supposedly hot actors.
I'd also like to know if he was really as different from me as I'd expect. For example, I have been traveling my whole life as being part of the Foreign Service, and he did a bit of traveling across the US to get his career started.
There you have it. I respect him because he wasn't the ideal actor of today, and even now I enjoy the cartoons he appeared in. I enjoy the characters and I'm aware of the importance of their personalities. I'd just like to learn more about him regarding the questions that have yet to have been answered by the internet.
How Do You Like Your Wonka?
Wilder or In Depp?
A compare and contrast essay by
Toria Heckman
Everyone probably knows about the story of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," which was originally a children's novel by Roald Dahl. More people are familiar with the two movie adaptations; one released in 1971, directed by Mel Stuart; the other released in 2005, directed by Tim Burton. One that’s known for its iconic and well-loved songs and iconic musical numbers, and another that’s known for its director’s style of storytelling and quirkiness. It is understandable that some people prefer the book over the movies while others would choose otherwise. The two movies are obviously similar and different in ways that are quite obvious, but also quite subtle. Basically, the two directors had different views on how to adapt the story.
Of course both movies are similar regarding the story: Five fortunate children, four of them undeserving, find golden tickets hidden inside the wrappers of Wonka brand candy bars, and those tickets earn them a tour of the strange, mind-boggling factory of the equally strange candy-man, Willy Wonka. In the end, the child that is the least wretched wins a special surprise while the rest receive their just desserts, literally.
A difference between the two films that anyone would notice is that of the titles. The 1971 version was titled, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". The title had been changed because the movie was originally intended to help Quaker sell candy bars with the label of Wonka. The candies didn’t sell well, but to this day the movie has been exceedingly popular among children and adults. The 2005 version kept the title of the novel itself.
Another noticeable difference is between the actors who have played Willy Wonka. The 1971 movie featured Gene Wilder, who many people are familiar with because of this film. Before this movie, he played Leo Bloom in "The Producers", Mel Brooks' first film. He also played the role of Dr. Frankenstein in "Young Frankenstein", another Mel Brooks classic. In the 2005 version, Willy Wonka was played by the well-known Johnny Depp, who has starred in other Tim Burton films such as "Edward Scissorhands", "Ed Wood", "Sleepy Hollow", and the recent animated film, "Corpse Bride".
Entertainment Weekly described Depp's character to have sounded very much like "a teenage girl at a tank top sale." That actually makes sense. At the Golden Globe Awards, when he was nominated for Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy for this very movie, Depp said that he came up with his character's voice when he was playing with dolls with his daughter. Personally, I prefer to describe the performance itself to have been "as energetic and optimistic as Ed Wood, but with more childlike enthusiasm, and even with the attitude of a child." On the other hand, it has outraged several film critics, mainly because many are more attached to the 1971 version. Even Gene Wilder himself disapproved it. Wilder's interpretation was more mild-mannered, perhaps even sounding a bit neutral, but you still get the idea that he’s quite the loopy character. It’s almost like he’s always got something to hide. Both versions of Willy Wonka demonstrate that he is absolutely not surprised by the four children not listening to his warnings, and both versions result in a good recipe for a Mad Hatter tribute.
Another highly noticeable difference between the two movies is the subject of the Oompa-Loompas, the little people who work in Wonka's factory. The ones in the 1971 version were depicted to have orange skin, green hair in an odd style resembling powdered wigs, and thick white eyebrows. The Oompa-Loompas in the 2005 version were all played by one person thanks to the use of animatronics, camera and computer techniques. They actually match up better with the description of the Oompa-Loompas in the book, in which they were described to be little people who lived in a tropical jungle, and loved cocoa beans. The movie supported this description by using flashbacks of Wonka's journey to the jungle; how he discovered them and learned about their culture.
While I'm still on the subject of the Oompa-Loompas, another noticeable difference is that of their songs. The songs in the 1971 version are adored by several people who have grown up watching this movie. The lyrics themselves seem to either be talking to the children who have been causing trouble, or they're speaking to the audience so one can learn a lesson by not doing what the children have just did. (They have actually been parodied on "Futurama" with the "Grunka-Lunkas" who warn the characters not to ask questions.)
The songs in the 2005 version, on the other hand, are more literarily accurate, for the lyrics were adapted from the poems in the book. The lyrics speak about the children themselves, their problems and their current situations, like mentioning the fact that they have to "save Miss Violet Beauregarde" or "Veruca Salt... has just gone down the garbage chute". The music was composed by Danny Elfman, who has written music for several other movies, including almost every Tim Burton film. (He has also written the title theme for "The Simpsons".) Also for the movie, he provided all the vocals for the songs. For me it is not quite the surprise since he created a few voices for "The Nightmare Before Christmas", (including Jack Skellington's singing voice,) and was the voice of Bonejangles in "Corpse Bride".
A difference that tends to be more subtle is in the other characters' personalities and how they are portrayed.
The first ticket-winner was the gluttonous Augustus Gloop. The Augustus in the 1971 version openly expressed his love for eating, which was why his mother would occasionally tell him to "save some for later". When Wonka was introducing the Garden of Candy, Augustus cried, "Let me in! I'm starving!" The one in the 2005 version was much more of a glutton. He didn't realize that he had the ticket until he discovered that he took a bite out of it when he was only intending to be eating some chocolate. While he is waiting outside the Wonka Factory, he is eating a candy bar as if he couldn't possibly stay away from chocolate. The moment he sees the Garden of Candy, not only does he drop it out of stun, but he even treads over it because he had found something better, his paradise. In the Garden of Candy itself, he grabs as many sweets as he can get his hands on, and then stuffs it into his mouth as much as he can. Compared to that, the Augustus Gloop in the 1971 version seemed to at least taste what he was eating.
The second, technically non-lucky winner was the spoiled brat, Veruca Salt. (I refer to her as a "non-lucky winner" because she didn't find the ticket on her own.) In the 1971 version, the character was very impatient. If she couldn't get what she wanted that very minute, she would yell, whine, and complain almost nonstop, which was expressed in her musical number, "I Want It Now". The character in the 2005 version seemed to have more confidence in her father when it came to getting her what she wanted. She displayed a sense of impatience when she was still waiting for her golden ticket to turn up, and when Wonka refused to sell her father one of the nut-cracking squirrels. Because of her refusal to believe that she couldn't always get what she wanted, she walked out into the squirrels' sitting area and attempted to take one when they ganged up on her. One squirrel tapped her forehead and judged her to be a bad nut, so the hundred rodents threw her into the garbage chute. This may not be part of the character, but in the 1971 version there weren't a hundred nut-cracking squirrels. Instead, there were egg-laying geese that would lay golden chocolate eggs, and for these eggs were devices that judged whether or not a specific egg was good or bad. Instead of being pursued and thrown into the garbage, Veruca carelessly stepped onto one of the devices at the end of her musical number; it judged her as a bad egg, and she fell down the chute.
The third winner was Violet Beauregarde, who held a world record for chewing one stick of gum for three months solid. In the 1971 version, her character was basically the same as in the book; she just chewed gum as much as she could. In the 2005 version, however, her character was changed to a smug trophy-winner, whose first trophy was for gum-chewing. She also referred to the other ticket-winners as "losers". Apparently she had been encouraged by her mother, who was probably trying to live through her child. Such words of inspiration she would give would be, "Keep chewing, kiddo!" or "Eyes on the prize, Violet." Fortunately, this movie displayed the fact that whenever Violet wasn't chewing her prize-winning gum, she would stick it behind her ear. During the tour she tried a stick of gum, which was supposed to be a three-course dinner. Wonka warned her that it was not ready for anyone to try, but she didn't listen and she turned into an enormous blueberry. In the 2005 version, her reason for trying the gum was, "I'm the world record-holder of chewing gum! I'm not afraid of anything!" Regarding Violet in the 1971 version, her reason was, "So what? It's gum, and that's for me!"
The fourth winner was Mike Teavee, a boy who watches television all day, everyday. The one in the 1971 version appeared to be more accurate to the book; he wore a cowboy outfit, and carried a toy pistol. From time to time he would refer to things he had seen on TV, making comments like, "Saw this in a movie once..." He knew exactly how television worked, but unfortunately he didn't understand that Willy Wonka's form of television actually shrinks what it films. The young TV addict in the 2005 version was changed to a boy who not only watched television all day, but also figured out how to find the ticket based on deliveries, weather, and dates. Even though he won a tour of a chocolate factory, he admits that he hates chocolate. During the tour, the character is very negative about the concept of candy; one would even say that he was quite disrespectful, or rude to Wonka. Just before his shrinking experience, he declared that the candy-man had created a teleporter that was being wasted on chocolate. He decided to become the first person to go through. At least this interpretation was true to the verse in the poem, "[Television] kills imagination dead." In the 1971 version, Mike merely thought that the device was the same as normal television. He reassured his mother, "I'm famous! I'm a TV star!" He even senselessly requested, "Can we go through that again?"
The final lucky winner was a main character of the story, Charlie Bucket. Compared to the other winners, Charlie was very lucky to find his golden ticket, and he was actually deserving of the special surprise. The first parts of both movies are about what he went through to find his golden ticket. His family was very poor, so they couldn't afford more than one candy bar a year. He took two tries that were unsuccessful, then he heard that the fifth ticket had been found. He discovers some money in the street and treats himself to another candy bar. Just when he finds out that the fifth winner was a fraud, that very candy bar he had bought had the real golden ticket.
During this process of trying and finally winning, both versions display Charlie's family, their living conditions, and even Charlie's emotional states. In the 1971 version, Charlie doesn't believe he has much of a chance of winning. Unlike the book, he has his mother and two pairs of grandparents, but not his father. The 2005 version has the full family, and it expresses more about how much they mean to him. He even considered selling his ticket for the money that they needed.
Then there is Grandpa Joe, who accompanies Charlie on the factory tour. In fact, Grandpa Joe is where both Charlie, the film audience, and the readers of the book receive the information of Wonka's experience as a candy-man. Like the other grandparents, he is too tired to walk, but when Charlie announces that he found the ticket, he manages to get to his feet. In the 1971 version, Charlie encourages him to stand up again because he wanted him to accompany him on the tour since the mother couldn't go; she had to take care of the other grandparents. Grandpa Joe is very much like a child himself in this film, especially when he suggests to Charlie that they sample Fizzy Lifting Drinks without permission. The one in the 2005 version was a former employee of Wonka, who lost his job when the factory closed down. That is the reason he knows so much about Willy Wonka, and why he wanted to join Charlie on the tour. In fact, when his grandson shows him that he found the ticket, he jumps out of bed and literally dances with joy.
Also in the 2005 version, the other grandparents have a bigger role in Charlie's search for the ticket. Grandma Josephine is somewhat neutral on the subject of the ticket search, but at least she tries to give Charlie some positive reinforcement. Grandma Georgina provides comic relief because she hardly knows what she is talking about, saying things like, "I love grapes," or how despicable dragonflies are. Grandpa George is more negative about Charlie's chances at winning the ticket, but when he does find it, he encourages his grandson to take the chance because it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Something that was featured in the book and only the 2005 version of the two movies was Charlie, Grandpa Joe, and Wonka watching the other children leaving through the factory doors.
First, Augustus and his mother walk out. He was completely covered in chocolate because he turned into what Wonka called, "Augustus-Flavored Chocolate-Coated Gloop". Basically, Augustus has become a chocolate-covered, edible human. As he and his mother are walking out, he is nibbling at his fingers and his mother tells him to stop. He replies, "But I taste so good!"
Mrs. Beauregarde walks out with her daughter trailing behind. Violet is still literally blue; the juicing of her swollen body brought her back to her original size, but she is also more flexible. In fact, she leaves the factory showing off cartwheels and back flips. Her mother finally has a reason to not be proud of her daughter and says to her, "Yes, but you're blue."
Veruca Salt and her father walk out and they are completely covered in garbage. She spots the Great Glass Elevator flying by, and she says that she wants one. He responds with, "The only thing you're getting today is a bath!"
Mr. Teavee doesn't say anything to his son as they leave, but Mike's appearance is very much as he was described in the book: to have been "all stretched out". In the movie, he happens to look like a living cardboard cut-out of a basketball player.
In the 1971 version, there are short scenes of people around the globe who are also in desperation to find the golden tickets. Some scientists invented a computer that could tell where the tickets were, but it refused to because it was a form of cheating. A man had been taken hostage for his wife's case of Wonka bars; she even wanted to think it over because to her it seemed like such the sacrifice for her husband's life.
Something both movies did was dig deeper into the character of Willy Wonka, because in the book he was an enigmatic character to begin with. It is because of this unseen side of him that almost prevents Charlie from receiving his prize, which is inheriting Wonka's factory.
In the 1971 version, Wonka tested all five of the children by sending someone posing as a formula thief, who offered ten thousand dollars if they would bring him the recipe of the Everlasting Gobstopper. At the end of the tour with Charlie remaining, Wonka declared that he had lost because he and his grandfather took Fizzy Lifting Drinks. Before Charlie was about to leave, he left his sample of Everlasting Gobstopper on Wonka's desk, showing that he was not going to betray him for ten thousand dollars. Therefore, Wonka told him that he had won.
The 2005 version, however, adds a whole lot more to the Wonka character with flashbacks of his childhood; he had been made into the son of a strict dentist, which was not a great relationship since young Willy had developed a love for candy. Most people may not like that little "add-on", but the element of mean parents or guardians was frequently used in Roald Dahl's stories to begin with, not to mention the constant real-life battle between the candy-makers and the dental hygienists. (So you could say that it was fairly accurate to the fun weirdness that Dahl often created.) When Charlie won at the end of the tour, he had been told that he would receive the factory, but he was not allowed to take his family with him because "a chocolatier has to roam free and solo." Charlie makes the choice of staying with his family, leaving Wonka uncertain about everything and without an heir. After reconciliation with his own father, he finally lets Charlie have the factory and his family.
Which movie was better? That's for the audience to decide. The characters may be a bit different, as well as some film effects and relevant details, but at least Stuart and Burton recreated the same beloved story with the same ending.
My personal opinion: The 1971 version is, without a doubt, a classic, but I prefer the 2005 version because a.) it tended to be more true to the book regarding some of the events, and the fairy tale-like setting that was often described in Dahl's books, and b.) I'm a big fan of Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, and Danny Elfman.
But no matter what your opinion may be, as a reader or a viewer, at least there is one thing we can all agree in. You see, another similarity between them is that in both movies, during the opening credits, the audience is shown the preparation and assembly lines of some delightful culinary confections. We can all agree that those chocolates looked very, very tasty (my sincerest apologies to those who have chocolate allergies).
No comments:
Post a Comment