Ah, Roald Dahl. I like your work. I sometimes find myself over-identifying with your stories about incorrigibly nasty children getting their just desserts (but, I hasten to add, only after a particularly hectic work day.) I've read Matilda, The BFG, James and the Giant Peach, and George's Marvelous Medicine--or as I remember it, the one where the little boy with the world's worst grandmother finally channels his inner psychopath and tries to kill her in the most depraved and torturous way by combining every toxic substance known to man and passing it off as her "medicine."
GEORGE: Have some tonic, Grandma.....It will relax you.
The lesson: You mess with kids, and they will mess back. Sometimes with deadly chemicals.
But do you recall, the most famous Roald Dahl of all? That's right--Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! Even people who've never actually read the book know about this movie. Mention Oompa-Loompas, Veruca, Augustus or Wonka and people know exactly what you're referring to. Sing a song that includes the whimsical phrase "Doompa-dee-doo" and they chime right in. Everyone from the Mike, Bill and Kevin of Rifftrax (otherwise known as the stars of Mystery Science Theater 3000) to Doug Walker (aka The Nostalgia Critic) have lovingly and hilariously discussed this book and the two movie versions that it spawned.
This is not a movie blog, so I will be sticking strictly to the original literary version of Charlie in my discussion. Spoilers!
We are all aware of the rather dark tones in this fable about how being kind, patient, poor and starving is bound to pay off in unbelievably wonderful ways if you just....like chocolate enough. Our Dear Boy Charlie Bucket lives a life of quiet suffering, but never complains or resorts to even the most justifiable of misdemeanors (the only exception is when he finds an abandoned coin on the street, and that can't even be called stealing!) The only "selfish" thing he does is buy chocolate with his windfall, and we can't even fault him for that, because he's starving! There's nothing at home but watered-down cabbage soup! And of course, his halo shines all the brighter when he decides to use the last of his money for a candy bar for his favorite grandfather--a good deed that is promptly rewarded with the finding of the last Golden Ticket.
However. There is a selfish side to this Dickensian hero. He may be poor (which covers a myriad of sins in these cases) and seemingly selfless, but don't let that fool you. This child is driven by a singular ambition--specifically, to one day set foot inside the famous Wonka Factory and see all the wonders therein for himself. And when this wish comes true, he will gladly stand back and watch as every other competitor for the "lifetime supply of chocolate" prize is toppled.
Consider the ways in which Augustus, Veruca and Mike TeeVee meet their tragic ends (or at least, temporary ends, seeing as none of them actually die in the book.) Augustus, the equivalent of the deadly sin of Gluttony, falls into the chocolate river and nary a soul steps forward to save him--not even Charlie. Sure, they all stand around wringing their hands, but no one actively tries to fish him out of there. And once he's disappeared up that pipe, for all they know, he's already dead! Literal Death by Chocolate! But Charlie displays no regret or concern for Augustus, and doesn't even wonder what became of him later on.
Then Veruca, the human embodiment of Avarice, is assaulted by nut-examining squirrels (So. Many. Puns. Must keep going!) and thrown down a garbage chute...that, it is strongly implied, leads to a literal fiery death. Again, Charlie just lets it happen. I understand that none of these children are by any means friendly to him, and they certainly aren't interested in being friends with each other, but Charlie doesn't even gasp in horror when he sees them meet their just desserts! (Another expression that takes on new meaning in this book.) Nope, he just sits back and watches Wonka's Komic Karma happen.
I can't really fault him for doing nothing in the face of Violet Beauregarde's blueberry transmogrification--what could he have done, grabbed the gum out of her mouth? But again, we don't hear about Charlie being at all disturbed at watching a young girl turn into a large blue fruit before his very eyes. Her parents freak the hell out, but he just....stands there. I suppose an argument could be made that watching his peers meet such disturbing fates is so traumatic that he is riveted by horror, but that doesn't really explain why he seems to just forget that they ever existed only moments later.
However, we cannot pin the Villain button on Charlie alone. The Parents are to blame as well! In all versions of the story, the progenitors of the ill-behaved hellspawn show understandable distress in the face of their children getting sucked into pipes, turned into fruit, minimized and tossed into the garbage. But they don't do very much to save their children from their respective fates. Mr. and Mrs. Beauregarde don't Heimlich the gum out of Violet's mouth. Mr. Salt doesn't brave a roomful of squirrels to save his precious little girl until it's too late. Mr and Mrs. TeeVee don't push Mike out of the way of the shrinking beam. And even Augustus' mother doesn't jump into the river after him when he falls in. While I understand that if any of them had acted this way, the lessons would never have been learned, one must wonder exactly why parental instinct never took over in time. It could be that the parents subconsciously wanted to see their children punished in ways they themselves could not bear to inflict. If this was the case, Wonka was clearly happy to oblige!
But Weader, I hear you say, why aren't you labelling Wonka a villain? He's the one who clearly orchestrated the entire thing! He's the one with some unexplained Godlike knowledge of every child's greatest weakness that he could use to teach them not to be such self-centered little brats. Why isn't HE technically a villain?
Well....because he's Willy Wonka! He is purposefully enigmatic, twisted and strange. He is a sort of trickster character who exists to enchant people with his whimsy and generosity, but cross him and you will soon learn that you do not fuck with the candy man. In book canon, it is never explained where he learned all the tricks of his trade. Perhaps he himself is not entirely human, but instead hatched out of a giant chocolate egg one Easter. We'll never know (and no, I don't buy Tim Burton's version of backstory in which Wonka was the smothered child of a strict dentist who rebelled by becoming obsessed with candy.) In any case, Wonka dispenses poetic justice as he sees fit. And really, all he has to do is place the right temptation in someone's way and watch what happens. He could be either a Neutral Good or a Neutral Evil character. He doesn't inflict anything--in the case of the four bad children, he actively warns them to stop what they are doing. They don't listen, and thus they suffer the consequences...which Wonka takes great delight in.
Finally, Wonka rewards Charlie Bucket for being the one "good" child to obey all his rules during the tour (in the first movie, Charlie actively resists the temptation to betray Wonka by returning his Everlasting Gobstopper to him.) Although Book!Charlie was never actually tempted to disobey Wonka, in this case his inherent goodness (and the process of elimination) secured him the ultimate prize of not only winning a lifetime supply of chocolate, but becoming Wonka's official heir to the factory.
Or maybe Charlie's sociopathic tendency to watch in silence as his competition was stripped away impressed Wonka, and that's why he decided to dub him the grand prize winner. In which case, there might be more to Wonka's dark side than I am willing to admit. Again, it could be interpreted either way.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment