Flipping channels the other day, I came across Johnny Depp on In The Actor’s Studio. He was talking about Sleepy Hollow, and how he was certain that he would be fired from the movie after it had been shooting for two weeks. When asked why, he said, here’s this very expensive film, with a lot at stake for the studio, and I am playing the lead character as a 14-year old girl. Why wouldn’t they fire me? Depp says Burton ran enough interference for him with the studio to keep it going, but yes, looking back on it, he was playing Ichabod Crane as a fourteen year old girl.
There isn’t a whole lot here that wasn’t covered in the Gene Wilder version. The ending was expanded, to more closely match the book’s, and that was quite good. Always nice to see – and hear – Christopher Lee and his sub-sonic voice. One sequence which was new and quite funny involves the squirrels. Not the dumb throw-away lines: “Don’t touch that squirrels nuts!” (Why do these awful 4th grade jokes make the film?) but the whole visual of a hundred squirrels acting together, the reflection of Violet in one squirrel’s black eye, the way they turn from their nut-checking duties to stare at her… excellent and unsettling.
Reviewers are making a big deal of the similarities between Depp and Michael Jackson. I don’t get that. It seems silly. But Depp’s performance is odd, and it’s not the strongest thing in the film.
I can’t remember what the general consensus was to Depp’s role in Sleepy Hollow, but I liked him in that film quite a lot; at least up to the big tacked-on action sequence in the windmill at the end.
Depp is again playing a child here, and any adult with outlandish clothes acting like a child will bring up images of Jackson I suppose…. Most of the songs the Oompa-Loompas sing are forgettable and difficult to understand b/c they keep changing the pitch of the voice. But Deep Roy as the Oompa-Loompa was quite good.
This is probably the most enjoyable movie I’ve seen this year, edging out Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Neither of them is something I’d be anxious to rush back and watch again though. I’d still rather have Burton make his own stories, and work on some original material – a collaboration with a good screenwriter would be great – maybe build on the more mature direction he took with Big Fish.
But before the movie started, there was a trailer for Burton/Depp’s The Corpse Bride, which is animated a la Nightmare Before Christmas. It didn’t look particularly funny… there were no laughs from the audience, but it looked great, and while based on an old folk-tale, it seems to have enough originality in concept (to us) and meat of story to make it worthwhile. …and it comes out in only a couple of months.
Cate and Nicola and I saw this last night and we thoroughly enjoyed it. Cate was silent for the first couple of minutes during the credits and then declared she wanted to stay and see it again (a first and daddy was proud). This may be Burton’s best film since Ed Wood and a damn fine companion piece to Edward Scissorhands. The writing was great (funny, subversive, twisted, surreal), the production design what you would expect, and the acting was superb. Depp is hilarious–its a priceless performance that probably won’t generate a lot of talk but reflects a fearless actor working at the top of his game. The camera constantly closes in on Depp’s facial expressions and what appears to be incredibly effortless was probably extremely difficult to achieve. David Kelly, James Fox, Deep Roy, the little girl who plays Veruca Salt–all are spot on (and the squirrels!!!). And what’s up with Burton’s quirky visual references/homages to Kubrick (especially 2001) and Hitchcock? Now that being said, I will be curious to hear what folks have to say about the film’s critique and/or reification of British imperialism (Oompa-Loompa Land; chocolate replicas of the Taj Mahal that melt ever so fecally on an Indian prince’s head). The film seems to relish (and not necessarily satirically) old-school representations of the oriental “other” in ways that are problematic at best. I’m not sure how to wrap my mind around that one. Is that in Dahl’s book?
This really was a damn fine movie. I was worried that it would be tough to top Gene wilder as WW, but Depp doesn’t try. He goes in a very different, much darker, direction. Almost everything about the movie works, from the scenes inside and outside the factory, to the acting, the dialogue (there is a great line about cannibalism that my 11 year old son is still giggling over), and the musical numbers.
Reviewers had some concerns with the inserted back story, but I thought it worked better than the sub-plot about Charlie stealing secrets from the factory that provided the finale in the original movie.
British imperialism. Hum, this is always tough because there is nothing in the movie that allows an authoritative reading. It could be critique or reification. With a Mike Leigh or a Ken Loach, directors who wear their politics on their sleeve, you can always be sure of the political message because they bang you over the head with it. With Tim Burton… who knows. It sure was fun. But then I’m British, so imperialism sorta goes with the territory (I suppose imperialism always involves territory, but you know what I mean).
chris is british? can we have more than one of them on here at a time? wait, pete hasn’t posted since nineteen dickety two…phew what a relief!
who is chris anyway? and should we promote him to full on blogger status? (assuming chris is a man; in l.a mauer thought we were dealing with kris hackel.) and if we promote him should we kick that fucker pete off?
Salman Rushdie wrote a great review of the movie “Gandhi” way back when. It was full of wonderful lines (paraphrasing since it was so long ago: “the film’s message that you can bring down an empire through nonviolence is not just nonsense, it is dangerous nonsense”) but the one that has stuck with me is: I like the British, I really do. I like to be around them. Just so long as they are outnumbered.
Wise words. You have been warned.
Chris isn’t British, he’s a crazed anglophile. Besides the bowler hat and his omnipresent cricket stick (that’s what he calls it), he also feigns an accent that sounds something like Terry-Thomas.
He does, however, teach Political Science. And says “tally ho” a lot. He lives in Ohio, where they’ve never met or seen a British person other than Dick Van Dyke, so he gets away with murder. I think his neighbors really believe that tin lizzies fly in England.
I say put him in the menu bar.
mmmmmm, menu bar
I’d still like proof we’re not dealing with Kris Hackell.
Wasn’t she Canadian?
Chris says he British and Reynolds says he isn’t. Of course Mike is always trying to remove the joy from such playful self-fashioning, but can we really trust Mike?
There is only one definitive proof of Britishness: cultural self-loathing. I don’t like Mike Leigh movies anywhere near as much as you guys. And don’t get me started on Doctor Who and Hitchhiker’s Guide…
But then I loved The Office, so maybe Mike’s right.
My wife, who really is British, disagrees. Then again, she hasn’t lived on that island longer than a year since 1992 so you may be on to something. That being said, 10 million Oasis fans can’t be wrong . . . can they?
Yes, Jeff’s wife is British. However, oddly, Jeff also feigns a British accent. He sounds like Professor Hinkle, in “Frosty the Snowman.”
Chris’ last name does begin with an H and end with an L, but he isn’t Hackel. I think it’s fair to say he doesn’t even own a beret. (C’mon, Mark–if it were she, wouldn’t she long ago have scolded you [and me, by association] for lacking a good sense of humor?)
Back to Wonka: there was a good article on Roald Dahl in the New Yorker last week. As anti-semites go, he was a quite lovable fantasist.
(chris, your “promotion” probably won’t happen till i get back to boulder in early september. but get my address from mike and send me an email right away so i have it in my inbox to remind me.)
I think I didn’t see the same Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that the rest of you did. Although I did see it without my British husband and with 4- and 5-year olds who insisted on wearing rainboots and carrying umbrellas to the theatre despite the sunny 95 degree temperatures.
The only thing that impressed me about the squirrel scene was that they weren’t CGI but rather raised together from infancy to be trained to act in the movie. Or so it says on IMDB. The verdict is still out.
The Oompa Loompa was way more disturbing to me than the fecal castle. Anyone who knows Arnab knows that Indians love poop.
The only scene I truly enjoyed was the children’s introduction to the chocolate factory with all those “Small World” figurines singing “Willy Wonka” as they melted. The best laugh I’ve had all year!
I thought Chris was Coffman, but clearly not with an 11 year old kid.
No, I’m sorry he is not a Coffman. Sorry panelists, I’m going to have to flip all the cards now:
Chris is, in fact, a diamond miner in South Africa.
Thank you for playing “What’s My Line?” I’m Fred Allen…good night.
I’d post a link to my CV and another to my three-volume autobiography on Amazon in order to clear up any confusion, but this is way more fun.
I just googled the words chris, political science department, and ohio and then the signs all pointed to Reynolds’ checkered past.
Reynolds’s past is more of a herringbone pattern. By the way, if you google Reynolds and wrap, you’ll find a terrific recipe for broccoli au gratin.
i think i saw the same film that nikki did. it was enjoyable in bits but overall sort of blah. then again i didn’t watch it on the big screen. the look of the film was great, as expected–though i liked the stuff outside the factory far more. it made me think that burton is a natural for directing dickens and should really give it a go.
and i wish you lot wouldn’t go on and on about imperialism this and colonialism that. that’s my job. dammit. but that stuff didn’t really bother me much–though the whole oompa-loompa thing did remind me of fitzcarraldo, right down to the bit in their backstory when wonka drinks the caterpillar sludge. i think we can all agree that this would have been a much more fun film with herzog at the helm–he really would have built a factory out of chocolate for the shoot; and kinski would have made a great willy wonka.
i haven’t read the book in ages and don’t recall any of the happy family ending stuff–was that really in there? the dahl i remember was usually quite vicious.
Has anyone considered the academy designating “post-colonialism” to be the province of purported “post-colonialist ‘native informants'” to be not that dissimilar (thank you, Henry James for these constructions!) to the racism of colonialism itself? Yes, dear, tell me all about how bad it was—we colonizers must understand on the basis of identity-based testimony not the analysis of large-scale complex forces….I mean, isn’t everybody a “post-colonialist?”
michael, are you trying to cut in on my action?
I just want a small…let’s call it a “tribute”…maybe 20%?