Oompa-Loompa Revisionism
You'd be hard-pressed to find someone less excited than me about Tim Burton's remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Hell, I even hated the now-revered Gene Wilder version when it first came out because it deviated so much from the book (it's grown on me over time). I also got called "Oompa-Loompa" at school quite a bit after that movie came out, which didn't help endear it to me at all.
I've loved reading Roald Dahl since I was a kid, so I was quite surprised to discover that his books were rather controversial back in the 70s, and that critics often attacked him as insensitive in his treatment of children. Another writer of childrens' books named Eleanor Cameron even accused him of racism in the press because he had portrayed the Oompa-Loompas as African pygmies, so Dahl's publisher went so far as to replace them with little hippies (which I find far more offensive)! You can see the before-and-after illustrations above, and read about the entire episode, along with the letters that Dahl and Cameron exchanged, here at the wonderful Roald Dahl Fan site.
Now if there's one thing that really cheeses me off, it's literary revisionism, because it tries to deny me the right to make up my own mind about what I read. As far as I'm concerned, the kind of nosy do-gooders who want to pull Huckleberry Finn off the school library shelf for its alleged racism are no different than the people who want to ban Catcher In the Rye for its nihilistic, anti-authoritarian slant.
Update: Screenhead links to the hilarious Chocolypse Now, the comic-book tale that picks up where the book and film left off.
via GreenCine Daily
Comments
Eerie. I was actually talking about this with my friends yesterday and someone gave me the RDF link to assure me i wasn't making this up.
Posted by: rone | July 12, 2005 11:22 PM
GMTA, dude.
One of the reasons the old movie pissed me off so much is because they made the Oompas orange which was clearly contrary to what was in the book at that time. In retrospect, I can only imagine what kind of shitstorm the movie would've unleashed had they stuck to the way they were portrayed in Dahl's original version.
The book, on the other hand, is a different story (pardon le pun). There was absolutely no reason to change it, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: MrBaliHai | July 12, 2005 11:41 PM
the fact of the matter might be that roald dahl is fairly sick and twisted, which is in part why he is so endeared by children. i enjoyed his short stories equally, especially 'royal jelly'.
Posted by: david | July 13, 2005 12:04 AM
And that also explains why his stories continue to appeal as you grow older.
Posted by: MrBaliHai | July 13, 2005 1:13 AM
People should enjoy brilliant madness instead of correcting it.
Posted by: orangeguru | July 13, 2005 2:35 AM
as john lennon said (paraphrase)
i walked up the ladder and looked with the magnifying glass and all it said was "yes." i liked that. if it had said, you know, "no" or "(negative sounding up yours gibberish)" i'd have been turned off and left.
what does that non-sequitur mean in terms of dahl and the oompa loompas? the world may never know!
yeah. i can't imagine a less needed remake. what's next a remake of "the wiz?"
as for revisionism... never works anyway does it? in the long run it just needlessly draws attention to one negative interpretation.
Posted by: jmorrison | July 13, 2005 10:36 AM
You have no idea how happy it makes me to find out I'm not the only one who couldn't care less about the Willy Wonka movies. I saw the first one (at a drive-in, if I remember correctly) when I was about 6 or 7. (Why they were replaying a 5-year-old movie, I don't know.) I remember being ticked off because they left out square candies that looked 'round. Totally lost interest in the rest of the movie once I realized they could leave out such a thing, as it was one of my favorite things about the book.
Saw the film again in college and was even more disappointed. Had to go home and re-read the book to make myself feel better. I have less than zero interest in seeing a remake of it, even if it is Tim Burton.
And jmorrison, don't you dare go giving Hollywood any ideas like that. :)
Posted by: czeltic girl | July 13, 2005 11:51 AM
Actually, I can tolerate the original film nowadays, but the only Burton films I really like are 'Ed Wood' and parts of 'PeeWee's Big Adventure'. I also enjoyed 'Nightmare Before Christmas', but as Burton really didn't direct that film, it only partially counts. All the rest of his stuff is wildly uneven, badly scripted, poorly paced, and sadly predictable.
jaime: I agree with czelt...one of my friends in Hollywood might read that and decide that remaking the Wiz is a good idea!
Posted by: MrBaliHai | July 13, 2005 12:05 PM
I knew a girl who ate some chocolates... Then a few minutes late she learned they were chocolate covered ants. She threw up like fire hydrant.
I think if I saw this movie I would do the same.
Posted by: Frtiz | July 14, 2005 4:11 PM
have you seen the tim burton short "vincent"? it's by far my favourite tim burton film. i have mixed feelings about the new film version of wonka. unlike most here, i really love the original film. but then i probably saw the film before i read the book.
Posted by: william | July 16, 2005 1:48 PM
Yes, I have seen Vincent. I have it on my hard-drive as a matter of fact! It's a nice little piece of stop-action.
Posted by: MrBaliHai | July 16, 2005 2:33 PM