Wonka

 

To say I was dubious about the new Wonka film starring Timothée Chalamet would be an understatement. The original film with Gene Wilder is of course a favorite of my childhood, and even the Tim Burton version with Johnny Depp is well liked in this household. I've never been a huge fan of 

Chalamet he seems to be a little wan and a sort of the Hipster version of what's hot right now. This has led me to be skeptical of any of his films.

Chalamet was however, solid in the Dune film and I look forward to seeing the second part next year. So it was with uncertainty that I approached this movie. I tried to avoid reading reviews before I see a film for myself, but sometimes the general tone of a review can come across in a single sentence on a Facebook post or in an Instagram message. The ones that I did see in regard to this film we're a lot more promising. Most of the comments seem to suggest that the film was exactly what it was supposed to be a light frothy holiday entertainment. To my great pleasure that is an accurate assessment. Wonka was a complete delight and exactly the kind of film that a family can enjoy in the holiday season. It may not be serious, or a great piece of art, but it was a great entertainment.

Those of you who are not aware of it, let me point out that Wonka, is also a musical. The idea that there would be singing and dancing through the film raise some suspicion, but our lead is talented enough, and the songs for the most part are tuneful full of play and fit the story. I was especially impressed by the opening song and the choreography that went in putting together the dances that accompany it. As it is, the director of this film, Paul King, directed two of my favorite films from the past several years. He is responsible for putting "Paddington" and its sequel "Paddington 2" up on the big screen and both of them have a wondrous, friendly, attitude which made them completely delightful. Although there are hateful villains, and obstacles to be overcome, the optimism and positive attitudes of the lead characters of all three films make each of these movies so much easier to enjoy than other films in the family market.

Happily this film is not merely a repeat of the story that we have come to know. It is in fact it kind of prequel story so that we get a sense of what Willy Wonka was like as he started his chocolate factory. The idea presented here is that Wonka has always loved chocolate as a result of his mother's care and recipes. He has become a world Traveler by working on cargo ships traveling the seven seas and finding amazing ingredients to add to his chocolate concoctions. At the start of the story he is prepared to join the chocolate producing community in the heart of the big city and is trying to connect with his potential customers. This stacks him up against three rivals who have in essence, created a cartel to reduce competition. The three owners of the of the competing chocolate companies are clearly the villains of the piece, they have no connection to their customers and see them as somebody available to fleece rather than people that they want to please. This means that Wonka's approach will be completely different and a threat to their status.

One of the complications that Willy Wonka faces is that he has become indentured inadvertently to a cruel mistress and a thoughtless Brute. He has in essence been Shanghaied into working in a laundry, under slave-like conditions. So his approach to trying to begin a chocolate Empire also requires him to overcome these circumstances. The woman who has him in her thrall is played by Olivia Colman and she is impressively vile and funny. Wonka finds himself in the company of others who have become similarly trapped, and they form an alliance to both escape their circumstances and create a candy Utopia.

There are several nods to the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, some of which are very noticeable but a few of which are very subtle. Among the most noticeable is the design of the chocolate store which strongly resembles the main room in the original film's Chocolate Factory. Also Willy is dressed in the same kind of velvet purple set of tails that adorned Gene Wilder back in 1971. Here he also walks with a cane that is in affectation rather than a necessity. Much like the magician that he is suggested to be, the cane becomes a prop that he uses to Dazzle his customers and to establish an identity. I did notice that the start of the film does have a similar kind of setting that Paddington did. Alone in a strange city our protagonist is taken in by strangers. Of course in the Paddington stories The Strangers turn out to be a benevolent family, but here in Wonka, it is a much darker turn.

Throughout the film there are many clever characters who provide humor and something for Willie to struggle against. Much like the original film Slugworth, is presented as a competitor and a threat. In this film it is much more direct in the way the character of Slugworth is presented. There is also a police official who is bribed by the cartel to run Wonka off. He is bribed by chocolate, because he has a sweet tooth that can never be satisfied. Hysterically his character gains weight throughout the film to the point where he actually has difficulty moving, standing up, or getting out of a car. It may be a little indelicate to present a character as having a weakness that makes him fat, but it does make us laugh and the actor, Keegan-Michael Key, plays it hysterically.

Production design is another big selling point of the film. Some of the candies are whimsical, the boarding house/laundry, is grim, and the Chocolate Factory at the end we'll make everybody who is a fan of the original film happy. Also the musical score borrows heavily from the original films songs and we get a reprise of Gene Wilder's showpiece song from 1971, presented with genuine affection and respect by Chalamet.  I have no hesitation and suggesting this movie to any of my readers. You will be very happy walking out to the theater with a smile on your face, even if it is just from the cantankerous Hugh Grant playing an Oompa Loompa who has attitude and his own individuality. I think a little Hugh Grant adds in measurably to the Delight that this film creates. He is not overused, but the CGI transformation of him into the character is amusing, and contrasted with his lines and behaviors should make you laugh.

I was not expecting it, but I'm happy to say that Wonka will be going on my list of favorite films from 2023. And in the long run Timothy Charlemagne Maybe making even greater inroads in my opinion toward him. However director Paul King is in my opinion a real treasure, and I hope that he and his co-screenwriters continue to come up with enjoyable fanciful ways to entertain the audience, I appreciate it.

Empire of Light

 

I have to say that I was disappointed in this film, but not nearly as let down as I thought I might have been. I try to avoid looking at other reviews before I see a film for myself, but the Rotten Tomato scores popped  up somewhere and when I was looking for guests for the podcast, a couple of preview statements on Lamb pages seemed to be discouraging. While they are mostly right, there are a few things to recommend the film, and I want to start with those.

Regular readers are aware that this site is sometimes driven by nostalgia, heck, that was most of the original purpose of the initial project, and I have continued that with a couple of other projects that you can find here. "Empire of Light" is set in 1980/81. Some of the films that get referenced are treasured favorites, from "All That Jazz" to "Being There". Sadly, the movies mentioned get short shrift from the script and the promise held out by the marketing team is broken. The power of movies to transform lives is not really the focus of the story, no matter how luminous Olivia Coleman looks while watching a film in a dark auditorium. The setting on the other hand does much to make up for these oversights. The "Empire" Theater is a glorious old movie palace, in spite of half the screens and a restaurant gone to seed. The glowing lobby, the red velvet curtains and the traditional auditorium seats, made me wish I was watching this movie in that theater.

Lighting Magician Roger Deakins does his usual fine work in making the images on screen look spectacular. From the Lobby of the theater, to the beach-side dunes, to the main character's drab apartment, we get a feeling about how to feel because of how things look.   He also lights Coleman as the zoftig love interest in a way that highlights her mood swings very accurately. One moment she is sweet and longing, the next she is threatening and harsh. Coleman of course does most of the heavy lifting for these moments, but the lighting and composition make it work really well as she descends into her pit. A sex scene that is meant to be off putting is exactly that, in large part due to the unflattering lighting of a dingy office with the scent of shame washing over us in waves of shadow.

Michael Ward, who is the second lead and who the story should really be about, also looks great on screen. He has a natural charisma and he plays his character of Stephen as a real person, surprised to find himself struggling with his life but drawn to the much older Hilary.  The problem is that screenwriter Sam Mendes, has given himself a schizophrenic story to direct. There are at least four plot lines that could be the spine of the story; the romance, the racial unrest, the me-too relationship and the miracle of movies thread. Unfortunately, they don't all gel together, and some are so underdeveloped that they feel like plot contrivances rather than real moments in the character's lives. 

See this movie for Coleman's performance, Deakin's paintbox, and Ward's star suggesting turn. Just don't get your hopes up too much. We aren't going to finish watching this film and see a beautiful curtain close behind an ornate proscenium. Your multiplex may be nice, but it won't create the warm feeling that going to the movies used to produce. Unfortunately, neither will this film. 

link to podcast:

https://largeassmovieblogs.com/2022/12/lambcast-665-empire-of-light.html

The Favourite

I am new to the films of director Yorgos Lanthimos, who has been highly praised for a number of his earlier films. I don't know how representative of his style this movie is, but I can say there are certain things in this movie that seems to be unique to the movie and were clearly director's choices. Most of those flourishes are at the base of my reservations about the film, so I may be hesitant to sample his other work. Between the praise and Award talk about this movie, and the highly entertaining trailer, I was expecting something a little more light and maybe traditional. There is a core to this story that I think would make a fine film in another director's hands, but in Lanthimos grip, the movie becomes a bit "arty" and pretentious.

Deserving of high praise, regardless of what I thought of the rest of the movie are the three lead actresses. Rachel Weisz, Emma Stone, but especially Olivia Colman, deliver effective performances. Stone manages to run the table from naive, open innocent to secretive and manipulative with just a little bit of alteration in her demeanor. Weisz is coiled danger and iron will from the start of the movie and even as she becomes more sympathetic, her persona does not change. Colman as Queen Anne, gets the widest range of emotions to depict from the screenplay and she manages to make us sympathize with a needy, neurotic and selfish woman who is clearly beset by emotional damage from earlier in her life. At times she is charming but can instantly turn cruel and dogmatic. Her emulation of physical pain but also physical pleasure is marvelous. Even when she is costumed and standing or being wheeled around, most of the acting work is in her facial expressions. That is an incredible accomplishment when you see how the movie is shot from low angles and wide images.

So I mentioned that I have a couple of issues with the director choices. Let me begin with one of the most obvious ones, the fish eye camera work. In many of the scenes set in the Queens bedroom or study, the initial view is a distorted image that inflates the center, reduces the edges and keeps most of the image from being focused. This is an unnecessary choice that draws attention to the film directing rather than the story. It is an indulgence that took me out of the events occurring every time it came up. A second issue with the film and the director is the use of Chapter cards to organize the story into discrete parts. Some of this may be in the script, so Lanthimos may not be entirely responsible, but they basically serve no purpose. If, like in "Pulp Fiction" the chapter stops helped organize the time sequence of the story, or if the captions emphasized a theme for a sequence, then they may have been a use for them. Sadly, this was not the case. Words and sentences from each sequence are randomly chose for the transition slides and they mean NOTHING! They neither highlight or make comment on the events we are seeing, they are simply plugged into a random spot to break up a narrative. Something that is certainly a directors choice is the use of fonts and spacing on those transition slides. Once again, it is a choice that draws attention to the director rather than the scene. Like a cinematic e.e. cummings, Lanthimos screws around with the visual image of the lettering, to make it distinctive, but also harder to read. cummings may have had a reason for his predilection, but I cannot fathom what the director was trying to accomplish here.

The movie is also filled with crass sexual references and visualizations. Certainly the script by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara takes the inferences from the notes of the Real Lady Sarah to heart. The story includes completely superfluous moments of Abigail manually satisfying her husband on their wedding night and Lord Harly delivering salty descriptions of women and participating in a homoerotic game of dodge-ball featuring a nude man and fruit. Given the instability of the Queen and the sexual references, I was thinking that this film felt a lot like "The Madness of King George" with porn.

Dramatically, there is a solid story to be told about how favoritism is sought, manipulated and influential in the royal court. It may be that the court had sexual intrigue and back stabbing, but all of that is presented as the surface level of interaction here, rather than a secret and subliminal process. When the words come right out of the Queen's mouth "I like the way she puts her tongue in me", you know that this is not a subtle form of palace intrigue. The views of men about women in the time might be backwards and reprehensible, but the film makers reinforce those ideas with the way women are depicted here. Instead of a story about female authority and power in an era dominated by male chauvinism,  "The Favourite" focuses on the very things that men might believe about women, their pettiness and emotional cruelty to one another. Those are the things that seem to be at the base of political instability, at least according to this movie. The Pyrrhic victory of one woman is a lesson in the futility of women being in charge. It is emotionally successful as a epitaph, but it is an impolitic message to convey to a contemporary audience.