Ten Statements About....WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (1971)

Replace that boat with a TARDIS...and you've got the
bestest Doctor ever.

"Hold your breath. Make a wish. Count to three."

1) You know what's the first thing I missed about the Burton version? The little side skits throughout this version which fill in both Charlies' life and the world of the film as a whole. They're chockful of great performances by great character actors and comedians (my favorite is the one involving a computer programmer played by one third of The Goodies--and Peter Davison lookalike--Tim Brooke-Taylor) and set up the sensibilities of the film...

2) ...and the most remarkable thing about this film, watching it now, is how it seems to anticipate the 'One For The Kids/One For The Adults' structure of pretty much all the kid's cartoons today. Director Mel Stuart and screenwriter Roald Dahl never forget that they have to entertain the adults as well as the kids in the audience

3) Even though I prefer David Kelly's version of Grampa Joe (even when he's bedridden, Jack Albertson looks far, far too spry), the one thing both films get right is the deep bond between that character and Charlie. Especially in this film, where the parents are given much more shading than they do in the Burton version, it's essential we believe in the familial love between the two--and that it's his influence that shapes Charlie's honesty.

4) Another thing that impresses me about the Stuart version--the other kids feel like, you know, kids. I didn't realize how thoroughly grotesque the Burton children are (save for the Burton Veruca, who I knew was a Demon Child from that first horrifying rictus grin of hers) until I saw the more naturalistic versions of the other four children. As such, their behaviors seem more realistically awful, which makes their fates all the more horrific. And speaking of horrific...

5) This version of the film isn't all that far away from being a real horror story--not the least because we never, ever see the other four children after disaster befalls them. All we get is Gene Wilder's assurance that they're perfectly fine, which doesn't work because--

6) In this film, Gene Wilder is terrifying. This is why I prefer Wilder to Depp. Wilder rarely raises his voice, does not engage in any of the overt physical tics and eccentricities that Depp positively wallows in...and as a result, he's borderline menacing. I particularly like how he 'calls for help' as each of these children meet their fate in a flat, dull, calculatedly unconvincing way.

I've mentioned before how I think it's a true pity that Wilder never ventured far outside of comedy...I am once again convinced that if he ever decided to play a villain in a thriller, he would have arguably won an award. He also could have been the greatest Doctor eeeever.

Supposedly, this was a naturalistic response...and it beats
looking at a blue screen.

7) Supposedly, Mel Stuart did not let any of the cast see the Chocolate Room until the scene was shot--and I absolutely love the apparently natural reaction the kids have when they stumble into the room. Given that this was all practical, you have to marvel at the handiwork of Art Director Harper Goff.

8) The weakest moment in this film is arguably the most pivotal--namely, the 'fizzy lifting liquid' scene. It simply lasts far too long for its purpose, and never moves beyond a certain emotional point.

9) I do like how the parents get equal time here. In the best cases--Roy Kinnear in particular as Mr. Salt--it draws up an even stronger case for them being part of the reason why their kids are so awful.

Peter Ostman may not have been a great actor--but he had lots
of great character actors surrounding him, like Aubrey Woods.

10) It's interesting seeing how much of the original script is 'quoted' by the Burton version--although in many cases, the Burton version seems to just want to drop certain references in to assure the audience that yes, theirs is a version of the same movie.

Overall...as I said, I like both equally...but the outstanding performance by Wilder, the clever little skits, and some cool art direction makes this the film I'd chose to show to a kid first. It's the more charming and naturalistic, and would prolly entertain them more.

Ten Statements About....BLAZING SADDLES (1974)

Yes, I love Pryor and Wilder...but this is just as effective
a comedy team.

"Take this down. I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists."
"Could you repeat that, sir?"

1) Even watching this now, after over thirty-five years, it strikes me how it helped form one of my principle rules when it comes to spoofs and satires. Namely, when you burn away all the gags and the broad performances and the genre-shattering final ten minutes, you still have a story that not only works within the genre its spoofing, but manages to make a valid point about racial politics on top of it.

Fuck Dr. Evil...Hedley Lamarr is the True Face of Comedic Evil!

2) God, I love the sheer delicious joy with which Harvey Korman attacks the role of Hedley Lamarr. He's one of the few movie villains I forgive for thinking himself evil because, damn it, he's so good at it.

3) After watching Gene Wilder's Waco Kid, I have to wonder how effective he could've been in a straight thriller--maybe even as a villain. The sheer control he has in this role is so at odds with how we usually think of Wilder (i.e. ranting, screaming, running about) that if he harnessed that quality for a serious flick...well, it could've been truly chilling.

4) I have to wonder if teens today--and I first saw this as a teenager--would look upon the frequent use of the racial epithets in this film the way we did back in the day. Would it have the same impact given how devalued these words have become?

5) Alex Karras may not have been an actor, even when he was trying to be an actor...but I can't think of another person who could've made Mongo work.

6) You'll notice how this film frequently dances on the precipice of gross-out humor. The fact that it tempers the grossness with word play, ethnic humor and sight gags avoids the ickiness of more recent films of this ilk ....

7) You'll also notice the way Brooks consciously avoids anything but the most general modern references. This allows us to watch it thirty-five plus years later and still enjoy it, whereas more recent spoof films will literally disappear from the public consciousness five years later.

8) I have to admit--I've never quite figured out how I feel about Madeline Kahn. I do recognize that she was a beautiful woman, and I can appreciate that she had an excellent sense of comic timing and body language...but there's something about her that has always left me cold. Maybe it's the way that she, like Adam Sandler, had a tendency to let funny voices do her acting for her. So yeah, I appreciate her but...not a fan.

9) I know the film was originally written for Richard Pryor--who even retains a writing credit--but I can't think of anyone who would have worked better than Cleavon Little. While I can certainly believe that Pryor would have that unbeatable chemistry with Wilder (you just have to look at their work together to know that), I have to wonder if he could have sold a 1974 white audience on the fact that he'd be acceptable to the Johnson-infested Rock Ridge over time

This is how you should have kept it, Mel...doing the small
roles in the funny make-up and letting the real actors have
all the fun.

10) I've mentioned this to my friend and partner Derrick before--but this sort of filmmaking, where the same actors, writers and directors move from picture to picture, taking different roles (even multiple roles) and fulfilling different purposes in the plot, isn't done anymore. Only the Broken Lizard troupe comes close to emulating Brooks' early filmmaking process. And Brooks never was as great a comedic presence as when he was leading Wilder and Kahn and the like through the desert of Hollywood cliche; it's not for nothing that Brooks' star began to fade once he started taking the lead roles for himself and slowly broke up his repertory company.

Overall...a true classic spoof, part of a string of just hit-them-out-of-the-park work for Mel Brooks...and a film that still resonates thanks to a smart script and some excellent performances.

Incidentally, I watched this on the '30th Anniversary' DVD edition that contains what may very be the absolute worst DVD commentary I've ever heard. Brooks has a reputation for being one of the most awful commentators on his own work...and this commentary (which just stops about fifteen minutes before the film does) is proof.