Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[Jason M Silverman]

Was quite impressed with Burton's take on the story, saw it twice in the cinema. The color's really seemed to jump out of the screen in a hyper-realistic way, which I found quite suitable to the story. I did find the transition in the beginning from the digital title sequence to the filmed trucks a bit jarring, however. And Danny Elfman did an amazing job, again...

 

I haven't read any tech articles on it, but i was wondering about the squirrel scene... they looked like real squirrels--did they actually train lots of squirrels to do all that, or was it one squirrel reproduced like the oompa-loompa? I can't imagine trying to get one squirrel, much less multiple squirrels to do all that (even if the girl was that annoying...)

 

jason

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I think they had 4 squirrels - they duplicated that to make it look more. How I know this, I don't know :blink:

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I enjoyed the first half hour (before they went to the factory), but I found the rest of the film uninspired and Wonka's background history unnecesary.

 

Some sets were amazing, but I wasn't impressed by the way they were lit. I still think that Burton's style is better suited by someone like Stefan Capzsky or even Emmanuel Lubezki, as they did in the past.

[Gareth Munden]

Adam you are right there were 5-6 of the little beasts , second unit shot them for a few days on green scene , and one or two on the set it's self . I know this as I did some stills for Charlie .

[Sol Train Saihati]

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july05/charlie/index.html !

 

There are some pretty epic lighting setups in there...

Edited August 18, 2005 by djdumpy

[Guest fstop]

Actually, Neal Scanlan's company built several animatronic squirrels which were shot with the real ones. A friend of mine worked for FramestoreCFC who handled the digital elements of the entire sequence, and a mammoth one it was at that!

 

I enjoyed the film immensely, although I agree with many here that it did, inevitably, fall apart towards the end. Tim Burton may be wonderful at individual, visual gags, and I feel when he stops trying to be serious he is a master of farce, but like Ridley Scott, a great storyteller he aint. On something like Mars Attacks Ed Wood or BeetleJuice a series of tenuously linked gags may bring insired, hilarious results, but in something with a more classical (even basic narrative) it falls flat. I agree with Ignacio that the Christopher Lee stuff was best left out, despite how good the actor and Johnny Depp were together. It was just needless and fell away from Wonka being the calculating judge of a morality tale, which is inarguably what Dahl's book was all about.

 

Visually, I think everything for the most part looked gorgeous, until, as with the film itself, near the end of the film where it became messy, without a focus in all the imagery and distracting (a relfection of Burton's inability to tell a simple story through). We'd all love to be Phillipe Rousellot and he has a ball (not just for lighting portraits ;) haw haw ) and I found his use of the DI to be both subliminally stimulating aswell as both subtle and gaudy (!) all at once. I really enjoyed the shaded portraits of Depp in the chocolate river tunnel, and Rousellot's direction of the colourists within such a finely crafted pallette, exploring the primary colours and creating rich new textures. Rousellot (very wisely) never tried to compete or emulate the expert look of the 1971, photographed by the master of children's movies (and a big hero of mine), Arthur Ibbetson. Ibbetson's lensing of Wonka was with a hard frontal key and glimmering hotspot reflections on all of the prop candy and chocolate, a traditional in the Disney sense while also exhibiting the best of confectionary advertising. By contrast, Rousellot's work has big soft sources, often top lit, that are more than occasionally broken up for contrast. In many ways the goal is the same as Ibbetsons was, but the path Rousellot has taken is somewhere else.

 

There has been much discussion of the set design, but I still feel Harper Goff's work on the 71 film is embedded in our popular culture and influenced Burtons vision whether he likes it or not. I also prefered Goff's depiction of the glass elevator as a kind of variation on his 20,000 LEAGUES Nautillus, as oppose to the HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY leftover Burton gives us. Sometimes you HAVE to ADAPT imagery for the the motion picture, as what's written on paper doesn't always work. I also prefered Goff's Wonka main factory hall, which, despite the dirty "chocolate" water that the new movie improves on, was designed as an industrial cage in which all of the candy landscape is grown. Burton and Alex McDowell's rendering takes that industrial threat out of context, so the offing of the Bavarian boy ends up seeming somewhat surreal as oppose to scary and irresponsible (as it had been in the 71 film). I also think McDowell's sets were CLEARLY designed for scope, not flat!

Edited August 18, 2005 by fstop

[Jason M Silverman]

I agree with Ignacio that the Christopher Lee stuff was best left out, despite how good the actor and Johnny Depp were together. It was just needless and fell away from Wonka being the calculating judge of a morality tale, which is inarguably what Dahl's book was all about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought the flashbacks well-served the film. Not only do they recall one of Burton's typical themes in his work, it serves to balance out the over-all depiction of parenting... over-strictness being in of itself harmful, just as over-indulgent, lax, etc etc.

 

i want one of the mechanical squirrels... ;)

 

jason

[Christian Appelt]

Saw CHARLIE yesterday and liked it. Cinematographic style did fit the story, either one likes the Burton touch or not - I do. :)

 

The release print I saw was OK, but every CGI long shot and especially the title sequence looked extremely soft, the title lettering as well as the machinery.

It wasn't a problem of projection, I checked that, and other parts of the movie looked sharp as a tack.

 

Typical 2K DI or maybe do-it-yesterday high speed duping for international release - but usually these "hasty" dupes can be spottet by their poor registration - which was perfect in CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY.

 

A certain similiarity between Depp/Wonka and Michael Jackson was quite spooky to me... :unsure:

[K Borowski]

I thought the same thing when I saw it Christian. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but it is hard to miss the references to Michael Jackson and Dixieland in the film.

 

~Karl

[Brad Grimmett]

but it is hard to miss the references to Michael Jackson and Dixieland in the film.

 

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait....do you mean Neverland? Cause I didn't catch any Dixieland references. Lol.

[zrszach]

Did anyone else hear that they dropped one of the cameras in a vat of synthetic chocolate? I don?t remember where exactly I heard this? ;) It would suck to be the guy who did it.

[K Borowski]

Wait....do you mean Neverland?  Cause I didn't catch any Dixieland references. Lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I meant Neverland.

 

Yes, they did drop a camera into a vat of synthetic chocolate, a $750,000 Panavision MP camera. It was actually mentioned on this forum when they did it. I HAD to see the movie after I heard that. Anyway, I thought that the CG in this film was terribly obvious, low-res, and poorly integrated. THis movie is the summation of all the problems I have with SFX today, they're fake, obvious, and they detract from the realness of almost all of the films I have seen lately. I really enjoyed Depp's performance though. He really did a good job in his portrayal, and he was successful in his goal of being more like the character in the book and less like the classic Wilder character, in my opinion. Depp really is a surpurb actor, although I hate him as a human being.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Joshua Provost]

I saw this the other night in IMAX, and it was spectacular, even the SFX. I first saw it (unwittingly) as a DLP projection, and that was horrid. Flat, muted, and even had some digital artifacts.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Depp really is a surpurb actor, although I hate him as a human being.

 

Why?

 

Phil

[K Borowski]

I've read a few interviews of Depp and he comes off as a real snob. He made his money in Hollywood, but he now seems to think he and his family are too good for the US. It strikes me as a total oxymoron that a Hollywood actor hates the same American way that made him his millions. Again, I think that he is a brilliant actor. He was absolutely brilliant in Pirates of the Carribean, and I also thoroughly enjoyed his portrayal of Ed Wood in the movie of the same name.

 

~Karl

[Brendan Fish]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but baack to the squirerel thing, Saw a MTV "making the movie". They trained 50 (sure thats the number i heard) squirrels from babys, because they have no, suppose it would be called short term memory, they also had to be retrained on set daily, thats just "nuts". Also for a truly great Depp performance, i think he is super cool, and possibly one of the most beatifully shot films, it has to be "Finding Neverland" Am just compleatly in love with that film.

 

Brendan :D

[Rik Andino]

I've read a few interviews of Depp and he comes off as a real snob.  He made his money in Hollywood, but he now seems to think he and his family are too good for the US.  It strikes me as a total oxymoron that a Hollywood actor hates the same American way that made him his millions.  Again, I think that he is a brilliant actor.  He was absolutely brilliant in Pirates of the Carribean, and I also thoroughly enjoyed his portrayal of Ed Wood in the movie of the same name.

 

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I actually met Johnny Depp a few years back...

And he's actually a really nice guy...one of the nicest celebrities I've met.

 

And he doesn't hate the U.S.

(although the way things are going these days

I don't believe I or many would blame him...)

 

He was living in France for a few years because he wanted a new experience...

Besides he's married to a French Actress...(and he was working in Europe)

But he's returned to the U.S.A. and he actually said in an interview he missed it.

 

You should really get things straight before you drag someone's name down...

In someplaces they call that slander.

[K Borowski]

I've never met him, but the article had quotes of what he said, things which were very negative about this country, which I disagree with. So saying I don't like what he says about the US in an article is slander?

[David Mullen ASC]

I've never met him, but the article had quotes of what he said, things which were very negative about this country, which I disagree with.  So saying I don't like what he says about the US in an article is slander?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's one thing to day you disagree with him, but you said you hated him as a human being! Rather strong words just because he's an American who is critical of the USA... Do you always hate people who disagree with you?

 

This is country founded on dissent afterall.

 

When you said you hated him as a human being, I think we all thought we missed some news report revealing that he had molested a child or something. Sort of anti-climatic to now read that it's just because he's somewhat of an elitist with some negative views on America...

[K Borowski]

I hate him as a human being, meaning not as an actor. I think you misread me. It is not a passionate hatred. I just don't like his views. I didn't want to confuse my admiration for his acting skills with my dislike of the "man behind the mask".

[Brad Grimmett]

I don't think being critical of the U.S., even severly critical, warrants hatred.....especially when you don't know the person. And just because you read a couple of articles about the guy doesn't mean you know him. It is possible that he's been mis-quoted in the past. And in my opinion being critical of the U.S. is not a bad thing, it's partiotic to care enough to speak up.

[Guest fstop]

going back to the movie and it's photography:

 

Did anyone else notice the fake, DI simulated bleach bypass effect for the scene where Wonka meets Charlie on the street before they go find Christopher Lee? I wonder if this was used to disguise the British summertime in which the film was actually shot, given it was backlot exterior work. The heightened contrast and bleeding whites nearly took me out of the movie (I'm still remembering it now for goodness sakes!) but it did seem progressive of the almost academically constructed pallette they designed for the movie. I'd be interested to know if this was actually real bleach bypass photography scanned 2K or it was infact just a purely digital printing effect?