Some time ago, I wrote a post on Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in which I noted some features of the plot and writing technique that seem out of fashion today—chiefly that the second half of the book lacks a conflict, strictly speaking, yet remains interesting to the reader because it uses two intertwined mysteries to drive the action. Last night, I saw for the first time the 1971 movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the classic movie with Gene Wilder in the title role. Interestingly, several of the creative changes made by the movie were directly responsive to the features I noted in my prior post.

[Spoilers ahead!]

First, the moviemakers clearly picked up on the Wonka-as-devil-figure aspect and leaned into it. According to director Mel Stuart, Gene Wilder was cast partly because “[h]e had the sardonic, demonic edge we were looking for.” The one song that was lifted almost verbatim from the book, the “There’s no knowing where we’re going” sequence in the boat, was accompanied by psychedelic imagery that grew more disturbing as the song went on, with new verses added: “Are the fires of Hell a-glowing? / Is the grisly reaper mowing?”

Additionally, a new temptation theme is introduced into the movie, in the form of the apparent plot to steal the Everlasting Gobstoppers, which turns out to be a scheme by Wonka himself (and just how does “Mr. Slugworth” manage to show up immediately at various points around the world, as if by magic?). Relatedly, Wonka has the children sign a contract with illegible small print, about which more later, and he is quick to invoke the contract to effectively cheat the children out of their promised chocolate. And, of course, Wonka’s seeming indifference to the fate of the children is emphasized in Wilder’s inimitable style (to the point of producing several internet memes). So yes, Willy Wonka as a potential stand-in for the Devil is very much in play.

Second, the scriptwriters decided to change the plot fundamentally, by having Grandpa Joe and Charlie sneak some of the Fizzy Lifting Drink against Wonka’s express instructions. It was probably this and its consequences that led Roald Dahl to sever ties with the movie, because it deeply damaged the central morality play of the book: Charlie was the good boy who sacrificed for others, followed the rules, and deserved the happy ending, as compared to the other children who demonstrate their character flaws by taking what they are not allowed to take. With the script’s change, nothing fundamentally separates Charlie from the others, until his redemptive act in the climax.

Why make this change? I think they were trying to do two things here. First is to reintroduce conventional plot conflict for the movie, by having Charlie break the contract and putting Charlie’s prize in jeopardy. Second, they wanted to make Charlie a more active character in his story. In the book, he displays his virtue in the initial stages of the plot, but then is reduced to a bystander during the factory tour. The scriptwriters, it seemed, felt that Charlie needed a moment of supreme virtue at the climax—his decision to give back the Gobstopper despite every possible reason not to—so that he deserves his happy ending more directly.

Was this a good change? I have my doubts. The plot device of the contract makes Wonka a much more spiteful character than in the book. And Charlie’s decision to return the Gobstopper and doom his family to grinding poverty, just after Wonka betrays him, strains credulity.

So what else could the movie have done? The more recent Tim Burton version decided to hew more closely to the original plot, right up to the point where Wonka demands that Charlie leave his family behind in exchange for the factory. I do not see this as an improvement overall (and the Dahl estate apparently had serious qualms as well), but it has the merit of preserving Charlie’s virtuous character. Off the top of my head, one could also introduce Wonka’s need for a successor earlier in the movie, with various bad options on the table until Charlie is anointed instead, perhaps because of some display of aptitude that he makes during the tour.

Other quibbles could be made about the movie; most of the songs were forgettable or actively inept (Candy Man and Veruca’s showstopper being exceptions). I do think that removing Mr. Bucket was a reasonable change, given that Charlie was forced into more responsibility as a breadwinner (literally). And the movie did cast Gene Wilder; and therefore, much is forgiven!