Trying to scare me off with your dark expose of Willy Wonka? Bah! I am unscared. ...Unless your next project is Matilda. There's no way you can ruin that one... right?
It's funny that you can see how insidious Willy Wonka is, and yet a company that literally buys portions of the rainforest and threatens to cut it down if "charitable contributors" don't pay a monthly ransom doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow.
@@kingflumph5968 I think the house elves are a little different. They are conditioned and obidient, but the house elves we see the most are not happy. Dobby is a nervous wreck that can't believe that someone would grant him freedom, even accidentally. Kreature is openly resentful and even hostile to most of the Order of the Pheonix. The Hogwarts House Elves are definately where this starts to track again. I believe that they were brought to Hogwarts by the Hufflepuff founder to prevent abuse? Historically there were definitely "better" slave owners who were still slave owners. Definately slaves, but little evidence of them being happy.
@@7RStudios Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Hogwart's elves bothered by Hermione's attempts at freeing them? And I'm pretty sure that one of the "good" characters from the books (possibly Hagrid) told Hermione that Dobby was an exception, and that most house elves don't want to be freed. Maybe something about servitude being their natural condition or something along those lines? I remember it stuck out as weird even when I was a child, but I don't remember the details... I will try to look it up.
@@7RStudios there is a SMALL bit of nuance in HP with the house elves with Dobby and Kreature, though there is a whole C plot in Goblet of Fire (the novel) where Hermione is trying to advocate for wages and better conditions for the house elves at the school and pretty much everyone calls her silly and ignorant for trying to give them rights because "they like working" and paying them would just be confusing and unnecessary. Heck, even Dobby massively undervalues his own labor in the goblet of fire because he "likes work better" than total freedom.
@@kingflumph5968 You're most likely right here. I vaguely remember Hermione making hats in an attempt to free them, but don't remember what they say about the elves' reaction. I think the elves are insulted by it, as only their owner can free them anyways. I sort of interpreted this as the elves feeling they're being taunted with the prospect of freedom. Again, not happy. But I could also be way off. Been a while since I read the books.
wonka keeps forcing them to create new stupid candy, when all they want is normal chocolate instead of the super processed and dangerous candy he creates
Ah yes, a timeless tale about sorting the worthy from the wicked, and a group of children representing the seven deadly sins: greed, greed, greed, and television.
@@kyokoyumi That's also true, but greed works for all of the first three, I think. At least in general usage. While they might've all come at it from different angles, they all had the "I want" mentality that is what people normally mean by greed.
I think Mike was more about ego than television. He consumes vast amounts of knowledge on a daily basis with parents who don’t offer any moral guidance. Therefore, he believes that because he thinks he knows better than everyone, he thinks he IS better than everyone.
@@mr.j.p.awesomeness5606 Yeah, I can see that. To be clear, it's probably been over a decade since I saw either film, and never read the book in its entirety. But, while I definitely remember Mike as having obnoxious smart kid energy, his cardinal sin seemed to be over-eager scientific curiosity. He just wanted a go on the teleport - and who can blame him? He's also right to point out that Wonka has developed something absolutely revolutionary (that could be used to distribute food, medical supplies, etc. all around the world), and the only application he's willing to consider is free samples of his chocolate.
I think the 2005 version shows the vibes crystal clear. The focus on not showing Wonka's face at the start, the Oompa Loompas blank, almost dead faces, the dolls burning during the presentation and the color palette, it's just too much. Also, Wonka is VERY unsettling in that adaptation, I remember feeling scared and weirded out by him. The flashbacks he has are top notch examples. Great video!
I'd also like to call out how much the 2005 film emphasizes the parents' roles in impacting their childrens' personalities. Not only the parents of the "bad" kids, but Wonka and Charlie, too. I’ve seen others criticize the film for putting so much emphasis on Wonka’s backstory and for his personality being so different from any other version, but, to me, it really emphasized how limiting traditions and views are passed generationally. The film ends with Charlie encouraging Wonka to confront that impact directly by accepting that he can still have a relationship with his father despite their differences. It also ends by emphasizing (through explicit narration at the end of the film that sums up the message) that Wonka being accepted into Charlie's family was a bigger win than Charlie winning the factory. Progress arises from the rejection of a status quo that is often reinforced by parents. It's still tied to a narrative that fails to address many of the issues brought up in this video, but, to me, it was a decent direction for an adaptation to take.
if you wernt scared or weirded out by Gene Wilder you probably werent paying attention. But I agree Depp was creeeeepy in the extreme. Which is why i find it utterly baffling that this video and these people all claim to be learning Wonka is evil, from my understanding he was always meant to be a depiction of evil and industrialist greed. I am hearing in this video that my lifelong understanding of Dahl to have been a subversive voice highlighting and underscoring the dark hypocrisies of society. but I guess that was just me.
@@RariettyC I didn't really care much for Wonka being pushed to reconciling with his dad. His dad committed child abandonment.... why would Wonka need to reconcile with his dad?
I’ve always been in a low income family so as a kid I grew up absolutely despising the “bad” children in the movie and taking joy in seeing their wants backfire on them. But now that I’m older I really have grown to sympathize more with them. I tried to be like Charlie and be polite and quiet and submissive as a kid because I had this idea that it was the right way to be, or that I could prove myself worthy enough to get out of my financial situation. Looking back I’ve started to hate Wonka and even the whole movie for a lot of reasons. I let a lot of horrible treatment slide as a kid. I think children should be allowed to be selfish sometimes. They should be allowed to be angry at those in power and sometimes it’s normal to be greedy. I shouldn’t have to make myself small to gain the adoration of the wealthy. I’ve started walking away from exploitative situations and trying to assert myself and even be aggressive when necessary and I don’t think that’s something I should be penalized for. Nothing will change until working class people start demanding more for themselves and their communities.
Making oneself small to gain the adoration of the wealthy is a trap. The wealthy want to be able to ignore everybody but themselves; making oneself small lets the wealthy off the hook, by making that ignorance easy.
Same! I still struggle with this a lot. I am trying to now fight that within myself now. Especially at work, I am learning to more actively protect my boundaries.
I kinda feel you in this comment. Unlike you I was born to a family that should (should) have taken me to the top of the social order and it all fell apart when I was in 3rd grade then the fall was complete when my parents separated and ultimately divorced when I was in 5th grade. I went from being someone who should have (should have) enjoyed the fruits of my family's wealth. But that didn't happen and I was cast off the path to the promised land. I felt jealous and envious of the kids who's families stayed together and they went to the Bahamas and Aspen for vacatikns. They got cars and tons of spending money in their teens. None of that for me though... I've learned to identify those feelings and deal with them. Nothing in life is guaranteed and I do my best to teach my kids that success isn't a promise, especially not easy success. I think I'm doing a good job so far and I married a woman who won't entertain bullshit. I'm sure there are many people who are in the same boat as me and I wish you all well. I hope you find the happiness you wanted as a kid, but don't expect it to come without the work it requires.
Zoe at 25:36: "Let me tell you the story about Willy Wonka... the god." Me: What the fuck Zoe: "But Zoe! I hear you say. What the fuck?" Literally a psychic
"Veruca is rich, so she must not need free candy" is the opposite of the even stranger idea that "Only kids whose parents can afford to buy them candy should get free candy" which happens every Halloween when people complain that kids come from poorer neighborhoods.
That's messed up. I've never heard this....but as a kid raised in a poor neighborhood we would drive to nicer neighborhoods to trick or treat. Lol I thought it was normal and made sense since people in our neighborhoods didn't have as much candy since they can't afford it. I remember how unreal it seemed seeing how people seemed to live in "castles" and had open sidewalks etc. It was like a dream.
@@ari3lz3pp it totally makes sense. I was happy when I got to live in one of the neighborhoods to which people came (I didn't live in a "castle," but it was a nice apartment building on a safe street.).
the climax of the movie _Conrack_ centers on this happening - with poor Black kids being brought to a rich White neighborhood by their White teacher, in the South in the 1960s (the land of Jim Crow apartheid)
Since Wonka has so much data on his customers, he could theoretically rig the game so he makes getting the golden ticket feel like a game of chance without it being obvious that the outcome was predetermined. What was he to do with an heir adult that could only speak Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Swahili, Korean, Hindi, or worse: Anti-capitalist & kind to people?
@lucid6392 No i have no read the books... The point I was making was that the way the tickets are being found is no by a random luck mechanism... As in Wonka targeted the set of winners and secured that they will win, while looking like random luck... In the movies he make comments to that effect, as if he was expecting that particular set of kids... the hacker one is probably the most telling one, because you cant make a computer to generate a random number, so every random number you get out of a computer is in reality the result of a complicated mathematical operation, but if you know the formula and know the variables, you can predict what random number a computer will generate, every single time... Witch take me to my point... if Wonka used a true random system, then the hacker boy would no have being able to hack it... but... also if it was a true random system, then Charlie would have never got that ticked... that being the reason why Wonka does no use a true random system... he wants a particular set of kids that he have chosen before even starting the contest, but he want it to look random, and the hacker boy took the place of one of those kids, but Wonka decides to keep the gig up and continue the plan with him, just figuring out how to punish him.
I’m sorry - Wonka as God hit harder than I expected and didn’t realize the genesis underpinnings before and holy shit - also the musical version where the kids actually die was shocking! Shookedethed
With the Oompa-Loompas existentially threatened by critters in their territory, it does suggest that maybe the Oompa-Loompas aren't actually long-term natives to that area but rather driven into a dangerous, unsustainable region by an earlier imperialist episode making their prior homeland unavailable to them.
@@PosthumanHeresy I always thought they were distant human relatives who’d been driven to near extinction in the corners of the world when Homo sapiens dispersed and colonised everywhere, but that also works.
Either that or the "creatures" are actually harvesters coming in for the cocoa and other resources. After all, Wonka seems really keen on controlling all aspects of his operation. What if Wonka was responsible for making Loompa Land inhospitable by sourcing his cocoa from there with his monstrous machinery, then using their terror to incentivize relocation to his factory?
I don't understand that.....since there are dangerous creatures in any place until the people's there develop the technology to either eradicate or to live safely amongst them. There are still many places in South America and Africa and Asia where people live with the threat of wildlife today. Some farmers in small villages have to learn ways to ward off dangerous animals that still threaten them, and even in urban cities in India it's not uncommon to have wildcats and such in the area threatening lives, especially children and pets. So I don't get your point. I think the book has an interesting way of perhaps over dramatizing it in the sense that it's expected with non-advanced societies but it's been also seen as an excuse to" remove" people from their homelands. ("Remove" because even if you're tricked it's literally your choice to MOVE and thenit's incorrect to say being "removed"). Throughout history this and war have been used for various peoples to overcome others. Regardless of being a different or the same race.
@Jeff Engel Given that they're explicitly stated to value cocoa beans effectively as money, it seems likely that they were displaced from one or more of the territories where cocoa is presently cultivated. This creates a scenario wherein Wonka is a robber baron enslaving the people displaced by the darkest chapter of his industry's history, a chapter he might have had a hand in writing.
@@KenionatusIn the Anthropic Plot Principle we trust. If it's good enough for the likes of Victor Hugo to dole out like candy, it's good enough for Charlie Bucket.
This is such a thorough an thoughtful analysis. The nutso capitalist nightmare of wonka’s factory is clear, but your explanations of why Charlie was chosen, especially about him not winning until he bought the chocolate for himself, and for winning because he’s essentially a non-character who accepts his place with dreams but without complaint is really insightful.
Kenji you continue to surprise me with who you watch on RUclips, your support of rising essayists and video makers is awesome and makes me smile every time I see it :)
@@mortarion9787 Capitalist is the system that says who gets paid more the laborer or the capitalist. The name being capitalism i hope you can figure out who gets most of the money.
@@Leftistattheparty do you create such arguments in your head, oe you heard it on another foodtuber's podcast, instead of reading a good about economy lol
Charlie has a good quality not mentioned: love and faithfulness to his family. In the 2005 version at least, he wouldn't take the factory without bringing his family with him.
“I won’t redistribute wealth but at least the people I care about will be rich and cared for” Blind faithfulness to family purely for them being family and no other reason reeks of Monotheistic religion and capitalist heteronormative family values. You owe no allegiance to an abusive family member or a misanthropic hate filled relative just because they are family…faithfulness to his family is not a unique quality for Charlie, it’s the bare minimum expected for a character like with a nice family like his and therefore he is a blank slate and that is a quality not worth mentioning. Same with just feeling the emotion of “love” The absence of which is notable but its presence is again the bare minimum you would expect of an average human being. If you think he’s a hero just because he didn’t let his family rot without him then you have an incredibly low bar for what you categorise as “note worthy qualities of good people”
I prefer the alternative timeline where Wonka makes the Oompa Loompas his heir by turning the chocolate factory into an employee-owned co-op instead of going through that nonsense with the golden tickets.
Imagine you go online to see what your old teacher is up to these days only to watch them sensually eat a chocolate bar while discussing a confectionary-centric religion.
@@AgrioTheMoo i’ve had two types of english teachers in my time: -those who i couldn’t read well enough to guess what they’d think of Zoe’s channel -those who would be filled with intense confusion and fear by it
ZoeBee: I'm going to focus on releasing short, experimental videos maybe discussing writing techniques. No more deep dives until next year. Also ZoeBee: Here's an amazingly researched and thought out 67 minute video. Thanks for this video, Zoe!
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740 "Socialism for Absolute Beginners" is, as the Name hints at, a Base-Course and the Best i know. Made by the Soclialist-RUclipsr Second-Thought.
as a kid from working class immigrants, the overall capitalism in the movie was something i always noticed. its so very white american. like how can you not see the oompa loompas as slaves? but i NEVER thought about charlie being a good little consumer that gets rewarded for giving the corporation all his money 👀
@@Ashley24306 and? You can still use american exceptionalism as a framework while not living there? Or be inspired by those sorts of ideas, which are heavily spread within Americ
What's wrong with sonething being 'white American'? How dare you attempt to shame an ethnicity over a poxy book. You life must be horrendously sad and empty, but try some other means to make it bearable rather than overt racism.
The most horrible fate for the tiniest crime. There's an entire horror subculture about it, probably because of how such imbalance terrifies and captures the imagination, usually boiling down to stories where the victim does literally _nothing_ wrong and is blueberried by accident or even deception such as roofied food and drink, yet condemned to not only exploded but for their pieces and fluids to now be infectious and strike other innocents who then helplessly become the next human bombs to make more bombs that make more bombs in a blueberry zombie Apocalypse... 💥
@@nicholastosoni707I think the children were rotten in some ways, but if anything it's the fault of their parents and the way our system is constructed to create selfish people
At 44:46, when you talk about Charlie spending the last of his money on chocolate, I'm reminded of the biblical story of the poor woman who donates just one penny as compared to the pharisee who donates lots, with Jesus praising the woman because she gave everything and the pharisee gave only a little of his whole. Likewise, Charlie loves Wonka and gives every last penny he has to Wonka, unlike the others who cheat or only give a little of what they have to Wonka.
it’s actually just as interesting that most people-myself included at one point-also have that kind of reading of that scene, known as the Widow’s Offering (Mark 12:41-44), because it doesn’t explicitly say that Jesus was applauding the poor widow (likely because she was mentioned at the end). rather, he may have been pointing out the wealth disparity in Ancient Judean society being reflected in its religious aspect and perhaps corrupting it as well. it’s not the widow’s fault that she’s willing to offer everything she had-she literally lost her husband, something that’s out of her control-but maybe if that rich guy gave away his wealth directly to people like her (widows are obligated by Mosaic law to glean/receive welfare), she probably wouldn’t be in that situation. much like with Charlie, we’ve become so fixated on revering the poor but good person who doesn’t complain abt being poor and gives all they got with the hopes that God or “the system” rewards them justly
Yes...which is especially creepy as if the writer is trying to make Wonka into a false idol to take the place of God. A consumerist God as said in this video. 💀 Do you get the "Satan works for God" trope? I study the Bible and I know of course Lucifer used to ....was THE right hand angel to God...but then given power on Earth (yes I believe in a way for God to make a point...) But he's not directly working for God but against him... So when she says this I was thrown off. Do you know what she's talking about?
Kind of can show how religion can be corruptive and manipulative if given to capitalism. Religion is for morality and guidance yet it is funny how pastors and popes have private jets and some even have mansions and live the good life.
People saying you're taking something too seriously because it's "children's" literature bothers me so much. If it's for children, it should be examined that much more seriously. This is when so many life lessons are instilled. (Also people say it all the time about teen and adult lit/film, etc as well. Because it's just a "story" or just "comedy")
It's the folly of personal responsibility all the way down. You're right, we should absolutely be more conscious of the media we consume. It's well understood by now that humans are notoriously bad at discerning between reality and fiction, and we need to stop playing dumb and pretending like there isn't bad media that teaches people the wrong values out there.
And I don't really understand why this is considered children's literature. Maybe the books sounded less gross but the film was especially constantly creeping me out. I still get chills to this day every time I think about it at least a decade later, without ever revisiting the material in detail. And it's not like I have a particularly strong disgust response to anything otherwise. It just seemed like it contained too many uncomfortable adult-ish themes
Especially media directed towards children under 13 since their brains literally aren't capable of critical thinking or understanding nuance and are prone to just accepting and believing whatever an assumed authority tells them to.
It's because two types of people say this, those who don't know the power of stories and those who know EXACTLY how powerful stories are. It's basically in our DNA to tell stories. We learn better through narratives. Our brains even try to make sense of the information by telling rambling, Incoherent stories in our dreams. Aspirations of what we could become and legends of what was are also stories. It's why when people overanalyze media to make a point, people try to use that to discredit it, because it's taking a story meant to uphold the status quo and subverting its messages.
FoxyFemBoi but it is just a story, and regardless of its flaws, it can still have value. It is one of many books by Roald dahl so trying to cancel willy wonka and the people who created him in movies as well as the original creator is pretty sad. Most of the childrens' books he made (idk about the adult ones but heard they're good) are full of great lessons like the BFG, Matilda and the Twits especially.
Ironically he also works like a communistic leader. Expecting people to ask for nothing and to obey and work "equally" until one is considered special by the people in power. (Though the idea of coming up from nothing is even more of a pipe dream in a socialist/communistic society).
I am curious what the consensus on how relevant the Broadway musical is? IDK why but it rubs me the wrong way slightly as it feels like the Broadway musical isn't nearly as Canon as the movies, but I'm not sure why I feel that way.
I personally feel it’s because the Broadway musical changed so much during its relatively short run. It started out as something similar to the West End musical, but as performances happened and it got poor reviews, they added more songs from the Gene Wilder movie and generally made it more like that version.
Me at the beginning: Hmm, an anticapitalist reading of Willy Wonka? Seems interesting enough Me halfway through: WILLY WONKA IS YALDBOATH, THE DEMIURGE, THE BLIND IDIOT GOD, MASTER OF MATERIAL REALITY AND THE SUFFERING THEROF
As someone with autism, the “Wonkaverse” is my oldest hyperfixation. I know waaaaaay too much about this franchise, and I’m so so so happy it’s being covered in any capacity. Thanks so much for the fun video🥰💜
Hi, fellow autistic person here 👋 I wanted you to know that I'm very happy reading, that you feel joy watching this video. Special interests can make so much fun 🤗 I found a podcast about one of my special interests yesterday and I feel so save listening to it.
@@leonideschnuppei very much agree. I love this video and will warch more. For kalle and choklad fabriken (swedish title) i read the book and watched Burton movie only. We diacuassed the slave aspect in swedish primary school😊
@@ari3lz3pp Which is actually part of the irony. Outright porn? 1200% acceptable by RUclips standards. Sensual soft-core ASMR that wouldn't even qualify as porn on PornHub? I'm surprised there wasn't an insta-ban. :P
The idea of “helping” people in “dangerous lands” by making them your slave and thus “providing and protecting” for them is literally just straight out of the slavery era. Work makes you free level logic.
You should hear how the English Conservatives still talk about the British Raj.. I mean what would Rishi Sunak know about it, except his family were a high caste?
The whole bit about Wonka the dark god put words to the thing that I always hated about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I grew up in an evangelical household and both the 70s movie and book left me with the same frustration I felt at every Christian description of why punishment was right and necessary. The narrative seemed to imply what happened to these kids was funny/deserved and I was actively upset, only to be told "well that's what happens when kids are bad". I felt a deep kinship with Charlie as the "good" child but I also felt a little frustrated that the whole reason he was good was because he never once spoke up about how bad things were for him. So uh, this is all to say you hit that aspect perfectly, excellent work.
I always felt bad for the bratty kids too. Not their fault their parents didn’t raise them right. Charlie misbehaved too in the first movie though. But Wonka let him have the factory anyway because he refused to sell the everlasting Gobstopper to the fake Mr. Slugworth.
It is also worth pointing out that Charlie could have sold that ticket for a fortune. He could have resold his blessing for enough wealth to feed his family. Ever the good consumer he threw his lot into the pool to try and win even more.
I absolutely loved how your 4 interpretations of the character built off of each other. By the time you got to the last one, I was 100% on board with the notion of Willy Wonka representing a god. Great job!
This channel is, hands down, one of the best of RUclips. Not only did Zoe managed to convince me that Willy Wonka is basically an eldritch horror with a human body, but also she managed to create a PERFECT prayer to honor the Prince of Dark Chocolate. What the actual fudge!? P.S Please, at least consider analyzing Scrooge McDuck in your series about billionaires in children's media! The wealth (😉) of source material about him would probably be enough for a video at least as large showstopper-y as this one!
Unsure if it's intentional, but it does seem non-coincidental that, of the two movies, the version in the 70s (a time of widespread, near jingoistic support of capitalism in the Cold War), Willie Wonka is depicted as always being in command of the situation and seeming to always be the man with a plan; whereas, in the 2005 version, as the social conscience begins to become a bit more progressive, the movie tends to infantilize the billionaire, making him more of a pitiable than admirable character for a lot of it. I don't necessarily think it's because they're trying to make him relatable, so much as trying to make his actions feel less malicious (again, whether that be intentional or conscious or not). Excellent and comprehensive video! I look forward to the next in the series!
It's absolutely intentional. Wonka is putting on a fake weird persona overtop his actual weird persona in both. The first one establishes it immediately with the cane. He comes out pretending to be this frail man, and then he does acrobatics. It's a trick. He talks about all this absolutely absurd stuff with pure seriousness to the point where nobody knows when he's serious, his mood swings like a metronome, and he occasionally has terrifying bursts of madness like on the boat. It's all to throw people off and make them unable to read him. The Depp version was actually discussed in interviews back in 2005, not that I can find them, where he explained exactly where he got his version. The character is still putting on a mask of extra weird to throw people off and make people assume every awful or absurd thing he says is fake, but Depp said he actually based his performance on an irl friend of his who does the same (and is a massive obsessed fan of the 70s film, so perhaps was influenced there). That friend was Marilyn Manson fyi. Depp's Wonka's personality is based on Johnny Depp's personal experience as Marilyn Manson's best friend since 1989.
PostHumanHeresy already gave a better response, but I'm going to throw my hat in as well. I think that later iterations of the film are more reflective of the reality of how the role of the CEO has changed since the 70s. CEOs after the 70s started incorperating their personal identities to their brands, rather then their core values. Think of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk. Like Willy Wonka, all these people are admired as geniuses by the masses. This ego-centrism creates a cult of personality that forms around their brand identity, which mystify them as people, and further solidifies consumer loyalty.
I’ll go on record saying that as a child watching this, I was more sympathetic to the various kids than to anyone else. What kid doesn’t make a mistake and act like a little shit from time to time? Their punishments for basic ass infractions seemed so extreme. And it was very much uncertain whether or not any of them made it out alive. Also Charlie also did something wrong but he got off scott free. I definitely had a contentious relationship with the original film growing up.
I can’t watch any of the adaptions because despite people saying how fun the movies are I feel sick to my stomach watching the children basically die. There is something fetishistic and deeply unsettling in both adaptions about the punishment scenes even in movies that make impotent attempts to criticise or satirise the themes of the book. I don’t want to sit in the same room as people who want to see a child choke in a claustrophobic pipe filled with chocolate because he was fat or a kid expand, terrified calling out for help because she ate a piece of gum. I’d call Dahl a pig but that would be an insult to pigs. 2005 Mike TV is the only likeable character and feels like an audience surrogate.
I think you dug up some repressed memories I had of a Willy Wonka themed sermon I listened to in church as a kid. Cause when we got to the whole "Willly Wonka: The God" I was just like...."oh shit...I've...actually heard this interpretation before???"
Actually a valid worry tbh, i mean, considering nestle is the biggest food corp currently and also still uses slave/child labor for their cocoa and, well, yknow. Also this is pretty unrelated, but while i was fact checking myself to make sure nestle does in fact still use child labor, google gave me a vague answer talking about how there was a lawsuit over the child labor and that it was ruled in Nestle's favor. I just love Google it always gives me the most accurate and unbiased and easily accessible info :') /j
@@cable_g0re I mean... Nestlé published (in January of this year), how they would "tackle child labour in cocoa production". You won't get any closer to an admission than that I suppose ://
Had no idea there was a Willy Wonka musical, and I went and listened to the song you suggested. It literally checks all the boxes for a villain song??? The tone, cadence, the instruments being played in the background? All would not be out of place in a more traditional villain song
Interestingly it's not actually a villain song. It's the song scheme of The Tempter. The character that offers the hero their want. This song is Often sung by the villain, but not always. For simple examples we can use disney. On the one hand you have Friends on the Other Side sung by Dr. Facilier offering change to the characters at a price. On the other hand you have The Genie from Aladin, singing Friend Like Me, tantalizing Aladin with all the amazing wonders he could have. Both characters offer amazing things, but each has different intents. This is the song that lures a character into the Tent at the carnival, or the Cave in the mountain. It coerces the deal and promises riches. Which still totally works with the presented dissection of the character. But it leaves more room for interpretation. By contrast if Wonka were just a villain his song would sound closer to Be Prepared in the Lion king or Hellfire in the Hunchback of Notre Dam
I watch a lot of videos which touch on colonialism and the western pedagogy, but never go as far as naming it or being so pointed. This was a great reflection, and I really appreciate the focus on poverty and colonialism towards the end. Content like this is why youtube essayists are valuable. Thanks.
The first time I had contact with this work was during my childhood in the 90s when I watched the 1971 adaptation on TV... I remember feeling a bitter taste, in contrast to the sweets in the film, and asking my mother " this guy, Willy Wonka is mean, isn't he?" to which she replied, "he is cruel and evil!"
This isn't related to the video at all, but uhh my eighth grade english teacher is a huuuge Zoe Bee stan. I'm not in their class anymore, but I still talk to them pretty often, and they always talk about how "I wish she worked here so we could collaborate. I love her ideas about teaching and stuff."
When I was a kid I asked my dad who was reading me the story why didn't Willy Wonka just give the factory to the oompa loompas because they were already doing all the work.
Willy Wonka isn't Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or even Ted Bundy; Willy Wonka is Loki, Anansi, the Coyote, the trickster god of chocolate and greed acting in neither good nor evil but his own twisted self interest.
@@wyattsamuel4972 Self interest can very easily drive improving the lives of others and society. Example: Would you rather be in the top 10% of a country with a large social safety net and ample social freedoms maintained in part by your taxes/donations. Or the top 0.01% of an incredibly poor country with freedoms limited among everyone but your class? Rising tide raises all ships. We thrive together but fall when separate. Community drives happiness more than money does (after bills are covered.)
@@onewingedangel9189 Still don't see how Gates or Bozos are more evil than the concept of Wonker. He uses slave labour, I think it'd be a good representation of those millionaires.
It's worth mentioning that the scene of Wonka feigning his injury and feebleness was conceived by Gene Wilder to inject that sinister undertone of untrustworthiness. Was the entire tale always meant to be a cautionary tale? This whole time I never realized
I must say, as an adult who was once an autistic child who was endlessly skeptical of moralizing literature, this was one of the first big stories that stuck in my mind, and caused me to endlessly disect and analyze it my whole life through, and find many of the same objections and critiques listed in this video. I even started working on a musical based on an amalgam of many of these readings, but I never got very far with it in it's multiple iterations. When I would share my thoughts with other people, I was often met with bewilderment and annoyance as many neurodiverse folks tend to be when giving their alternative perspectives on things commonly accepted to have only one meaning. All this is to say, thank you, Zoe. Seeing other people with platforms reach similar conclusions decades later provides me with some sense of vindication, as I can see that I'm not alone in my hypothesizing and cultural deconstruction of the work and its messages.
Setting for a tabletop roleplaying game: the town of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. Its 20 years after the story, Charlie has taken over the Wonka brand, gotten weird himself in various ways, and a series of ritual murders have been going for about a year now. Some people say that its Wonka himself. Others say its a side effect of whatever project he got into now that his factory is no longer the only thing he focuses on. Nobody knows where the Oompa Loompas came from but him and he's not telling, and they aren't human, and they've been seen outside the factory at multiple times as agents of the factory. Strange men are often seen around town and are obviously plotting something, but disperse whenever noticed significantly. The town's economy is only barely hanging on, but danger is beginning to drive people away. And as the chocolate he made became more available, the chocolate that was both considered a luxury item on par with a week's worth of food and which had planned scarcity to drive up prices, people are starting to realize that something is severely wrong with that chocolate, but of course nobody wants to stop eating it when its a dollar a bar and hersey's is 2.19.
I read this comment and when it just ENDED with the last sentence, I felt so bamboozled... So fully bamboozled. I was ALREADY fully invested in this world you were building! I have no idea how to finish this story!! I don't specialize in mysteries, and this has so many plot hooks! So little information! I am addicted and scared and I don't understand how it would end! Is THIS how TTRPG's are written?? As the world building for a whole story that isn't written and CONS the players into finishing it?? :o Of COURSE the potential player-characters include townspeople of varying levels of faithfulness, varying levels of welcome-to-night-vale scared of the shadowy organization that surrounds them. Even one of the "men in black" could be a character, who knows too much and has to keep it from the other players and try to deceive them... A small group of plucky local kids - like friggin Sandlot - end up whacking one and taking his clothes and dressing up as him and retracing his steps and breaking in like Bioshock and finding... what? GAAAH, I have no idea how to end the story! Lovecraftian? Satanic? Ghosts? Aliens??? (Aliens are totally canon in the Great Glass Elevator, after all) ADDICTING, see what I mean??
@@86fifty With that last sentence I tried to blend Lovecraftian "What the fuck is happening to me?" horror with the social horror of capitalism having no meaningful restrictions
"Only deserving children deserve to consume his magical products" - do you know what this reminds me? Atlas Shrugged. The Randian protagonists also want that, want somehow to select the "worthy" consumers to consume their magical products (and they get what they want in Galt's Gulch). I read Atlas Shrugged for research once and it was painful, but it was also enlightening because it's the biggest example of "saying the quiet part loud" of capitalism. You can see a lot of stories have the monopolistic entrepreneur as the hero, the protagonist who has been slighted and robbed of his rightful profits. In economic theory we learn early that monopolies are bad, but there's this temptation of that only if the monopolists were *good* there would be hope. Of course, some of them are in these stories because writing a "good" monopoly is easier than portraying the complexities of the market economy.
in theory some monopolies are good for the people and the environment, from stupid things like having a single streaming service for everything to important things like unified health system would be great. the problem is that people working for themselves for profit can never be trusted with doing the right thing, so for capitalism to work we can't have monopolies.
The book worked because every reader imagines that /they/ are part of the productive elite who everyone else should respect. The genius who is held back by the constraints of society. No, it's everyone else who is stupid and lazy! The reader is always one of the special ones.
@@danilooliveira6580 the kinds of monopolies that really work properly are what I guess you could call "monopolies of the masses". Things where everybody contributes what they can, and takes what they need. Actually, that sounds like something...
@@pennyforyourthots that is not what I was referring to. I was talking about things where competition takes away the convenience of the consumer or cause more damage. for the former things like a single streaming services is the simplest answer, it would be amazing if we only needed to subscribe for one streaming service to watch everything we want. for the later I would say the Starlink, the constellation provides more benefits to society than the minimal damage to ground observatories, but as LEO gets more crowded with more constellations from different companies it will start to get exponentially worse. those are examples of things were more options doesn't make it better for the consumer or the world. but them being monopolies still present the same risks as any other service, so while having only one is technically better, it wouldn't work because no company can be trusted to put the benefit of the consumer first. but yes, being publicly funded does make some of those things possible, like the unified health system I mentioned. the GPS system is another great example, where everyone in the world can use for free. but they still have some problems from being monopolies. as an example the GPS system for being funded by the US it is designed so GPS tracking devices can't be used on fast moving missiles by anyone beside the US and its allies, so many countries have their own GPS constellation so they don't become dependent on the US.
I never really thought of Willy Wonka as an awful guy when I was a young child and was just happy that Charlie could escape from poverty, but recently, I rewatched both movies with my friend and sister. While watching, I noticed how messed up it was for Willy Wonka to manipulate and injure children, the fact that he enslaved the oompa loompas, and as my sister pointed out, how he plans to groom a child into running a business exactly as he wants so that he will essentially be controlling the company even after his death. Thanks to this video, I now have a much more... complex view of the story
Did you even watch the video? Willy Wonka is evil is a myopic cop out answer that absolves the entire story created of any guilt. Horrendous liberal take: Capitalism isn’t bad it’s just that evil people are in power and we need good people in power like Charlie.
"The vast, unknowable phantom of fudge" will live in my mind forever, in the same way that "You are the baby in the barn" or "I sang in my chains, like the sea" will. Thank you for this.
Hey I've been looking all over for you! I've got something of yours. It was in a barrel of all places, I think over by the census office. Oh hey have you talked to Arrille recently? Man me and him used to drink sujamma on the dock until we passed out. Anyway send me a DM and I'll mail it to you. Hope you're well.
When I was younger I thought it was absurd that everyone was so obsessed with Wonka's chocolate but then I understood something. Wonka's factory exists in a world where Disney never existed. When you think about it, there are a lot of parallels between Wonka and Disney
As a child/young teenager I legitimately thought everyone talking about the “glass ceiling” or “breaking the glass ceiling” was referring to the scene in the 1971 movie with The Great Glass Elevator. I thought it meant someone (anyone) got a big promotion. 😂
Thats the one thing i get frustrated at, how can you NOT take anything targeting children seriously? It's these things that shape their morals, personalities, likes and dislikes, etc. The amount of ignorance surrounding how indescribible the importance of the upbringing of a person is, just fuckin baffles me.
This would imply that parents are actually media literate enough to consider how it effects their children. The only time I see parent's actually speak out is when it involves media with "satanic" or "Woke" messages. Parents are absolutely clueless.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz totally agree. I often say now that there isnt a single parent ready to raise a kid. Kinda just rolls back into the ignorance of how important the upbringing is and how emotional intelligence is severly lacking lol
You reminded me of a paper I wrote for literature class in highschool about the kids in the book - my argument was exactly that the kids are punished for being kids and Charlie is impossibly good
What I remember from watching Willy Wonka as a kid, was constantly being compared to Verruca Salt whenever she came on screen by my family, in a Judgey, teasing sort of way and it always made me feel so small. It may sound silly, but it effected me deeply, to the point where even now, I feel uncomfortable asking for the things I need and want, even when I’m prompted to do so because I don’t want to put people out or be seen as a spoiled brat. Something about how Zoe Bee talks about how the children are villainized and how they might not completely deserve it, just hit a nerve in me, and brought these memories back I guess
My youngest kid’s entry into “chapter” books via self reading was Roald Dahl, starting with, yes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I was happy about it primarily because it set off the intense love of reading that was already well entrenched in her parents and older siblings. But Dahl’s…problematic aspects did bother me from time to time and I was glad when she embraced other works as she widened her reading horizons. (And yeah, they ended up including Harry Potter too, sigh…but that’s hardly unusual.) But this fantastic and troubling examination has made me think about my own early influences, especially in light of that powerful opening (and repeated) quote, during my childhood in the 60s and early 70s. They included the Oz books, the Great Brain books, All of a Kind Family, Edward Eager’s magical adventure books and the practicality everything by Zilpha Keatley Snyder. Most importantly were the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander and E. Nesbit’s Psammead series (5 Children and It, etc.). Both Alexander and Nesbit (and Snyder too) offered a much different kind of sensibility than Dahl, one that involved kindness, ethics and a willingness to grapple with difficult situations without indulging in cruelty or indifference. Nesbit’s books were a revelation for me as a kid, suggesting that adults weren’t always helpful or even knowledgeable, and that blind obedience to them wasn’t necessarily a good thing. Some of my beloved books from youth (particularly the Prydain series) are still at the top of my recommend list and hold up decade upon decade. But I’m also truly grateful for the options kids have now that are broader and ever more thoughtful and meaningful as the crappy privileged cruelties of our unfortunate histories are (all too slowly) discarded. Dahl was absolutely an entertaining writer…but I’m not sorry to let his ugly viewpoints fade away.
I always saw Willy Wonka and his chocolate factory as a critique of capitalism's flaws, packaged as a humorous children's story. Sort of a "see how stupid and ridiculous this looks? Well some adults do business like this in real life!" kind of thing. But maybe that's just because I read the story as an older child (11-13), and I grew up with parents who prohibited me from eating any candy, so I never associated it with happiness the way many other kids do. Even then, I can totally see how a younger child (especially one who is addicted to chocolate or other candy) could read/watch this story and see it as a glorification of capitalism and excessive consumerism. From the Oompa-Loompas and squirrels being indentured servants, to the complete disregard for worker and visitor safety in the factory, to the very premise of manufacturing nutritionless addictive substances to sell to children, that story really did sugar-coat everything and avoid addressing the underlying systemic wrongs that make such a business possible.
Roal Dahl was definitely an outspoken racist. The witches from the homonimous book are EXTREMELY obvious antisemitic metaphors when they literally control the banks. The oompa loompas were pygmies in the original edition.
Nevertheless, the book does seem like a critique of it. Willy wonka is very obviously the opposite of what a human should strife for. Dahl was fond of the idea that children should be exposed to the macabre from a very young age. He included themes of cannibalism and rape in his poetry book that carried reenditions of classic tales. In a scene from matilda, the librarian offers the psychic child a romance book "of those fifteen year old girls read", and yet, she rejects it in favour of more adult books. Roald Dahl didn't mean to carry the message wonka was a good guy, he is very clearly insane and he made jokes about his psycopathy
I think the Tim Burton version does a better job of portraying what a flawed character Willy Wonka is. The added backstory also gives it more of a family theme where you can see he has trauma from being disowned by his father who was a dentist that wouldn’t let him have any candy so he ended up obsessed with candy as a result.
Why did I never notice that Charlie was supposed to die in those fan blades. He wasn't special and fated to win, there wasn't supposed to be a last survivor. He was just lucky enough to escape his punishment.
@@SparkzMxzXZ No, it's the exact opposite opinion of the video. The video says Charlie was perfect, following all the rules, not taking anything that didn't belong to him and that's why God Wonka did not punish him. That made me realize she was wrong. Charlie did take something that didn't belong to him and faced a punishment along with the others.
I'll always remember when my friend in highschool wanted to watch Willy Wonka. They were fond of it, and I had good childhood memories of it so I was up for it. I wish I was able to enjoy it as much as they did but something just didn't feel right to me with the overall moral. At the end, I was left more troubled than anything. Was that the movie I remembered? I forgot about it, but growing up, starting to understand better why I felt that way. But I felt alone. Nobody around me was seeing any issue with the way the kids were treated or expcted to behave. Or that the kids are punished for being selfish even though Charlie bought chocolate instead of food for his starving family. I was starting to thing I was missing something. (Sorry for the broken english, it's not my language and I've had a migraine earlier ^^')
Thank you so much for mentioning the fatphobia directed at Augustus. I've heard countless reviews and theories about this work, but rarely if ever hear than mentioned (unless it's by fat people or fat activists). Also ahhh Snow Piercer lol. I loved the ridiculousness. Now I need to watch those videos again. I know the creators of that movie weren't purposely doing anything remotely like that, but I just love the fun people have with it :p
@@shirleymaemattthews4862well prejudice based on fatness does exist. Although it is the only prejudice that i can think of that is something you can control.
As someone who lives in a Commonwealth country-i.e. former colony-and had to read the book in 4th grade, and loved the movie, I was so excited to hear your thoughts to say the least! I think this is a great way to investigate children's stories, stories in general and the way we communicate ideas through stories. Also to what degree that is intentional versus by default. This is one of the stories I've thought about in different ways over and over again and you've given me a few new ways, thank you. You capture so many nuances and questions I have missed; I hope this analysis gets the attention it deserves, especially in classrooms!
I don't know if its funny or what but Matilda, his other very popular children's book/movie was one of the things that helped me begin the long journey to braking conformity and accepting that was okay just being myself, more specifically a shy bookish person while the rest of my family just... was not... basically it taught me the lesson of how adults are just people like everybody else and thus can and will make mistakes and sometimes just be plain wrong about things. Fun fact: I was actually a bit scared of the first movie version while watched Matilda on repeat with no ideia they came from the same mind (even tough he didnt like that movie version or so I heard).
Charlie is kind of the odd man out where Dahl heroes are concerned, because he very rarely celebrates docility and following the rules. Even in Matilda or the Witches or the BFG there's always *some* adult it's appropriate to trust, but Wonka is unusual in making that the one who already has all the power
I had a foster parent who was just like the Trunchbull and Matilda’s parents for that matter. She wouldn’t even let me check out books on vector calculus or nuclear physics from the library.
You know this book inspired me to write my own version; set on Halloween, with a magical labyrinth, the victims as a foreign girl and her school bullies, and Fair Folk as the overseers. Each victim is a model of their preferred vice or (negative) ideology. And the Labyrinth is a puzzle test for them to get out of before midnight or sunrise, and avoid the temptation each area of the Labyrinth possesses.
Considering the *dates* in that story... Wonka offloaded the whole thing right before it would be shut down by the government. That poor young boy is left holding the bag for a company that is going to violate a lot of health and workplace laws.
On the other hand, Wonka did make sure that Charlie was well aware about everything the cops were going to show up and ask questions about, even going so far as to let Charlie watch other children his age demonstrate the factory hazards in real time. 😇
Subliminal messaging in children’s stories I’m order to manipulate them is a bigger problem than people think. From the ‘slavery is good sometimes’ sentiment in Harry Potter to the disabled villains of Cars 2 who want to be equal, there’s a lot of kids stuff out there with questionable messages once you look into it deep enough.
Well, I guess we should also consider that in order to get anything published on a large enough scale at all, authors and other creatives will need funding, and the people who can take care of funding usually do also take an interest in the actual contents of what it is that they might or might not fund. So creatives who try to make a living doing what they love need to walk something of a tightrope, appeasing the people who can provide them with funding and other means, while also somehow not selling their souls (entirely)
I'm also reminded of the "equalists" in Legend of Kora, non-benders who had a charismatic leader. To put it simply, they were basically non-bender communists who did not like the inequitable treatment they recieved from the ruling party, namely the benders. The entire idealogical bias of that show essentially came down to, "Everything is bad except neo-Liberalism... even when neo-Liberalism was the real problem." I remember being consistently frustrated while watching that show, and it wasn't just because Kora was a repugnant lead character or the constant fan pandering.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz No. You're clearly dumb. The point of the show is that there's not a perfect solution, and usually the solution people propose are extremist
When does Harry Potter have a "slavary is good sometimes." Thing? One of the most triumphant moments is when Harry tricks Lucious into freeing Tobby. And the only good magical family we see, the Weaslis, don't have a House Elf.
The first section felt like an excellent demonstration of media analysis and how useful (or at least interesting) looking at the same work via different analytical lenses is, and that the lens you choose to look at a work from gives vastly different readings of a work and the characters within it. Excellent video overall, and would definitely like to see your videos on other billionaires in children's media.
Dovetailing off this comment, a deep-dive into Daddy Warbucks and the “Annie” narrative of the chosen orphan would overlap with a lot of themes from Willy Wonka.
YES. I look forward to the Ducktales reboot episode, which did such a good job with the characters AROUND Scrooge, but stopped short of accepting him as the villain in the end. My kiddo hears my diatribes about each episode every time he rewatches. I would LOVE to see your take on some of the very real and concerning issues just skirted around in the show.
@rightsarentpolitical Scrooge gets a free pass because he's seen as part of Donald Duck's family of American Freedom Fighters and did his part by fighting the CEO of Racism: Flintheart Glomgold, _a South African billionaire that got his fortune from his family's slave mines and spends his time making crappy inventions to steal from others..._ 🤔
Zoe Bee, It was a very nice surprise to see someone --you know, someone to whom I'm not related-- read my essay. I've watched a few more of your videos since and expect I'll enjoy many more. Best, Ron
The Chocolate Factory always amazed me. In Germany the story is not that popular so the Johnny Depp version is the only one I know, and damn, did I think it was nightmarish. It's one of those nightmares where everyone behaves like what's happening is great while you are the only one seeing the horror in it. That's what the film was for me. Those children getting disfigured and buried for basic childlike behaviour was terrifying, and Charlie being all like "oh well there is that girl gone and maybe dead, let's move on with the tour". Plus, their version of Germany was what i imagine a bavarian themed park in the US would look like.
I had to stop what I was doing at 29:40. Heck. Also that whole segment was excellent. Theological themes in popular media are an interest of mine and I'm so so pleased to see this breakdown.
This is some truly inspired analysis paired with some animated storytelling. I really enjoyed this! And just, like, some of the best levity ever levied. 🍫
a friend of mine fell down the Chocolate factory adaption hole a while ago while writing a deconstruction in the style of a CW teen show, and im very excited to see what she thinks about this
I would also like to point out in the 1971 film, Slugworth was at the locations of every single ticket's discovery. Every time! With the foresight to know that he was working for Wonka, it is, in my view, obvious to see why that is. Wonka sent out the tickets not as a group, but individually, and had his agent tracking the specific shipment which had the bar. After all, if you're the one who distributes the product, you know EXACTLY where they're going. To further my theory, notice how the candy goes to children who fit Wonka's needs. Agustus Gloop was the son of a "prominent local butcher", wouldn't be hard to find information on a prominent local figure. Even as Wonkamania took hold, the candy manufacturer could see that Mr. Salt and his company were buying massive amounts, presumably to cheat getting a ticket. Do a little digging, and you could easily find out that the Salts have a spoiled brat. The only wild card in my theory would be Mike Teevee, but even if he did hack the system then sending an agent as a reactionary measure wouldn't be hard. It is extremely plausible to think that, at least in the '71 version, Wonka had orchestrated the children's selection ahead of time, or at least not making it random. He could have even paid off the ticket forger, to provide time to plant Charlie's ticket. Just another theory, but the video was excellent. Multiple interpretations of the same content, but with different meanings. Well done!
Having read the story and seen the 2005 movie years ago, I kind of completely forgot the very crucial detail of Wonka firing everyone from the factory. In the same vein as 56:43, the factory itself, the eye-catching land of overwhelming whimsy, was so iconic that it used to overshadow (at least for me) most details of the previous half of the story, and with it all of the themes in that half (specifically all of the ones revolving around poverty).
35:30 I think there's also an important thing that's missed by making it all a follower point. Charlie isn't supposed to just follow, but mantle and replace. I wasn't expecting to do this, but the first comparison I can think of for them here is actually the Hero of Kvatch mantling the god Sheogorath in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. To mantle a god is to become that god, and to mantle a god, one must be like that god. For Sheogorath, his domain is madness. But for Willy Wonka, he's a bit less pinned down. Really he embodies all _nine_ deadly sins. The book originally was going to have seven kids for the seven, but originally before there were seven, there were nine. The rest are obvious, so I'll only go into the two new/old ones. Acedia, or apathy. His reaction to Mike Teevee is the peak meme for apathy, we've got that immediately. The other is Vainglory, or vanity. His secrets? His constant boasting? His need for admiration? His showing off? His need for total obedience? He's so vain. So, _Charlie_ needs to embody all the sins in order to mantle Willy Wonka. But Wonka isn't a chaotic mass of uncontrolled evil, now is he? Chaotic, sure. But perfectly measured chaos. Surgical explosions. So, what does Charlie need to do in order to embody this? Well, show balance. He shows selflessness, we've got that down. But balance, not to get too Star Wars Fandom about it, doesn't come from eliminating all the bad. Balance is between. When he indulges in sin, he is not taking from his family. Out of everyone justified to have that money in the family, he's the most justified. None of their existing plans required it; he was the only one aware of it. Furthermore, he's a child and has no moral responsibility to support his family. So, when he indulged in greed, he indulged in morally justifiable greed. Balance. He's not just being a perfect follower. He's mantling. That's Wonka's whole point; if Wonka only wanted him to follow, everything would be a lie. Wonka wants him to lead. 47:27 Edit because another thing that I think adds to my point actually. He isn't that! You said it yourself, he spent the money he found on a greedy choice. He shows normal human desires and indulgences, but uses what he can get for himself instead of actively harming his family. He's not perfect, he's balanced. 49:42 Thinking on this, I think you've got it backwards. Charlie Bucket is only sinless in the most pop culture way possible, which is important for this work obviously. Charlie, however, is balanced. Greed has come up multiple times. Lust... well he's a child, but in child terms it applies to his feelings towards chocolate. Starving, he gives up his money for chocolate out of a desire for it. That is the sin of lust, not just gluttony. Sloth and apathy go hand in hand and are just... blatantly obvious. He gets left behind repeatedly and he does nothing about the kids getting harmed. Envy, well, yeah that's the whole "watching the TV, wishing he could get a golden ticket" thing. Vanity is a bit weaker but also goes with the apathy towards the kids getting hurt, he only thinks about himself and his family (which is an extension of himself). Wrath, he stands by Wonka's and Grandpa Joe's. Even when they're contradictory. Pride... "I've got a golden ticket". It's worshiping a golden idol, it's kinda obvious. But the thing is, he has control and doesn't take them out on people or cause harm to the innocent with them. Balance. Both Wonka and Charlie show all nine deadly sins, but unlike the others, they also have control over themselves. They control it; they are not controlled by it. I agree with the final point about the system, but I think it's not that he's sinless, but has control over himself. He is explicitly said to be inheriting Wonka's position. We see that Wonka embodies all the sins over and over, so it makes more sense that he does too.
@@OdinsSage I may have been thinking about this series in a lot of depth for... eleven years almost. "Wonka as a god" reminds me a lot of the _much_ older "Wonka as Lucifer" (earliest I know of is 1990/1991) idea. Since the book is _explicitly_ themed the kids around the seven deadly sins (two kids were cut for the other two during the book's writing), the ringleader in this circus of sin being Lucifer makes sense. Wonka's embodiment of sin was agreed upon by the video. But it just seemed very contradictory the idea that Charlie could mantel the master of sin-punishment and embodiment of sin without representing a child version of that same thing. To use a semi-Biblical/semi-pop culture description, if Wonka is Satan or any sort of god, Charlie has to be Lucifer before the fall or any sort of equivalent. Mantling gods doesn't really come up often, but that's explicitly what Wonka wants from Charlie (take over my magical kingdom after I am gone, and with doing so I can be certain you will become Exactly Like Me, when applied to the supernatural position of godhood) so the idea of Charlie as a follower and not as the one who mantles him only works if he's outright lying to Charlie about his purpose for him. There's very few works that set any meaningful framework for inheriting the position of a god through an adopted framework where the god is guaranteed the successor will be an identical successor. Charlie's trip through the chocolate factory witnessing the punishment of sin could be described as akin to Dante's Inferno (you probably guessed it from the framework of the sentence!), with Grandpa Joe as his Virgil. It even ends with him ascending to the heavens. But there's a key, strikingly important detail that differs between the two stories. In Dante's Inferno, Lucifer is trapped in the center of Hell, kept frozen in place by his own attempts to escape. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Wonka invites the damned in and takes them to their punishment himself. I lied, there's a second difference. Dante doesn't inherit Hell. That's a pretty wild difference for such a weird amount of similarity. Wonka is a divine force whom punishes sinners and rewards the repentant but not sinless. Charlie inherits the job. Oddly enough, with the side of Charlie's class struggles, it could be seen as "It's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven". While he ascends, it's with the promise to return down and reign as king.
@@PosthumanHeresy First, I enjoyed reading your comments. Second, “mantling” is a new term to me, however in contradiction to having to embody something Jesus descended to hell for three days before rising to break the reigns of hell. The movie requires a lot of assumptions, as seen in this video, and as you point out. I enjoy for the movie that it is, and have my own assumptions. I assume Charlie gives freedom to the Oompas although perhaps they were always free. Etc.
@@ShaggyRodgers420 Yeah, I've never really seen them as slaves. That would require slavedrivers, for one. They're too free range, too carefree, and too otherworldly to really be slaves. Wonka's too killable for them to be slaves. Like, pick any scene where they're on screen and he's in the same room. What's stopping them from ganking him right then and there? They agree with his views. They like him as a person. Like, their concept is obviously inspired by colonialism, but not in a one-to-one way. A big theme of transgressive literature, which it's easy to say he made the child version of across numerous books given the sheer violation of accepted concepts, even though it then went mainstream, is that the traditionally "evil" is less evil than you think, but looks it from the outside. That's what's going on here. There's the trappings of colonialism, but when you peel away the top layer, everything underneath those trappings is wrong. The outermost layer, the appearance, is colonialist. But under that, it's actually a dark trickster god and his followers whom he brought back to his realm. You always get the sense that even Wonka is watching the death songs with this "oh, I love them so much, they're just like me" energy. His gaze never suggests that he ordered this, planned it out, or even truly _expected_ it, as in putting that expectation on them, even if he expected it in the sense that he saw that coming. It feels more like they follow him and share in his power than it ever comes across like he controls them. Like, doing the factory work is chill as hell for them because of their own supernatural nature, and if humans tried to just do their jobs it wouldn't work. The fact they have scientists and doctors and stuff also breaks any slavery sense. This is a society that lives in tandem with their god in a mutually beneficial relationship wearing the skin of colonialism. The embodiment of sin does things that look as evil as what you'd expect, but then when you look deeper he's doing something completely different, which serves as social critique. "The devil is a better man than you."
How does every one miss the "abused children being punished for the behaviors they developed to block the pain" subtext? Over eating, compulsive behavior(gum chewing) disassociating in front of TV's..and you can almost hear Veruca's implied "Or I'll tell what you did dad" at the end of all her demands..It's like fucking "Saw" for abused kids.
Alas, your silly video about how we should all cancel Willy Wonka exploded into perhaps the best video essay I have ever seen on RUclips! Truly, this is a masterful production. It is such a perfect blend of sociological and cultural analysis that is both easily accessible and remarkably entertaining. From the aesthetic and color coordination of the visuals (very much including your own visual ensemble) to the progressive organization that saw Willy Wonka dramatically transcend from Candyman into God, I was enraptured throughout all four acts. You demonstrated, through insightful discussion and scintillating demonstration, how symbols and rituals can create magical candies, wonderous factories, and eccentric billionaires that have the power to both inspire and ruthlessly capture the very spirit of society itself. After the main performance, your continued discussion reiterated a thesis which was captured beautifully in the performance, but not stated explicitly, which is that the entertainment value of our deconstructions as well as that of our source material cannot be overlooked as we attempt to elevate our collective consciousness. Unfortunately, in a world so saturated with content and information, it would seem nearly impossible to capture anyone's attention, let alone foster enlightening discussions, without creating exquisite explanations that were also impeccable in the artistry of their presentations. Luckily, your video provides a template. Thank you very much professor. And Brava!
The 70s willy wonka is one of my favorite movies and Willy himself is a character I've always loved. I've seen that movie a million times and it's pretty shocking that I've never thought about how Willy Wonka used slaves, It's amazing what childlike wonder and the normalization of atrocities can make you blind to something so obvious. I really appreciate this deep dive.
Some people will say "stop looking at media as if everything is political", but the saccharine of WW is exactly the allure to an explicitly political message. Being ignorant of the ideology being sold is exactly how you fall into it.
The original book contains one of my favourite puns of all time. The square sweets that look round. It has an entire three page chapter dedicated to it and I laugh every single time I think about it
I thought the same, but it's nice if she's Christian that she believes in a kinder, more merciful deity: it's a worldview that affords more breathing room for the rest of us.
"When Veruca asks to buy one, we don't go 'wow, that is actual slavery!'" Well...okay, there are two ways to react to that: 1-We DO go "Wow, that is actual slavery!" We are supposed to hate her spoiled attitude, so it makes perfect sense for her character to think of these workers as some kind of fancy pet just because they are exotic. It could almost be written off as innocent except, of course, she's never been told no before and her father immediately encourages and normalizes her behavior by asking Wonka "How much for that Orange Goblin in the window?" without any hesitation. 2-Willy already enslaved them (Really, couldn't the Oompah Loompahs buy their own Cocoa beans if they worked anywhere else? Why has their existence not been noticed by modern society before the Golden Ticket tour? THEY CLEARLY AREN'T ALLOWED TO LEAVE. The whole point of their presence is to give Wonka cheap, espionage-free labor! They have no outside source of information!), so Veruca isn't actually doing anything MORE worthy of scorn than Willy. So why are we getting mad at the kid for something a fully grown adult has already normalized? Actually....as a Tycoon, Willy Wonka also wants "to lock it (the whole world) up in his pocket". Veruca's song is the song of capitalism. The movie is trying to imply that Wonka is somehow different: "Yes, I'm rich, but I'm not like those OTHER rich people....I believe in justice and...and..meritocracy! ...Yeah!" but we know the truth.
I thoroughly enjoyed this! Yes, please do more of the billionaires in children's stories. Those stories make up so much of our accepted and subconscious standards and assumptions it is fascinating to me backtrack where much of it originates.
This video essay is mind-blowingly good... and it's for a CHILDREN'S BOOK!? You managed to tell an enthralling story about all of the darkest elements of capitalism within a video essay about WILLY WONKA!?
Quite an interesting analysis. Your closing lines reminded me of something: There is a kind of person who active oppose media analysis. It's most common in video games, but it does with other mediums as well. Most often, it's because they are aware of the politics in the media, but don't want the messaging to be considered as something influential.
Yeah and that's usually the kind of person interested in preserving the status quo. If people don't analyse or reflect on things, society is less likely to change, or so they think
Oh and also: there is another kind of person who thinks the best way of making sure certain media won't be influential is by making sure that type of media will never be seen or heard. I could imagine a - possibly yet even darker - timeline wherein Willy Wonka is CANCELLED for having the terrible themes of slavery, torture and whatnot through some false flag campaign (false flag as in, a group of people _claiming_ to care about minorities who, in fact, just attempt to use the language of goodness for their own selfish end goals) which would completely prevent any potential analysis by anyone in the future forever. Like sort of a modern book burning, but under the guise of protecting people from supposedly harmful content. It reminds me of when I read an article on a supposedly feminist website about The Witcher 3 being a horribly evil game because supposedly, when playing as Ciri, you'd get NPC's around you calling you names. Me, having actually played that game, KNOWS that is not true - that it's actually playing as Geralt (a very pale white-haired old man btw) that gets you called names (Ciri has altogether different problems) - but how would any non-gaming, well-intentioned person know that? Now, you might hate games like those for being gritty or for the fact that it has women running through swamps in high heels somehow, but to then go so far as to try to get people to hate it and using lies to reach that endgoal is utterly ridiculous.
CatCF is a story telling children how they should behave.. Specifically to obey their superiors unquestioningly. The moment Charlie wins the ticket when he buys chocolate for himself with the money meant for his family - he's rewarded for loving Wonka's gifts more than anyone else. Charlie is rewarded for taking what's given to him, but never any more (e.g. Augustus). For being subordinate and never trying to be like Wonka (e.g. Violet). Never complaining that his community is in poverty after Wonka's mass-firing and importing of Oompa-Loompas. Charlie is rewarded for having no personality except faith and obedience to Wonka. It's like the purpose of the story is "Be obedient and rich people will give you the rewards you deserve, while the disobedient and undeserving rich (i.e. Augustus, Violet etc) will be punished". It makes you wonder if _all_ Rags To Riches stories are written for a similar purpose. Either an attempt at social control by elites, or a soothing fantasy/catharsis by-and-for the downtrodden.
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: wren.co/start/zoebee The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!
Trying to scare me off with your dark expose of Willy Wonka? Bah! I am unscared.
...Unless your next project is Matilda. There's no way you can ruin that one... right?
You forgot Snowpiercer
What do the bleeps standing in for plz tell me
Loved your observations! Thank you!
I fear your sponsor is more hopium and greenwashing though.
It's funny that you can see how insidious Willy Wonka is, and yet a company that literally buys portions of the rainforest and threatens to cut it down if "charitable contributors" don't pay a monthly ransom doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow.
The existence of "non-human slaves who are happy to be slaves" in children's books needs to be studied
Lest we forget the house elves from the HP universe!
@@kingflumph5968 I think the house elves are a little different. They are conditioned and obidient, but the house elves we see the most are not happy. Dobby is a nervous wreck that can't believe that someone would grant him freedom, even accidentally. Kreature is openly resentful and even hostile to most of the Order of the Pheonix.
The Hogwarts House Elves are definately where this starts to track again. I believe that they were brought to Hogwarts by the Hufflepuff founder to prevent abuse? Historically there were definitely "better" slave owners who were still slave owners. Definately slaves, but little evidence of them being happy.
@@7RStudios Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Hogwart's elves bothered by Hermione's attempts at freeing them? And I'm pretty sure that one of the "good" characters from the books (possibly Hagrid) told Hermione that Dobby was an exception, and that most house elves don't want to be freed. Maybe something about servitude being their natural condition or something along those lines? I remember it stuck out as weird even when I was a child, but I don't remember the details... I will try to look it up.
@@7RStudios there is a SMALL bit of nuance in HP with the house elves with Dobby and Kreature, though there is a whole C plot in Goblet of Fire (the novel) where Hermione is trying to advocate for wages and better conditions for the house elves at the school and pretty much everyone calls her silly and ignorant for trying to give them rights because "they like working" and paying them would just be confusing and unnecessary.
Heck, even Dobby massively undervalues his own labor in the goblet of fire because he "likes work better" than total freedom.
@@kingflumph5968 You're most likely right here. I vaguely remember Hermione making hats in an attempt to free them, but don't remember what they say about the elves' reaction. I think the elves are insulted by it, as only their owner can free them anyways. I sort of interpreted this as the elves feeling they're being taunted with the prospect of freedom. Again, not happy. But I could also be way off. Been a while since I read the books.
My ten year old sister once said "the oompa loompas should unionize" and I knew I succeeded as an older brother.
wonka keeps forcing them to create new stupid candy, when all they want is normal chocolate instead of the super processed and dangerous candy he creates
@@devforfun5618 They want to get paid what they bring not a small piece of it. They want even more Wonka's head to suddenly separate from his body..
That's how children should be raised
Sure.
Striking for a fair wage and handrails around the chocolate river
Ah yes, a timeless tale about sorting the worthy from the wicked, and a group of children representing the seven deadly sins: greed, greed, greed, and television.
Dante and the chocolate factory
More like gluttony, greed, pride, and television.
@@kyokoyumi That's also true, but greed works for all of the first three, I think. At least in general usage. While they might've all come at it from different angles, they all had the "I want" mentality that is what people normally mean by greed.
I think Mike was more about ego than television. He consumes vast amounts of knowledge on a daily basis with parents who don’t offer any moral guidance. Therefore, he believes that because he thinks he knows better than everyone, he thinks he IS better than everyone.
@@mr.j.p.awesomeness5606 Yeah, I can see that. To be clear, it's probably been over a decade since I saw either film, and never read the book in its entirety. But, while I definitely remember Mike as having obnoxious smart kid energy, his cardinal sin seemed to be over-eager scientific curiosity. He just wanted a go on the teleport - and who can blame him? He's also right to point out that Wonka has developed something absolutely revolutionary (that could be used to distribute food, medical supplies, etc. all around the world), and the only application he's willing to consider is free samples of his chocolate.
I think the 2005 version shows the vibes crystal clear.
The focus on not showing Wonka's face at the start, the Oompa Loompas blank, almost dead faces, the dolls burning during the presentation and the color palette, it's just too much.
Also, Wonka is VERY unsettling in that adaptation, I remember feeling scared and weirded out by him. The flashbacks he has are top notch examples.
Great video!
I'd also like to call out how much the 2005 film emphasizes the parents' roles in impacting their childrens' personalities. Not only the parents of the "bad" kids, but Wonka and Charlie, too. I’ve seen others criticize the film for putting so much emphasis on Wonka’s backstory and for his personality being so different from any other version, but, to me, it really emphasized how limiting traditions and views are passed generationally. The film ends with Charlie encouraging Wonka to confront that impact directly by accepting that he can still have a relationship with his father despite their differences. It also ends by emphasizing (through explicit narration at the end of the film that sums up the message) that Wonka being accepted into Charlie's family was a bigger win than Charlie winning the factory.
Progress arises from the rejection of a status quo that is often reinforced by parents. It's still tied to a narrative that fails to address many of the issues brought up in this video, but, to me, it was a decent direction for an adaptation to take.
@BK Beatty the performance did feel a lot like a michael jackson impression
if you wernt scared or weirded out by Gene Wilder you probably werent paying attention. But I agree Depp was creeeeepy in the extreme. Which is why i find it utterly baffling that this video and these people all claim to be learning Wonka is evil, from my understanding he was always meant to be a depiction of evil and industrialist greed. I am hearing in this video that my lifelong understanding of Dahl to have been a subversive voice highlighting and underscoring the dark hypocrisies of society. but I guess that was just me.
Your blind to it
@@RariettyC I didn't really care much for Wonka being pushed to reconciling with his dad. His dad committed child abandonment.... why would Wonka need to reconcile with his dad?
I’ve always been in a low income family so as a kid I grew up absolutely despising the “bad” children in the movie and taking joy in seeing their wants backfire on them. But now that I’m older I really have grown to sympathize more with them. I tried to be like Charlie and be polite and quiet and submissive as a kid because I had this idea that it was the right way to be, or that I could prove myself worthy enough to get out of my financial situation. Looking back I’ve started to hate Wonka and even the whole movie for a lot of reasons. I let a lot of horrible treatment slide as a kid. I think children should be allowed to be selfish sometimes. They should be allowed to be angry at those in power and sometimes it’s normal to be greedy. I shouldn’t have to make myself small to gain the adoration of the wealthy. I’ve started walking away from exploitative situations and trying to assert myself and even be aggressive when necessary and I don’t think that’s something I should be penalized for. Nothing will change until working class people start demanding more for themselves and their communities.
*"I shouldn't have to make myself small to gain the adoration of the wealthy"*
Making oneself small to gain the adoration of the wealthy is a trap. The wealthy want to be able to ignore everybody but themselves; making oneself small lets the wealthy off the hook, by making that ignorance easy.
Same! I still struggle with this a lot. I am trying to now fight that within myself now. Especially at work, I am learning to more actively protect my boundaries.
that's right, Alex the lion
I kinda feel you in this comment. Unlike you I was born to a family that should (should) have taken me to the top of the social order and it all fell apart when I was in 3rd grade then the fall was complete when my parents separated and ultimately divorced when I was in 5th grade. I went from being someone who should have (should have) enjoyed the fruits of my family's wealth. But that didn't happen and I was cast off the path to the promised land. I felt jealous and envious of the kids who's families stayed together and they went to the Bahamas and Aspen for vacatikns. They got cars and tons of spending money in their teens. None of that for me though...
I've learned to identify those feelings and deal with them. Nothing in life is guaranteed and I do my best to teach my kids that success isn't a promise, especially not easy success. I think I'm doing a good job so far and I married a woman who won't entertain bullshit.
I'm sure there are many people who are in the same boat as me and I wish you all well. I hope you find the happiness you wanted as a kid, but don't expect it to come without the work it requires.
Zoe at 25:36: "Let me tell you the story about Willy Wonka... the god."
Me: What the fuck
Zoe: "But Zoe! I hear you say. What the fuck?"
Literally a psychic
Raise a glass to Zoe's excellent taste in beta-readers
It's the part I was waiting for.
Wtf did she say right after that?
Sounded serious.
I got an ad right after that, which killed me.
@@billyalarie929 I swear it wasn't censored yesterday but I don't remember what was said
"Veruca is rich, so she must not need free candy" is the opposite of the even stranger idea that "Only kids whose parents can afford to buy them candy should get free candy" which happens every Halloween when people complain that kids come from poorer neighborhoods.
"Only the rich deserves credit"
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740 It’s like they’re the ones who set it up or something
That's messed up. I've never heard this....but as a kid raised in a poor neighborhood we would drive to nicer neighborhoods to trick or treat. Lol I thought it was normal and made sense since people in our neighborhoods didn't have as much candy since they can't afford it.
I remember how unreal it seemed seeing how people seemed to live in "castles" and had open sidewalks etc. It was like a dream.
@@ari3lz3pp it totally makes sense. I was happy when I got to live in one of the neighborhoods to which people came (I didn't live in a "castle," but it was a nice apartment building on a safe street.).
the climax of the movie _Conrack_ centers on this happening - with poor Black kids being brought to a rich White neighborhood by their White teacher, in the South in the 1960s (the land of Jim Crow apartheid)
Reminds me of this one exchange in Veggietales:
“He’s loopy!”
“No, he’s eccentric.”
“What does that mean?”
“It means he’s loopy with money!”
@@nickoffscript the cognitive dissonance for you to watch Capitalism critical content but still holding onto a motto like that is fascinating.
Since Wonka has so much data on his customers, he could theoretically rig the game so he makes getting the golden ticket feel like a game of chance without it being obvious that the outcome was predetermined. What was he to do with an heir adult that could only speak Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Swahili, Korean, Hindi, or worse: Anti-capitalist & kind to people?
He gave a proletariat child the keys to the kingdom, and showed him how bad the workers have it and how dangerous the working conditions were.
@@autobotstarscream765 but one of the kids got the ticket by hacking into the system... so... what system? how you hack random luck?
@@David-sq2en It's quite easy, actually.
You don't even need to be a 1337 hacker to do it.
ruclips.net/video/yAQvKgLTEbk/видео.htmlsi=__WY94RcvC1NnN3E
@lucid6392 No i have no read the books...
The point I was making was that the way the tickets are being found is no by a random luck mechanism... As in Wonka targeted the set of winners and secured that they will win, while looking like random luck...
In the movies he make comments to that effect, as if he was expecting that particular set of kids... the hacker one is probably the most telling one, because you cant make a computer to generate a random number, so every random number you get out of a computer is in reality the result of a complicated mathematical operation, but if you know the formula and know the variables, you can predict what random number a computer will generate, every single time...
Witch take me to my point... if Wonka used a true random system, then the hacker boy would no have being able to hack it... but... also if it was a true random system, then Charlie would have never got that ticked... that being the reason why Wonka does no use a true random system... he wants a particular set of kids that he have chosen before even starting the contest, but he want it to look random, and the hacker boy took the place of one of those kids, but Wonka decides to keep the gig up and continue the plan with him, just figuring out how to punish him.
@@autobotstarscream765he gave the keys to a family of well meaning centrist to liberal bootlicks, Wonka is not a hero.
I’m sorry - Wonka as God hit harder than I expected and didn’t realize the genesis underpinnings before and holy shit - also the musical version where the kids actually die was shocking! Shookedethed
With the Oompa-Loompas existentially threatened by critters in their territory, it does suggest that maybe the Oompa-Loompas aren't actually long-term natives to that area but rather driven into a dangerous, unsustainable region by an earlier imperialist episode making their prior homeland unavailable to them.
Aliens are 100% canon, so the Oompa-Loompas could easily have ended up here from off planet.
@@PosthumanHeresy I always thought they were distant human relatives who’d been driven to near extinction in the corners of the world when Homo sapiens dispersed and colonised everywhere, but that also works.
Either that or the "creatures" are actually harvesters coming in for the cocoa and other resources. After all, Wonka seems really keen on controlling all aspects of his operation. What if Wonka was responsible for making Loompa Land inhospitable by sourcing his cocoa from there with his monstrous machinery, then using their terror to incentivize relocation to his factory?
I don't understand that.....since there are dangerous creatures in any place until the people's there develop the technology to either eradicate or to live safely amongst them. There are still many places in South America and Africa and Asia where people live with the threat of wildlife today.
Some farmers in small villages have to learn ways to ward off dangerous animals that still threaten them, and even in urban cities in India it's not uncommon to have wildcats and such in the area threatening lives, especially children and pets.
So I don't get your point. I think the book has an interesting way of perhaps over dramatizing it in the sense that it's expected with non-advanced societies but it's been also seen as an excuse to" remove" people from their homelands. ("Remove" because even if you're tricked it's literally your choice to MOVE and thenit's incorrect to say being "removed"). Throughout history this and war have been used for various peoples to overcome others. Regardless of being a different or the same race.
@Jeff Engel
Given that they're explicitly stated to value cocoa beans effectively as money, it seems likely that they were displaced from one or more of the territories where cocoa is presently cultivated. This creates a scenario wherein Wonka is a robber baron enslaving the people displaced by the darkest chapter of his industry's history, a chapter he might have had a hand in writing.
I also see the moment when Charlie buys the last bar of chocolate instead of buying food for his family as the ultimate act of faith.
Sounds more like the effect addiction has on a family.
@@MarcColten-us2pl In lotto... I mean chocolate we trust. Only one more bar. Trust me. This bar will be it.
@@Kenionatus I take it you don't watch Archer
@@MarcColten-us2pl correct
@@KenionatusIn the Anthropic Plot Principle we trust. If it's good enough for the likes of Victor Hugo to dole out like candy, it's good enough for Charlie Bucket.
This is such a thorough an thoughtful analysis. The nutso capitalist nightmare of wonka’s factory is clear, but your explanations of why Charlie was chosen, especially about him not winning until he bought the chocolate for himself, and for winning because he’s essentially a non-character who accepts his place with dreams but without complaint is really insightful.
Kenji you continue to surprise me with who you watch on RUclips, your support of rising essayists and video makers is awesome and makes me smile every time I see it :)
Complaining about the economic system that allows you to make a living.. The absolute state of food youtubers 🤡🤡🤡
@@mortarion9787 what an idiotic comment
@@mortarion9787 Capitalist is the system that says who gets paid more the laborer or the capitalist. The name being capitalism i hope you can figure out who gets most of the money.
@@Leftistattheparty do you create such arguments in your head, oe you heard it on another foodtuber's podcast, instead of reading a good about economy lol
I know you criticized it earlier, but this video convinced me that a horror adaptation of Willy Wonka might actually be amazing if done right.
That’s the musical
How would that look like?
Charlie has a good quality not mentioned: love and faithfulness to his family. In the 2005 version at least, he wouldn't take the factory without bringing his family with him.
“I won’t redistribute wealth but at least the people I care about will be rich and cared for”
Blind faithfulness to family purely for them being family and no other reason reeks of Monotheistic religion and capitalist heteronormative family values.
You owe no allegiance to an abusive family member or a misanthropic hate filled relative just because they are family…faithfulness to his family is not a unique quality for Charlie, it’s the bare minimum expected for a character like with a nice family like his and therefore he is a blank slate and that is a quality not worth mentioning.
Same with just feeling the emotion of “love”
The absence of which is notable but its presence is again the bare minimum you would expect of an average human being.
If you think he’s a hero just because he didn’t let his family rot without him then you have an incredibly low bar for what you categorise as “note worthy qualities of good people”
I prefer the alternative timeline where Wonka makes the Oompa Loompas his heir by turning the chocolate factory into an employee-owned co-op instead of going through that nonsense with the golden tickets.
literally the only possible good billionaire, the one that dissolves itself
The good ending.
communist willy wonka, based
oompa loompa doompidy doo
communism is the best choice for you
@@tiekogalaxylatte8839 it's _OUR_ factory
_-Willy Wonka to oompa loompa number 362_
Imagine you go online to see what your old teacher is up to these days only to watch them sensually eat a chocolate bar while discussing a confectionary-centric religion.
This tracks with literally *all* of my English teachers. I can't imagine any of them turning down the opportunity, knowing the poetry of the moment
Sounds like an oddly specific OnlyFans lol
@@AgrioTheMoo i’ve had two types of english teachers in my time:
-those who i couldn’t read well enough to guess what they’d think of Zoe’s channel
-those who would be filled with intense confusion and fear by it
I wonder if Zoe ever got an email like "Hey I was in your class several years ago, cool how you became a RUclipsr"
I mean, my English teacher was a buff wrestling coach covered head to toe in tattoos, so they tend to be the weird ones
ZoeBee: I'm going to focus on releasing short, experimental videos maybe discussing writing techniques. No more deep dives until next year.
Also ZoeBee: Here's an amazingly researched and thought out 67 minute video.
Thanks for this video, Zoe!
Exploring what children stories are teaching us was never going to be short tbh.
@@shytendeakatamanoir9740 "Socialism for Absolute Beginners" is, as the Name hints at,
a Base-Course and the Best i know. Made by the Soclialist-RUclipsr
Second-Thought.
@@nenmaster5218you still socialist?
@@luigigaming2717 Yeah. But also grammar-sensitivie. So if you wanna talk, im all willing but only if you start sentences big. So: Wanna talk?
@@nenmaster5218 define me your version of socialism, every socialist I've talked to has a different meaning they call socailist
as a kid from working class immigrants, the overall capitalism in the movie was something i always noticed. its so very white american. like how can you not see the oompa loompas as slaves?
but i NEVER thought about charlie being a good little consumer that gets rewarded for giving the corporation all his money 👀
The novel is British.
It's worse in the US
@@Ashley24306 and? You can still use american exceptionalism as a framework while not living there?
Or be inspired by those sorts of ideas, which are heavily spread within Americ
Very very true😊
What's wrong with sonething being 'white American'? How dare you attempt to shame an ethnicity over a poxy book. You life must be horrendously sad and empty, but try some other means to make it bearable rather than overt racism.
Thinking about how in the original book Violet's only crime was chewing gum. Her other faults are inventions of the adaptations.
Her other crime is being female (because misogyny was among Dahl's bigotries).
@@Robstafarian
Oompa loompa doopity dirl
Your mortal crime was being a girl
The four kids aren't bad _per se;_ they had character traits which Roald Dahl found repugnant. 😊
The most horrible fate for the tiniest crime. There's an entire horror subculture about it, probably because of how such imbalance terrifies and captures the imagination, usually boiling down to stories where the victim does literally _nothing_ wrong and is blueberried by accident or even deception such as roofied food and drink, yet condemned to not only exploded but for their pieces and fluids to now be infectious and strike other innocents who then helplessly become the next human bombs to make more bombs that make more bombs in a blueberry zombie Apocalypse... 💥
@@nicholastosoni707I think the children were rotten in some ways, but if anything it's the fault of their parents and the way our system is constructed to create selfish people
At 44:46, when you talk about Charlie spending the last of his money on chocolate, I'm reminded of the biblical story of the poor woman who donates just one penny as compared to the pharisee who donates lots, with Jesus praising the woman because she gave everything and the pharisee gave only a little of his whole. Likewise, Charlie loves Wonka and gives every last penny he has to Wonka, unlike the others who cheat or only give a little of what they have to Wonka.
+
it’s actually just as interesting that most people-myself included at one point-also have that kind of reading of that scene, known as the Widow’s Offering (Mark 12:41-44), because it doesn’t explicitly say that Jesus was applauding the poor widow (likely because she was mentioned at the end). rather, he may have been pointing out the wealth disparity in Ancient Judean society being reflected in its religious aspect and perhaps corrupting it as well.
it’s not the widow’s fault that she’s willing to offer everything she had-she literally lost her husband, something that’s out of her control-but maybe if that rich guy gave away his wealth directly to people like her (widows are obligated by Mosaic law to glean/receive welfare), she probably wouldn’t be in that situation. much like with Charlie, we’ve become so fixated on revering the poor but good person who doesn’t complain abt being poor and gives all they got with the hopes that God or “the system” rewards them justly
Yes...which is especially creepy as if the writer is trying to make Wonka into a false idol to take the place of God. A consumerist God as said in this video. 💀
Do you get the "Satan works for God" trope? I study the Bible and I know of course Lucifer used to ....was THE right hand angel to God...but then given power on Earth (yes I believe in a way for God to make a point...) But he's not directly working for God but against him...
So when she says this I was thrown off. Do you know what she's talking about?
that parable needs to be repeated to every "Christian conservative" who argues for a flat tax & against progressively higher marginal rates
Kind of can show how religion can be corruptive and manipulative if given to capitalism. Religion is for morality and guidance yet it is funny how pastors and popes have private jets and some even have mansions and live the good life.
People saying you're taking something too seriously because it's "children's" literature bothers me so much. If it's for children, it should be examined that much more seriously. This is when so many life lessons are instilled. (Also people say it all the time about teen and adult lit/film, etc as well. Because it's just a "story" or just "comedy")
It's the folly of personal responsibility all the way down. You're right, we should absolutely be more conscious of the media we consume. It's well understood by now that humans are notoriously bad at discerning between reality and fiction, and we need to stop playing dumb and pretending like there isn't bad media that teaches people the wrong values out there.
And I don't really understand why this is considered children's literature. Maybe the books sounded less gross but the film was especially constantly creeping me out. I still get chills to this day every time I think about it at least a decade later, without ever revisiting the material in detail. And it's not like I have a particularly strong disgust response to anything otherwise. It just seemed like it contained too many uncomfortable adult-ish themes
Especially media directed towards children under 13 since their brains literally aren't capable of critical thinking or understanding nuance and are prone to just accepting and believing whatever an assumed authority tells them to.
It's because two types of people say this, those who don't know the power of stories and those who know EXACTLY how powerful stories are.
It's basically in our DNA to tell stories. We learn better through narratives. Our brains even try to make sense of the information by telling rambling, Incoherent stories in our dreams. Aspirations of what we could become and legends of what was are also stories.
It's why when people overanalyze media to make a point, people try to use that to discredit it, because it's taking a story meant to uphold the status quo and subverting its messages.
FoxyFemBoi but it is just a story, and regardless of its flaws, it can still have value. It is one of many books by Roald dahl so trying to cancel willy wonka and the people who created him in movies as well as the original creator is pretty sad. Most of the childrens' books he made (idk about the adult ones but heard they're good) are full of great lessons like the BFG, Matilda and the Twits especially.
Damn, I knew Wonka was a filthy capitalist, but I didn't notice how dark the story really was...
Ironically he also works like a communistic leader. Expecting people to ask for nothing and to obey and work "equally" until one is considered special by the people in power. (Though the idea of coming up from nothing is even more of a pipe dream in a socialist/communistic society).
I am curious what the consensus on how relevant the Broadway musical is? IDK why but it rubs me the wrong way slightly as it feels like the Broadway musical isn't nearly as Canon as the movies, but I'm not sure why I feel that way.
I personally feel it’s because the Broadway musical changed so much during its relatively short run.
It started out as something similar to the West End musical, but as performances happened and it got poor reviews, they added more songs from the Gene Wilder movie and generally made it more like that version.
Me at the beginning: Hmm, an anticapitalist reading of Willy Wonka? Seems interesting enough
Me halfway through: WILLY WONKA IS YALDBOATH, THE DEMIURGE, THE BLIND IDIOT GOD, MASTER OF MATERIAL REALITY AND THE SUFFERING THEROF
He sure is😊
where did u hear about yaldboath, the dimurge, and the blind idiot god? seems like cool concepts so id like to learn more.
@@DaFireElfpretty sure the first one is an eldtritch diety
@@DaFireElfI would recommend you look up Gnosticism if you haven't already. That's where The Demiurge is from.
HE IS GOG AGOG GOG AGOG IS HE GOG AGOG IS MANY ALL ARE GOG AGOG
As someone with autism, the “Wonkaverse” is my oldest hyperfixation. I know waaaaaay too much about this franchise, and I’m so so so happy it’s being covered in any capacity. Thanks so much for the fun video🥰💜
Hi, fellow autistic person here 👋
I wanted you to know that I'm very happy reading, that you feel joy watching this video. Special interests can make so much fun 🤗
I found a podcast about one of my special interests yesterday and I feel so save listening to it.
Tell me abouy it!
@@leonideschnuppei very much agree. I love this video and will warch more. For kalle and choklad fabriken (swedish title) i read the book and watched Burton movie only. We diacuassed the slave aspect in swedish primary school😊
30:20 In which Zoe tests how far she can push eating chocolate before RUclips demonetizes the video.
Except YT actually has a lot of porn now a days. Sadly.
That moment when you turn back to watch a video you were primarily just listening to only to realize it has somehow transformed into a soft-core porn
all she had to do was eat the chocolate 😭
@@ari3lz3pp Which is actually part of the irony. Outright porn? 1200% acceptable by RUclips standards. Sensual soft-core ASMR that wouldn't even qualify as porn on PornHub? I'm surprised there wasn't an insta-ban. :P
@@ari3lz3pp sadly? is it not good porn maybe?
The idea of “helping” people in “dangerous lands” by making them your slave and thus “providing and protecting” for them is literally just straight out of the slavery era. Work makes you free level logic.
You should hear how the English Conservatives still talk about the British Raj..
I mean what would Rishi Sunak know about it, except his family were a high caste?
It is even worse than work makes you free, because they're not offered even the illusion of future freedom.
The whole bit about Wonka the dark god put words to the thing that I always hated about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I grew up in an evangelical household and both the 70s movie and book left me with the same frustration I felt at every Christian description of why punishment was right and necessary. The narrative seemed to imply what happened to these kids was funny/deserved and I was actively upset, only to be told "well that's what happens when kids are bad". I felt a deep kinship with Charlie as the "good" child but I also felt a little frustrated that the whole reason he was good was because he never once spoke up about how bad things were for him. So uh, this is all to say you hit that aspect perfectly, excellent work.
Gosh you people are all boring with no understanding of what kids like.
@@r.jclark4641yes, because we were never kids and our childhood experiences don't count because they don't align with yours
I always felt bad for the bratty kids too. Not their fault their parents didn’t raise them right. Charlie misbehaved too in the first movie though. But Wonka let him have the factory anyway because he refused to sell the everlasting Gobstopper to the fake Mr. Slugworth.
He is the devil in the story. Less of a devil only after Charlie fixed him.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 I mean, they explicitly make a point about that with Veruca Salt.
It is also worth pointing out that Charlie could have sold that ticket for a fortune. He could have resold his blessing for enough wealth to feed his family.
Ever the good consumer he threw his lot into the pool to try and win even more.
to be fair he is a little boy and he didnt even want to buy the candy but hisbparents wanted him to so he could feel like a kid again😢
@@charliepuppy. Capitalism leaves no room for Childhood! That is why America is bringing back child labor.
the word "capitalism" wasn't brought up until like an hour into this video, and that's impressive to me
Zoe exercising an utterly heroic level of self-restraint as she wrote the first 85% of her script: “NO CAP!”
4:57
@@tserendorjbatjargal That's "Capitalist."
>_____>
I absolutely loved how your 4 interpretations of the character built off of each other. By the time you got to the last one, I was 100% on board with the notion of Willy Wonka representing a god. Great job!
This channel is, hands down, one of the best of RUclips. Not only did Zoe managed to convince me that Willy Wonka is basically an eldritch horror with a human body, but also she managed to create a PERFECT prayer to honor the Prince of Dark Chocolate. What the actual fudge!?
P.S Please, at least consider analyzing Scrooge McDuck in your series about billionaires in children's media! The wealth (😉) of source material about him would probably be enough for a video at least as large showstopper-y as this one!
I second this so hard! I need a Scrooge McDuck analysis in my life so bad
Legit now I kinda wanna make a d&d campaign where Wonka is almost a slaanesh-type being who embodies excess.
Unsure if it's intentional, but it does seem non-coincidental that, of the two movies, the version in the 70s (a time of widespread, near jingoistic support of capitalism in the Cold War), Willie Wonka is depicted as always being in command of the situation and seeming to always be the man with a plan; whereas, in the 2005 version, as the social conscience begins to become a bit more progressive, the movie tends to infantilize the billionaire, making him more of a pitiable than admirable character for a lot of it. I don't necessarily think it's because they're trying to make him relatable, so much as trying to make his actions feel less malicious (again, whether that be intentional or conscious or not).
Excellent and comprehensive video! I look forward to the next in the series!
It's absolutely intentional. Wonka is putting on a fake weird persona overtop his actual weird persona in both. The first one establishes it immediately with the cane. He comes out pretending to be this frail man, and then he does acrobatics. It's a trick. He talks about all this absolutely absurd stuff with pure seriousness to the point where nobody knows when he's serious, his mood swings like a metronome, and he occasionally has terrifying bursts of madness like on the boat. It's all to throw people off and make them unable to read him.
The Depp version was actually discussed in interviews back in 2005, not that I can find them, where he explained exactly where he got his version. The character is still putting on a mask of extra weird to throw people off and make people assume every awful or absurd thing he says is fake, but Depp said he actually based his performance on an irl friend of his who does the same (and is a massive obsessed fan of the 70s film, so perhaps was influenced there). That friend was Marilyn Manson fyi. Depp's Wonka's personality is based on Johnny Depp's personal experience as Marilyn Manson's best friend since 1989.
PostHumanHeresy already gave a better response, but I'm going to throw my hat in as well.
I think that later iterations of the film are more reflective of the reality of how the role of the CEO has changed since the 70s.
CEOs after the 70s started incorperating their personal identities to their brands, rather then their core values.
Think of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk. Like Willy Wonka, all these people are admired as geniuses by the masses. This ego-centrism creates a cult of personality that forms around their brand identity, which mystify them as people, and further solidifies consumer loyalty.
@PosthumanHeresy He even looked like Manson so I got the connection immediately. And Dahl hated the Wilder version.
I’ll go on record saying that as a child watching this, I was more sympathetic to the various kids than to anyone else. What kid doesn’t make a mistake and act like a little shit from time to time? Their punishments for basic ass infractions seemed so extreme. And it was very much uncertain whether or not any of them made it out alive. Also Charlie also did something wrong but he got off scott free. I definitely had a contentious relationship with the original film growing up.
Omg same, I absolutely HATED this movie as a child
He escaped. In the cult of the winks gods, only the strongest deserve to live.
Charlie when confronted about his misdeeds reflects and grows as a person, this is something none of the other children do.
I can’t watch any of the adaptions because despite people saying how fun the movies are I feel sick to my stomach watching the children basically die. There is something fetishistic and deeply unsettling in both adaptions about the punishment scenes even in movies that make impotent attempts to criticise or satirise the themes of the book.
I don’t want to sit in the same room as people who want to see a child choke in a claustrophobic pipe filled with chocolate because he was fat or a kid expand, terrified calling out for help because she ate a piece of gum.
I’d call Dahl a pig but that would be an insult to pigs.
2005 Mike TV is the only likeable character and feels like an audience surrogate.
I think you dug up some repressed memories I had of a Willy Wonka themed sermon I listened to in church as a kid. Cause when we got to the whole "Willly Wonka: The God" I was just like...."oh shit...I've...actually heard this interpretation before???"
54:19 "I'm not going to name any names because I don't want to get sued by Nestlé"
More like: "...I don't want RUclips to deplatform me."
And Mars.
Actually a valid worry tbh, i mean, considering nestle is the biggest food corp currently and also still uses slave/child labor for their cocoa and, well, yknow.
Also this is pretty unrelated, but while i was fact checking myself to make sure nestle does in fact still use child labor, google gave me a vague answer talking about how there was a lawsuit over the child labor and that it was ruled in Nestle's favor. I just love Google it always gives me the most accurate and unbiased and easily accessible info :') /j
@@cable_g0re I mean... Nestlé published (in January of this year), how they would "tackle child labour in cocoa production". You won't get any closer to an admission than that I suppose ://
@@scavi i guess yeah
Had no idea there was a Willy Wonka musical, and I went and listened to the song you suggested. It literally checks all the boxes for a villain song??? The tone, cadence, the instruments being played in the background? All would not be out of place in a more traditional villain song
Right???? I mean, it totally slaps, and I love it, but it's TOTALLY a villain song!!
Interestingly it's not actually a villain song. It's the song scheme of The Tempter. The character that offers the hero their want. This song is Often sung by the villain, but not always.
For simple examples we can use disney. On the one hand you have Friends on the Other Side sung by Dr. Facilier offering change to the characters at a price.
On the other hand you have The Genie from Aladin, singing Friend Like Me, tantalizing Aladin with all the amazing wonders he could have.
Both characters offer amazing things, but each has different intents.
This is the song that lures a character into the Tent at the carnival, or the Cave in the mountain. It coerces the deal and promises riches.
Which still totally works with the presented dissection of the character. But it leaves more room for interpretation.
By contrast if Wonka were just a villain his song would sound closer to Be Prepared in the Lion king or Hellfire in the Hunchback of Notre Dam
I watch a lot of videos which touch on colonialism and the western pedagogy, but never go as far as naming it or being so pointed. This was a great reflection, and I really appreciate the focus on poverty and colonialism towards the end. Content like this is why youtube essayists are valuable. Thanks.
The first time I had contact with this work was during my childhood in the 90s when I watched the 1971 adaptation on TV... I remember feeling a bitter taste, in contrast to the sweets in the film, and asking my mother " this guy, Willy Wonka is mean, isn't he?" to which she replied, "he is cruel and evil!"
I've had a little theory for a while that Wonka created the Oompa Loompas out of candy. I think it fits pretty well with the Wonka as God reading
That's an interesting idea.
This isn't related to the video at all, but uhh my eighth grade english teacher is a huuuge Zoe Bee stan. I'm not in their class anymore, but I still talk to them pretty often, and they always talk about how "I wish she worked here so we could collaborate. I love her ideas about teaching and stuff."
oh my gosh! That is absolutely wild, and I'm so touched! If you talk to them again, tell them they sound like a very cool teacher 😎
@@zoe_bee If you ever wondered if you were making a difference, well here's your answer.
When I was a kid I asked my dad who was reading me the story why didn't Willy Wonka just give the factory to the oompa loompas because they were already doing all the work.
I'm not sure what I would have said to you if that was me on the spot.
based
Willy Wonka isn't Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or even Ted Bundy; Willy Wonka is Loki, Anansi, the Coyote, the trickster god of chocolate and greed acting in neither good nor evil but his own twisted self interest.
Isnt evil just acting in your own self interest? Is he different from jeff bezos or elon musk really?
@@wyattsamuel4972 Self interest can very easily drive improving the lives of others and society.
Example: Would you rather be in the top 10% of a country with a large social safety net and ample social freedoms maintained in part by your taxes/donations. Or the top 0.01% of an incredibly poor country with freedoms limited among everyone but your class?
Rising tide raises all ships. We thrive together but fall when separate. Community drives happiness more than money does (after bills are covered.)
@@wyattsamuel4972 evil is equated with sadism for the purpose of this comment.
@@onewingedangel9189 Still don't see how Gates or Bozos are more evil than the concept of Wonker. He uses slave labour, I think it'd be a good representation of those millionaires.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 Imagine investing in the welfare of the larger community to make life better for everyone, including oneself... «siiiiiigh»
It's worth mentioning that the scene of Wonka feigning his injury and feebleness was conceived by Gene Wilder to inject that sinister undertone of untrustworthiness. Was the entire tale always meant to be a cautionary tale? This whole time I never realized
Dahl was the same guy who wrote Matilda and The Witches, and hated the Wilder movie for not being dark _enough._
So...yeah. Always has been.
Wilder was great. One of my favorite actors. He could do insane really well.
I must say, as an adult who was once an autistic child who was endlessly skeptical of moralizing literature, this was one of the first big stories that stuck in my mind, and caused me to endlessly disect and analyze it my whole life through, and find many of the same objections and critiques listed in this video. I even started working on a musical based on an amalgam of many of these readings, but I never got very far with it in it's multiple iterations. When I would share my thoughts with other people, I was often met with bewilderment and annoyance as many neurodiverse folks tend to be when giving their alternative perspectives on things commonly accepted to have only one meaning.
All this is to say, thank you, Zoe. Seeing other people with platforms reach similar conclusions decades later provides me with some sense of vindication, as I can see that I'm not alone in my hypothesizing and cultural deconstruction of the work and its messages.
Can't wait for tomorrow when Zoe unveils her ship of Willy Wonka x Miss Frizzle
Gay/lesbian solidarity
I want a ship of Wonka and the Onceler first
@@gaelanmccann6686 The twink Onceler, or the original?
@@MrGksarathy Twink Oncler def for maximum cursed
@@MrGksarathy original onceler IS a twink
Setting for a tabletop roleplaying game: the town of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. Its 20 years after the story, Charlie has taken over the Wonka brand, gotten weird himself in various ways, and a series of ritual murders have been going for about a year now. Some people say that its Wonka himself. Others say its a side effect of whatever project he got into now that his factory is no longer the only thing he focuses on. Nobody knows where the Oompa Loompas came from but him and he's not telling, and they aren't human, and they've been seen outside the factory at multiple times as agents of the factory. Strange men are often seen around town and are obviously plotting something, but disperse whenever noticed significantly. The town's economy is only barely hanging on, but danger is beginning to drive people away. And as the chocolate he made became more available, the chocolate that was both considered a luxury item on par with a week's worth of food and which had planned scarcity to drive up prices, people are starting to realize that something is severely wrong with that chocolate, but of course nobody wants to stop eating it when its a dollar a bar and hersey's is 2.19.
This sounds amazing
I read this comment and when it just ENDED with the last sentence, I felt so bamboozled... So fully bamboozled. I was ALREADY fully invested in this world you were building! I have no idea how to finish this story!! I don't specialize in mysteries, and this has so many plot hooks! So little information! I am addicted and scared and I don't understand how it would end! Is THIS how TTRPG's are written?? As the world building for a whole story that isn't written and CONS the players into finishing it?? :o
Of COURSE the potential player-characters include townspeople of varying levels of faithfulness, varying levels of welcome-to-night-vale scared of the shadowy organization that surrounds them. Even one of the "men in black" could be a character, who knows too much and has to keep it from the other players and try to deceive them... A small group of plucky local kids - like friggin Sandlot - end up whacking one and taking his clothes and dressing up as him and retracing his steps and breaking in like Bioshock and finding... what? GAAAH, I have no idea how to end the story! Lovecraftian? Satanic? Ghosts? Aliens??? (Aliens are totally canon in the Great Glass Elevator, after all) ADDICTING, see what I mean??
Blood in the Chocolate is an ttrpg adventure that actually makes use of the dark implications of Willy Wonka. It's very dark, though.
@@yltraviole I checked it out, but ehhh. It’s not exactly what I was looking for. However, it’s still close. Thanks!
@@86fifty With that last sentence I tried to blend Lovecraftian "What the fuck is happening to me?" horror with the social horror of capitalism having no meaningful restrictions
"Only deserving children deserve to consume his magical products" - do you know what this reminds me? Atlas Shrugged. The Randian protagonists also want that, want somehow to select the "worthy" consumers to consume their magical products (and they get what they want in Galt's Gulch). I read Atlas Shrugged for research once and it was painful, but it was also enlightening because it's the biggest example of "saying the quiet part loud" of capitalism.
You can see a lot of stories have the monopolistic entrepreneur as the hero, the protagonist who has been slighted and robbed of his rightful profits. In economic theory we learn early that monopolies are bad, but there's this temptation of that only if the monopolists were *good* there would be hope. Of course, some of them are in these stories because writing a "good" monopoly is easier than portraying the complexities of the market economy.
whenever you seel something, you're implying subconsciously that you are okay with people not having it
in theory some monopolies are good for the people and the environment, from stupid things like having a single streaming service for everything to important things like unified health system would be great. the problem is that people working for themselves for profit can never be trusted with doing the right thing, so for capitalism to work we can't have monopolies.
The book worked because every reader imagines that /they/ are part of the productive elite who everyone else should respect. The genius who is held back by the constraints of society. No, it's everyone else who is stupid and lazy! The reader is always one of the special ones.
@@danilooliveira6580 the kinds of monopolies that really work properly are what I guess you could call "monopolies of the masses". Things where everybody contributes what they can, and takes what they need.
Actually, that sounds like something...
@@pennyforyourthots that is not what I was referring to. I was talking about things where competition takes away the convenience of the consumer or cause more damage.
for the former things like a single streaming services is the simplest answer, it would be amazing if we only needed to subscribe for one streaming service to watch everything we want. for the later I would say the Starlink, the constellation provides more benefits to society than the minimal damage to ground observatories, but as LEO gets more crowded with more constellations from different companies it will start to get exponentially worse.
those are examples of things were more options doesn't make it better for the consumer or the world. but them being monopolies still present the same risks as any other service, so while having only one is technically better, it wouldn't work because no company can be trusted to put the benefit of the consumer first.
but yes, being publicly funded does make some of those things possible, like the unified health system I mentioned. the GPS system is another great example, where everyone in the world can use for free. but they still have some problems from being monopolies. as an example the GPS system for being funded by the US it is designed so GPS tracking devices can't be used on fast moving missiles by anyone beside the US and its allies, so many countries have their own GPS constellation so they don't become dependent on the US.
I never really thought of Willy Wonka as an awful guy when I was a young child and was just happy that Charlie could escape from poverty, but recently, I rewatched both movies with my friend and sister. While watching, I noticed how messed up it was for Willy Wonka to manipulate and injure children, the fact that he enslaved the oompa loompas, and as my sister pointed out, how he plans to groom a child into running a business exactly as he wants so that he will essentially be controlling the company even after his death. Thanks to this video, I now have a much more... complex view of the story
If you said Willy Wonka was secretly evil, I would totally accept that instantly without question
He was openly evil not secret about it
You like this commie tranny?
It is not secret😊
Did you even watch the video?
Willy Wonka is evil is a myopic cop out answer that absolves the entire story created of any guilt.
Horrendous liberal take: Capitalism isn’t bad it’s just that evil people are in power and we need good people in power like Charlie.
"The vast, unknowable phantom of fudge" will live in my mind forever, in the same way that "You are the baby in the barn" or "I sang in my chains, like the sea" will. Thank you for this.
When you said "Woo" a kid happened to scream "Yay!" outside my window. Beautiful serendipity lol
Looking forward to this one. The Great Glass Elevator needs more attention for just how insane it is compared to the first.
best near-future sci-fi ive ever read, except maybe the Expanse.
Great Glass Elevator is a whole entire rollercoaster.
it's insane compared to anything. I loved that book as a kid
It has some cringest Asian jokes and I am ashamed for laughing.
Hey I've been looking all over for you! I've got something of yours. It was in a barrel of all places, I think over by the census office. Oh hey have you talked to Arrille recently? Man me and him used to drink sujamma on the dock until we passed out. Anyway send me a DM and I'll mail it to you. Hope you're well.
When I was younger I thought it was absurd that everyone was so obsessed with Wonka's chocolate but then I understood something. Wonka's factory exists in a world where Disney never existed. When you think about it, there are a lot of parallels between Wonka and Disney
Dahls hatred of cinema makes this actually quite likely
@@vanessaverasteguiolle4834fully agreed 😊
As a child/young teenager I legitimately thought everyone talking about the “glass ceiling” or “breaking the glass ceiling” was referring to the scene in the 1971 movie with The Great Glass Elevator. I thought it meant someone (anyone) got a big promotion. 😂
Thats the one thing i get frustrated at, how can you NOT take anything targeting children seriously? It's these things that shape their morals, personalities, likes and dislikes, etc. The amount of ignorance surrounding how indescribible the importance of the upbringing of a person is, just fuckin baffles me.
The idea that children’s literature is for children and is not worth seriously examining comes to mind, as does the superficial whimsy of Willy Wonka.
This would imply that parents are actually media literate enough to consider how it effects their children. The only time I see parent's actually speak out is when it involves media with "satanic" or "Woke" messages. Parents are absolutely clueless.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz totally agree. I often say now that there isnt a single parent ready to raise a kid. Kinda just rolls back into the ignorance of how important the upbringing is and how emotional intelligence is severly lacking lol
Wonka really DOES feel like the kind of Fae you *really* don't wanna encounter.
Nice to find a fellow Fae lore enthusiast! 😀
In the words of someone who I will not name
“Willie Wonka is Hansel and Gretel if the witch won and recruited another witch”
You reminded me of a paper I wrote for literature class in highschool about the kids in the book - my argument was exactly that the kids are punished for being kids and Charlie is impossibly good
What I remember from watching Willy Wonka as a kid, was constantly being compared to Verruca Salt whenever she came on screen by my family, in a Judgey, teasing sort of way and it always made me feel so small. It may sound silly, but it effected me deeply, to the point where even now, I feel uncomfortable asking for the things I need and want, even when I’m prompted to do so because I don’t want to put people out or be seen as a spoiled brat. Something about how Zoe Bee talks about how the children are villainized and how they might not completely deserve it, just hit a nerve in me, and brought these memories back I guess
My youngest kid’s entry into “chapter” books via self reading was Roald Dahl, starting with, yes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I was happy about it primarily because it set off the intense love of reading that was already well entrenched in her parents and older siblings. But Dahl’s…problematic aspects did bother me from time to time and I was glad when she embraced other works as she widened her reading horizons. (And yeah, they ended up including Harry Potter too, sigh…but that’s hardly unusual.)
But this fantastic and troubling examination has made me think about my own early influences, especially in light of that powerful opening (and repeated) quote, during my childhood in the 60s and early 70s. They included the Oz books, the Great Brain books, All of a Kind Family, Edward Eager’s magical adventure books and the practicality everything by Zilpha Keatley Snyder. Most importantly were the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander and E. Nesbit’s Psammead series (5 Children and It, etc.). Both Alexander and Nesbit (and Snyder too) offered a much different kind of sensibility than Dahl, one that involved kindness, ethics and a willingness to grapple with difficult situations without indulging in cruelty or indifference. Nesbit’s books were a revelation for me as a kid, suggesting that adults weren’t always helpful or even knowledgeable, and that blind obedience to them wasn’t necessarily a good thing.
Some of my beloved books from youth (particularly the Prydain series) are still at the top of my recommend list and hold up decade upon decade. But I’m also truly grateful for the options kids have now that are broader and ever more thoughtful and meaningful as the crappy privileged cruelties of our unfortunate histories are (all too slowly) discarded. Dahl was absolutely an entertaining writer…but I’m not sorry to let his ugly viewpoints fade away.
I always saw Willy Wonka and his chocolate factory as a critique of capitalism's flaws, packaged as a humorous children's story. Sort of a "see how stupid and ridiculous this looks? Well some adults do business like this in real life!" kind of thing.
But maybe that's just because I read the story as an older child (11-13), and I grew up with parents who prohibited me from eating any candy, so I never associated it with happiness the way many other kids do. Even then, I can totally see how a younger child (especially one who is addicted to chocolate or other candy) could read/watch this story and see it as a glorification of capitalism and excessive consumerism.
From the Oompa-Loompas and squirrels being indentured servants, to the complete disregard for worker and visitor safety in the factory, to the very premise of manufacturing nutritionless addictive substances to sell to children, that story really did sugar-coat everything and avoid addressing the underlying systemic wrongs that make such a business possible.
Roal Dahl was definitely an outspoken racist. The witches from the homonimous book are EXTREMELY obvious antisemitic metaphors when they literally control the banks. The oompa loompas were pygmies in the original edition.
Nevertheless, the book does seem like a critique of it. Willy wonka is very obviously the opposite of what a human should strife for. Dahl was fond of the idea that children should be exposed to the macabre from a very young age. He included themes of cannibalism and rape in his poetry book that carried reenditions of classic tales. In a scene from matilda, the librarian offers the psychic child a romance book "of those fifteen year old girls read", and yet, she rejects it in favour of more adult books.
Roald Dahl didn't mean to carry the message wonka was a good guy, he is very clearly insane and he made jokes about his psycopathy
I think the Tim Burton version does a better job of portraying what a flawed character Willy Wonka is. The added backstory also gives it more of a family theme where you can see he has trauma from being disowned by his father who was a dentist that wouldn’t let him have any candy so he ended up obsessed with candy as a result.
I would have loved a discussion of one more version of him: Willy Wonka the reflection of the dark side of his creator, Roald Dahl.
Patreon bonus/mini/extra?
Why did I never notice that Charlie was supposed to die in those fan blades. He wasn't special and fated to win, there wasn't supposed to be a last survivor. He was just lucky enough to escape his punishment.
The Boy Who Lived
Do you have the timestamp for this?
@@SparkzMxzXZ No, it's the exact opposite opinion of the video. The video says Charlie was perfect, following all the rules, not taking anything that didn't belong to him and that's why God Wonka did not punish him. That made me realize she was wrong. Charlie did take something that didn't belong to him and faced a punishment along with the others.
I'll always remember when my friend in highschool wanted to watch Willy Wonka. They were fond of it, and I had good childhood memories of it so I was up for it. I wish I was able to enjoy it as much as they did but something just didn't feel right to me with the overall moral. At the end, I was left more troubled than anything. Was that the movie I remembered? I forgot about it, but growing up, starting to understand better why I felt that way. But I felt alone. Nobody around me was seeing any issue with the way the kids were treated or expcted to behave. Or that the kids are punished for being selfish even though Charlie bought chocolate instead of food for his starving family. I was starting to thing I was missing something.
(Sorry for the broken english, it's not my language and I've had a migraine earlier ^^')
Thank you so much for mentioning the fatphobia directed at Augustus. I've heard countless reviews and theories about this work, but rarely if ever hear than mentioned (unless it's by fat people or fat activists). Also ahhh Snow Piercer lol. I loved the ridiculousness. Now I need to watch those videos again. I know the creators of that movie weren't purposely doing anything remotely like that, but I just love the fun people have with it :p
British literature in general is fatphobic.
@@atanvardecunambiel8917 Fatphobia is not a thing, you're either fat or skinny. That's it. No offense though.
@@shirleymaemattthews4862 you on something?
@@shirleymaemattthews4862well prejudice based on fatness does exist. Although it is the only prejudice that i can think of that is something you can control.
As someone who lives in a Commonwealth country-i.e. former colony-and had to read the book in 4th grade, and loved the movie, I was so excited to hear your thoughts to say the least! I think this is a great way to investigate children's stories, stories in general and the way we communicate ideas through stories. Also to what degree that is intentional versus by default. This is one of the stories I've thought about in different ways over and over again and you've given me a few new ways, thank you.
You capture so many nuances and questions I have missed; I hope this analysis gets the attention it deserves, especially in classrooms!
I don't know if its funny or what but Matilda, his other very popular children's book/movie was one of the things that helped me begin the long journey to braking conformity and accepting that was okay just being myself, more specifically a shy bookish person while the rest of my family just... was not... basically it taught me the lesson of how adults are just people like everybody else and thus can and will make mistakes and sometimes just be plain wrong about things.
Fun fact: I was actually a bit scared of the first movie version while watched Matilda on repeat with no ideia they came from the same mind (even tough he didnt like that movie version or so I heard).
Charlie is kind of the odd man out where Dahl heroes are concerned, because he very rarely celebrates docility and following the rules. Even in Matilda or the Witches or the BFG there's always *some* adult it's appropriate to trust, but Wonka is unusual in making that the one who already has all the power
I had a foster parent who was just like the Trunchbull and Matilda’s parents for that matter. She wouldn’t even let me check out books on vector calculus or nuclear physics from the library.
You know this book inspired me to write my own version; set on Halloween, with a magical labyrinth, the victims as a foreign girl and her school bullies, and Fair Folk as the overseers.
Each victim is a model of their preferred vice or (negative) ideology. And the Labyrinth is a puzzle test for them to get out of before midnight or sunrise, and avoid the temptation each area of the Labyrinth possesses.
God I need a link to this so badly
This is an amazing idea, I hope it turned out well
Considering the *dates* in that story... Wonka offloaded the whole thing right before it would be shut down by the government.
That poor young boy is left holding the bag for a company that is going to violate a lot of health and workplace laws.
On the other hand, Wonka did make sure that Charlie was well aware about everything the cops were going to show up and ask questions about, even going so far as to let Charlie watch other children his age demonstrate the factory hazards in real time. 😇
Subliminal messaging in children’s stories I’m order to manipulate them is a bigger problem than people think. From the ‘slavery is good sometimes’ sentiment in Harry Potter to the disabled villains of Cars 2 who want to be equal, there’s a lot of kids stuff out there with questionable messages once you look into it deep enough.
Well, I guess we should also consider that in order to get anything published on a large enough scale at all, authors and other creatives will need funding, and the people who can take care of funding usually do also take an interest in the actual contents of what it is that they might or might not fund. So creatives who try to make a living doing what they love need to walk something of a tightrope, appeasing the people who can provide them with funding and other means, while also somehow not selling their souls (entirely)
I'm also reminded of the "equalists" in Legend of Kora, non-benders who had a charismatic leader. To put it simply, they were basically non-bender communists who did not like the inequitable treatment they recieved from the ruling party, namely the benders.
The entire idealogical bias of that show essentially came down to, "Everything is bad except neo-Liberalism... even when neo-Liberalism was the real problem."
I remember being consistently frustrated while watching that show, and it wasn't just because Kora was a repugnant lead character or the constant fan pandering.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz No. You're clearly dumb. The point of the show is that there's not a perfect solution, and usually the solution people propose are extremist
When does Harry Potter have a "slavary is good sometimes." Thing?
One of the most triumphant moments is when Harry tricks Lucious into freeing Tobby. And the only good magical family we see, the Weaslis, don't have a House Elf.
@@ofrund In the books Hermione tries to set up an Elf Rights campaign and everyone laughs at her because elves love to be enslaved or something
The first section felt like an excellent demonstration of media analysis and how useful (or at least interesting) looking at the same work via different analytical lenses is, and that the lens you choose to look at a work from gives vastly different readings of a work and the characters within it. Excellent video overall, and would definitely like to see your videos on other billionaires in children's media.
Dovetailing off this comment, a deep-dive into Daddy Warbucks and the “Annie” narrative of the chosen orphan would overlap with a lot of themes from Willy Wonka.
I'm super excited for future "bad billionaires?" videos! I would absolutely listen to at least 90 minutes about Annie
YES. I look forward to the Ducktales reboot episode, which did such a good job with the characters AROUND Scrooge, but stopped short of accepting him as the villain in the end. My kiddo hears my diatribes about each episode every time he rewatches. I would LOVE to see your take on some of the very real and concerning issues just skirted around in the show.
@rightsarentpolitical Scrooge gets a free pass because he's seen as part of Donald Duck's family of American Freedom Fighters and did his part by fighting the CEO of Racism: Flintheart Glomgold, _a South African billionaire that got his fortune from his family's slave mines and spends his time making crappy inventions to steal from others..._ 🤔
Zoe Bee,
It was a very nice surprise to see someone --you know, someone to whom I'm not related-- read my essay. I've watched a few more of your videos since and expect I'll enjoy many more. Best, Ron
The Chocolate Factory always amazed me. In Germany the story is not that popular so the Johnny Depp version is the only one I know, and damn, did I think it was nightmarish. It's one of those nightmares where everyone behaves like what's happening is great while you are the only one seeing the horror in it. That's what the film was for me. Those children getting disfigured and buried for basic childlike behaviour was terrifying, and Charlie being all like "oh well there is that girl gone and maybe dead, let's move on with the tour". Plus, their version of Germany was what i imagine a bavarian themed park in the US would look like.
I had to stop what I was doing at 29:40. Heck. Also that whole segment was excellent. Theological themes in popular media are an interest of mine and I'm so so pleased to see this breakdown.
This is some truly inspired analysis paired with some animated storytelling. I really enjoyed this!
And just, like, some of the best levity ever levied. 🍫
Thanks! Glad you liked it! :)
a friend of mine fell down the Chocolate factory adaption hole a while ago while writing a deconstruction in the style of a CW teen show, and im very excited to see what she thinks about this
She better publish the script. I'm gonna need to see this shit.
Zoe: But Wonka knew immortality was far out in the future, so he would need a successor.
Also Zoe: Let me tell you the story of Wonka the god.
Tbf, even the christian god had jesus
I would also like to point out in the 1971 film, Slugworth was at the locations of every single ticket's discovery. Every time! With the foresight to know that he was working for Wonka, it is, in my view, obvious to see why that is. Wonka sent out the tickets not as a group, but individually, and had his agent tracking the specific shipment which had the bar. After all, if you're the one who distributes the product, you know EXACTLY where they're going. To further my theory, notice how the candy goes to children who fit Wonka's needs. Agustus Gloop was the son of a "prominent local butcher", wouldn't be hard to find information on a prominent local figure. Even as Wonkamania took hold, the candy manufacturer could see that Mr. Salt and his company were buying massive amounts, presumably to cheat getting a ticket. Do a little digging, and you could easily find out that the Salts have a spoiled brat. The only wild card in my theory would be Mike Teevee, but even if he did hack the system then sending an agent as a reactionary measure wouldn't be hard. It is extremely plausible to think that, at least in the '71 version, Wonka had orchestrated the children's selection ahead of time, or at least not making it random. He could have even paid off the ticket forger, to provide time to plant Charlie's ticket.
Just another theory, but the video was excellent. Multiple interpretations of the same content, but with different meanings. Well done!
This is exactly the type of content that butters my croissant. I would love more content
about other "good" billionaires.
Having read the story and seen the 2005 movie years ago, I kind of completely forgot the very crucial detail of Wonka firing everyone from the factory.
In the same vein as 56:43, the factory itself, the eye-catching land of overwhelming whimsy, was so iconic that it used to overshadow (at least for me) most details of the previous half of the story, and with it all of the themes in that half (specifically all of the ones revolving around poverty).
same
Same
35:30 I think there's also an important thing that's missed by making it all a follower point. Charlie isn't supposed to just follow, but mantle and replace. I wasn't expecting to do this, but the first comparison I can think of for them here is actually the Hero of Kvatch mantling the god Sheogorath in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. To mantle a god is to become that god, and to mantle a god, one must be like that god. For Sheogorath, his domain is madness.
But for Willy Wonka, he's a bit less pinned down. Really he embodies all _nine_ deadly sins. The book originally was going to have seven kids for the seven, but originally before there were seven, there were nine. The rest are obvious, so I'll only go into the two new/old ones. Acedia, or apathy. His reaction to Mike Teevee is the peak meme for apathy, we've got that immediately. The other is Vainglory, or vanity. His secrets? His constant boasting? His need for admiration? His showing off? His need for total obedience? He's so vain.
So, _Charlie_ needs to embody all the sins in order to mantle Willy Wonka. But Wonka isn't a chaotic mass of uncontrolled evil, now is he? Chaotic, sure. But perfectly measured chaos. Surgical explosions. So, what does Charlie need to do in order to embody this? Well, show balance. He shows selflessness, we've got that down. But balance, not to get too Star Wars Fandom about it, doesn't come from eliminating all the bad. Balance is between. When he indulges in sin, he is not taking from his family. Out of everyone justified to have that money in the family, he's the most justified. None of their existing plans required it; he was the only one aware of it. Furthermore, he's a child and has no moral responsibility to support his family. So, when he indulged in greed, he indulged in morally justifiable greed. Balance. He's not just being a perfect follower. He's mantling. That's Wonka's whole point; if Wonka only wanted him to follow, everything would be a lie. Wonka wants him to lead.
47:27 Edit because another thing that I think adds to my point actually. He isn't that! You said it yourself, he spent the money he found on a greedy choice. He shows normal human desires and indulgences, but uses what he can get for himself instead of actively harming his family. He's not perfect, he's balanced.
49:42 Thinking on this, I think you've got it backwards. Charlie Bucket is only sinless in the most pop culture way possible, which is important for this work obviously. Charlie, however, is balanced. Greed has come up multiple times. Lust... well he's a child, but in child terms it applies to his feelings towards chocolate. Starving, he gives up his money for chocolate out of a desire for it. That is the sin of lust, not just gluttony. Sloth and apathy go hand in hand and are just... blatantly obvious. He gets left behind repeatedly and he does nothing about the kids getting harmed. Envy, well, yeah that's the whole "watching the TV, wishing he could get a golden ticket" thing. Vanity is a bit weaker but also goes with the apathy towards the kids getting hurt, he only thinks about himself and his family (which is an extension of himself). Wrath, he stands by Wonka's and Grandpa Joe's. Even when they're contradictory. Pride... "I've got a golden ticket". It's worshiping a golden idol, it's kinda obvious. But the thing is, he has control and doesn't take them out on people or cause harm to the innocent with them. Balance. Both Wonka and Charlie show all nine deadly sins, but unlike the others, they also have control over themselves. They control it; they are not controlled by it. I agree with the final point about the system, but I think it's not that he's sinless, but has control over himself. He is explicitly said to be inheriting Wonka's position. We see that Wonka embodies all the sins over and over, so it makes more sense that he does too.
Damn.
@@OdinsSage I may have been thinking about this series in a lot of depth for... eleven years almost. "Wonka as a god" reminds me a lot of the _much_ older "Wonka as Lucifer" (earliest I know of is 1990/1991) idea. Since the book is _explicitly_ themed the kids around the seven deadly sins (two kids were cut for the other two during the book's writing), the ringleader in this circus of sin being Lucifer makes sense. Wonka's embodiment of sin was agreed upon by the video. But it just seemed very contradictory the idea that Charlie could mantel the master of sin-punishment and embodiment of sin without representing a child version of that same thing.
To use a semi-Biblical/semi-pop culture description, if Wonka is Satan or any sort of god, Charlie has to be Lucifer before the fall or any sort of equivalent. Mantling gods doesn't really come up often, but that's explicitly what Wonka wants from Charlie (take over my magical kingdom after I am gone, and with doing so I can be certain you will become Exactly Like Me, when applied to the supernatural position of godhood) so the idea of Charlie as a follower and not as the one who mantles him only works if he's outright lying to Charlie about his purpose for him. There's very few works that set any meaningful framework for inheriting the position of a god through an adopted framework where the god is guaranteed the successor will be an identical successor.
Charlie's trip through the chocolate factory witnessing the punishment of sin could be described as akin to Dante's Inferno (you probably guessed it from the framework of the sentence!), with Grandpa Joe as his Virgil. It even ends with him ascending to the heavens. But there's a key, strikingly important detail that differs between the two stories. In Dante's Inferno, Lucifer is trapped in the center of Hell, kept frozen in place by his own attempts to escape. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Wonka invites the damned in and takes them to their punishment himself.
I lied, there's a second difference. Dante doesn't inherit Hell. That's a pretty wild difference for such a weird amount of similarity. Wonka is a divine force whom punishes sinners and rewards the repentant but not sinless. Charlie inherits the job. Oddly enough, with the side of Charlie's class struggles, it could be seen as "It's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven". While he ascends, it's with the promise to return down and reign as king.
@@PosthumanHeresy First, I enjoyed reading your comments. Second, “mantling” is a new term to me, however in contradiction to having to embody something Jesus descended to hell for three days before rising to break the reigns of hell. The movie requires a lot of assumptions, as seen in this video, and as you point out. I enjoy for the movie that it is, and have my own assumptions. I assume Charlie gives freedom to the Oompas although perhaps they were always free. Etc.
"He's so vain." He probably thinks this book is about him. 😉 (forgive me, it was irresistible)
@@ShaggyRodgers420 Yeah, I've never really seen them as slaves. That would require slavedrivers, for one. They're too free range, too carefree, and too otherworldly to really be slaves. Wonka's too killable for them to be slaves. Like, pick any scene where they're on screen and he's in the same room. What's stopping them from ganking him right then and there? They agree with his views. They like him as a person. Like, their concept is obviously inspired by colonialism, but not in a one-to-one way.
A big theme of transgressive literature, which it's easy to say he made the child version of across numerous books given the sheer violation of accepted concepts, even though it then went mainstream, is that the traditionally "evil" is less evil than you think, but looks it from the outside. That's what's going on here. There's the trappings of colonialism, but when you peel away the top layer, everything underneath those trappings is wrong.
The outermost layer, the appearance, is colonialist. But under that, it's actually a dark trickster god and his followers whom he brought back to his realm. You always get the sense that even Wonka is watching the death songs with this "oh, I love them so much, they're just like me" energy. His gaze never suggests that he ordered this, planned it out, or even truly _expected_ it, as in putting that expectation on them, even if he expected it in the sense that he saw that coming.
It feels more like they follow him and share in his power than it ever comes across like he controls them. Like, doing the factory work is chill as hell for them because of their own supernatural nature, and if humans tried to just do their jobs it wouldn't work. The fact they have scientists and doctors and stuff also breaks any slavery sense. This is a society that lives in tandem with their god in a mutually beneficial relationship wearing the skin of colonialism. The embodiment of sin does things that look as evil as what you'd expect, but then when you look deeper he's doing something completely different, which serves as social critique. "The devil is a better man than you."
How does every one miss the "abused children being punished for the behaviors they developed to block the pain" subtext? Over eating, compulsive behavior(gum chewing) disassociating in front of TV's..and you can almost hear Veruca's implied "Or I'll tell what you did dad" at the end of all her demands..It's like fucking "Saw" for abused kids.
Your storytelling in the first half is just so good! I don't see anyone praise you for it, but it's so captivating!😍
Especially when she gets to the Wonka as a god portion.
Oh god this is going to be so cursed I can’t wait
Oh just you wait.......
Alas, your silly video about how we should all cancel Willy Wonka exploded into perhaps the best video essay I have ever seen on RUclips! Truly, this is a masterful production. It is such a perfect blend of sociological and cultural analysis that is both easily accessible and remarkably entertaining. From the aesthetic and color coordination of the visuals (very much including your own visual ensemble) to the progressive organization that saw Willy Wonka dramatically transcend from Candyman into God, I was enraptured throughout all four acts. You demonstrated, through insightful discussion and scintillating demonstration, how symbols and rituals can create magical candies, wonderous factories, and eccentric billionaires that have the power to both inspire and ruthlessly capture the very spirit of society itself. After the main performance, your continued discussion reiterated a thesis which was captured beautifully in the performance, but not stated explicitly, which is that the entertainment value of our deconstructions as well as that of our source material cannot be overlooked as we attempt to elevate our collective consciousness. Unfortunately, in a world so saturated with content and information, it would seem nearly impossible to capture anyone's attention, let alone foster enlightening discussions, without creating exquisite explanations that were also impeccable in the artistry of their presentations. Luckily, your video provides a template. Thank you very much professor. And Brava!
thank you so much! I'm so glad you liked it!
The 70s willy wonka is one of my favorite movies and Willy himself is a character I've always loved. I've seen that movie a million times and it's pretty shocking that I've never thought about how Willy Wonka used slaves, It's amazing what childlike wonder and the normalization of atrocities can make you blind to something so obvious. I really appreciate this deep dive.
Some people will say "stop looking at media as if everything is political", but the saccharine of WW is exactly the allure to an explicitly political message. Being ignorant of the ideology being sold is exactly how you fall into it.
Wonka and everything Dahl wrote were unabashedly political and a brutal roast of the saccharine.
The original book contains one of my favourite puns of all time. The square sweets that look round. It has an entire three page chapter dedicated to it and I laugh every single time I think about it
Zoe: Wonka isn't like the Christian god, he's vindictive and cruel
Me: Oh, no. The christian god is *just* as much of a vindictive and cruel creature.
Willard Wilbur Wonka would have smote any and all of his industry rivals if he could have
Agreed, when she said he is not the Christian god, I was like honey have you read the Bible, you just described him to a tea
I thought the same, but it's nice if she's Christian that she believes in a kinder, more merciful deity: it's a worldview that affords more breathing room for the rest of us.
As an ex-Catholic, I agree.
God*
"When Veruca asks to buy one, we don't go 'wow, that is actual slavery!'"
Well...okay, there are two ways to react to that:
1-We DO go "Wow, that is actual slavery!" We are supposed to hate her spoiled attitude, so it makes perfect sense for her character to think of these workers as some kind of fancy pet just because they are exotic. It could almost be written off as innocent except, of course, she's never been told no before and her father immediately encourages and normalizes her behavior by asking Wonka "How much for that Orange Goblin in the window?" without any hesitation.
2-Willy already enslaved them (Really, couldn't the Oompah Loompahs buy their own Cocoa beans if they worked anywhere else? Why has their existence not been noticed by modern society before the Golden Ticket tour? THEY CLEARLY AREN'T ALLOWED TO LEAVE. The whole point of their presence is to give Wonka cheap, espionage-free labor! They have no outside source of information!), so Veruca isn't actually doing anything MORE worthy of scorn than Willy. So why are we getting mad at the kid for something a fully grown adult has already normalized?
Actually....as a Tycoon, Willy Wonka also wants "to lock it (the whole world) up in his pocket". Veruca's song is the song of capitalism. The movie is trying to imply that Wonka is somehow different: "Yes, I'm rich, but I'm not like those OTHER rich people....I believe in justice and...and..meritocracy! ...Yeah!" but we know the truth.
the whole video's awesome, but I think my favorite thing is that all your bloopers inevitably dissolve into ermahgerd goosebumps girls voice
I thoroughly enjoyed this! Yes, please do more of the billionaires in children's stories. Those stories make up so much of our accepted and subconscious standards and assumptions it is fascinating to me backtrack where much of it originates.
This video essay is mind-blowingly good... and it's for a CHILDREN'S BOOK!? You managed to tell an enthralling story about all of the darkest elements of capitalism within a video essay about WILLY WONKA!?
Everything (written by Dahl) is political.
Always has been.
A Zoe made chocolate bar thirst trap is not what I was expecting today, lol.
It’s the Unlimited Wonka Universe, or UWU.
I don't understand:
UWU what's this?
Quite an interesting analysis. Your closing lines reminded me of something: There is a kind of person who active oppose media analysis. It's most common in video games, but it does with other mediums as well. Most often, it's because they are aware of the politics in the media, but don't want the messaging to be considered as something influential.
Yeah and that's usually the kind of person interested in preserving the status quo. If people don't analyse or reflect on things, society is less likely to change, or so they think
Oh and also: there is another kind of person who thinks the best way of making sure certain media won't be influential is by making sure that type of media will never be seen or heard. I could imagine a - possibly yet even darker - timeline wherein Willy Wonka is CANCELLED for having the terrible themes of slavery, torture and whatnot through some false flag campaign (false flag as in, a group of people _claiming_ to care about minorities who, in fact, just attempt to use the language of goodness for their own selfish end goals) which would completely prevent any potential analysis by anyone in the future forever. Like sort of a modern book burning, but under the guise of protecting people from supposedly harmful content.
It reminds me of when I read an article on a supposedly feminist website about The Witcher 3 being a horribly evil game because supposedly, when playing as Ciri, you'd get NPC's around you calling you names. Me, having actually played that game, KNOWS that is not true - that it's actually playing as Geralt (a very pale white-haired old man btw) that gets you called names (Ciri has altogether different problems) - but how would any non-gaming, well-intentioned person know that? Now, you might hate games like those for being gritty or for the fact that it has women running through swamps in high heels somehow, but to then go so far as to try to get people to hate it and using lies to reach that endgoal is utterly ridiculous.
CatCF is a story telling children how they should behave.. Specifically to obey their superiors unquestioningly.
The moment Charlie wins the ticket when he buys chocolate for himself with the money meant for his family - he's rewarded for loving Wonka's gifts more than anyone else.
Charlie is rewarded for taking what's given to him, but never any more (e.g. Augustus). For being subordinate and never trying to be like Wonka (e.g. Violet). Never complaining that his community is in poverty after Wonka's mass-firing and importing of Oompa-Loompas. Charlie is rewarded for having no personality except faith and obedience to Wonka.
It's like the purpose of the story is "Be obedient and rich people will give you the rewards you deserve, while the disobedient and undeserving rich (i.e. Augustus, Violet etc) will be punished".
It makes you wonder if _all_ Rags To Riches stories are written for a similar purpose. Either an attempt at social control by elites, or a soothing fantasy/catharsis by-and-for the downtrodden.
From the author of Matilda, which iirc was a little closer to "burn down the system". 🔥