I’m sick of doomer posts and I want to laugh at hidden weird reactionary sentiments in children’s books.
>Opens tour by singing a song about how you shouldn’t limit your imagination and literally has the words “Anything you want, do it”
>Rest of the movie is about following arbitrary rules or suffering exaggerated consequences.
>introduces kids to a room where the entire premise is that everything can be eaten
>Doesn’t mention that the single largest feature of the room can’t be touched or it will be contaminated
FINALLY yes someone mentions it
Brings kid who likes candy to a candy factory
Punishes kid for eating candy
in the book theres a scene where we see the others leaving the factory. the movie is more ambiguous
What you don’t like the book about child slaves kidnapped from a “mysterious” continent?
It’s arguably worse than that. If I recall the book correctly, Oompa Loompas lived in the South American jungle and were prey for some sort of fantastical creatures. They coveted cocoa beans, but had trouble getting them because of the aforementioned creatures. They were then essentially “rescued” by Wonka and taken to his factory where they could have all the cocoa beans they wanted (in exchange for their labor, of course). They aren’t slaves, they’re grateful savages who were rescued by a magnanimous industrialist. Barf.
Always since childhood I interpreted Wonka as a caricature of a bad, sad man. As an adult I see him as a caricature of a bad, sad industialist. I always picked up a dark vibe to the oompa loompas presence as well
same, I think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory may actually be an early communist litmus test.
Grandpa Joe is an antiwork icon.
It is a rags-to-riches fantasy that a poor kid buying one chocolate bar for his birthday can have the same outcome as a rich kid whose parents buy millions of chocolate bars at a time.
Charlie manages to stay on until the end of the tour because the rich kids all are impatient and entitled and that leads to their downfall or reversal of fortune.
Oompa-Loompas make a jump from the stage of predation into a quasi-feudal stage.
Idk, Roald Dahl can get pretty grotesque for children’s books (see also: The BFG, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda) but there’s a lot of his work that has a wholesome and liberatory character.
because the rich kids all are impatient and entitled and that leads to their downfall or reversal of fortune.
but this is the issue, they’re kids. I understand we all hate rich people but punishing kids is specifically what I take issue with. Killing them or even using them to some ends is twisted, yes, but strange and unusual punishment on children of all people is just objectively all kinds of fucked up. Say what you want about the Tzar family but Lenin didn’t torture any of them.
Obviously it’s just a silly children’s book but it’s also pretty obviously fucked up and an indictment of society’s inclination to punishing those who haven’t had much time at all to learn what’s correct.
It’s a children’s book, The main character is a child, it makes sense to me that the flawed characters in the story are spoiled children. It’s less of a “torture children for fun” and more of a “their flaws brought their own demise upon them”. Its supposed to teach the reader (child) those same basic moral lessons. If I remember the story correctly I thought all of the children ended up okay. They had a bad experience but came out okay.
Its not about punishing people unfairly. Thats how kids learn things in generally. Thats how people learn in general. As a kid, you fuck up and end up facing the consequences of said fuck up, hopefully learning that your behavior before was wrong/stupid and shouldn’t be done again. Everyone learns through experience, and without proper guidance you will often learn the hard way.
Of course the moral is good when taken at face value and it’s altogether quite innocent, I’m just saying that it comes across odd to adults, which is just a funny thing, or freaks the fuck out of children who have trouble with anxiety, which is bad but TBF not really the fault of the author who doesn’t have anxiety and doesn’t know that mindset.
Who are kids going to identify with and learn from better as moral lessons? Adults, or children closer to their own age?
I’m pretty certain no children were harmed in the writing of the book. And I don’t think it’s meant for the age range of kids who have learned how to think along the lines that you’re doing.
I’m not sure why people are being so defensive, I’m just saying the plot of a children’s book with a normal and average plot that is of course common in other books is just kinda fucked up if you think about it too hard. Obviously it works for what it’s trying to say but
And I don’t think it’s meant for the age range of kids who have learned how to think along the lines that you’re doing.
Haha, It appears you did not live most of your life with chronic anxiety! Good for you
