The one thing the 2005 Wonka movie absolutely nails

Don't worry this isn't some clickbait "the 2005 Wonka Movie is better then you remember" sort of thing. Given its age, the Tim Burton film fails squarely in that shitty cgi "reimagining" and first wave of bad-to-mediocre remakes (I don't know if this one is bad though I'm not a critic). I have a lot of nostalgia for this film, as it's the one I watched as a kid. I never saw the 1964 film (but I did read the original book) until much later as an adult going on my "classic movies" craze. I think I watched it during covid. Now with a more critical eye; I can certainly appreciate the original film more. I think it has that sort of comfy, shot on film atmosphere that old films have. They are both very "on acid" feeling movies though.

There's something interesting about films like this. It tries to be a remake that tells its own story, a fresh modern coat of paint on an older product, but when you look at it now it's terribly dated and very set in its era of mid 2000s clean aesthetic. It's been superseded by an even newer film; which may one day also be replaced by an even newer remake. That's the thing about remake culture, the new shiny one eventually gets replaced, which will leave behind ugly, awkward middle children who are neither the timeless classics nor the shiny new thing.

However, every piece of media is influenced by the time and period in which it was created. There's something about this film in particular that it does really, really well; and that's modernizing some of the "bad kid" characters. Ultimately Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is about succession and parenthood, and about how ultimately it's the parents who make bad kids. The other kids are spoiled, but Charlie gets nothing. So Charlie is the good kid, and so he is rewarded, while the others are punished. It's a very classic Christian myth.

But there's one character in particular the 2005 film does so much better then the original it isn't even close. I'm genuinely a little surprised there isn't more talk about it. 

The Kids & Their Moral Failings
In Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, each kid that breaks the rules of the factory does so because of a huge character flaw. The Oompa Loompas songs tell us what each kid did wrong, but also make sure to hint that the problem with each kid really stems from their parents. Augustus is too hedonistic and greedy, and his parents don't stop him or set boundaries for his health or well-being. Veruca Salt is just a terrible spoiled brat who was never told no to anything by her rich parents. Mike Teavee is media obsessed and lives in fantasy; characterized by Westerns in the first film (that era of brainrot slop) and video games in the second. If a new one was made in today's zeitgeist he'd probably be watching tiktok. Out of all of kids; the most forgettable one is probably Violet (except as the source of that weird inflation/blueberrification fetish), and in the original film her characterization and "flaw" is probably the weakest out of all of the kids. She... chews gum? Obviously it's a pet peeve of Roald Dahl, but it really isn't some indication of some massive character flaw other then being a gross habit. In the book she's fleshed out more; being more rude and gossipy, so the "chewing all day" thing could kinda be seen as a shorthand for talking behind people's back and being a rude, nasty child. Perhaps this could hint at the kind of no-restrictions parenting that allows children to have bad habits; being rude to people with no filter, chewing gum, maybe even leading to smoking or other bad behaviors. Obviously this is a very liberal interpretation. But then, look at the remake handled it.

Instead of just chewing gum as a bad habit, it's recontextualized as a competition; trying to get the world record in chewing the same piece of gum. Her entire character is reworked towards the idea of being a sort of over-achieving, competitive, nasty kid who thinks they have infinite potential and the arrogance behind it. And this is absolutely perfect for the moral failing of her mother.

Remember, this movie came out in the early 2000s, which was the era defined by helicopter parenting. Bad parent/child relationships are common among every generation, that's how generational trauma works (and raising kids isn't easy) but specifically I feel this era was where people really started to take a critical eye to these over-achiever, "living vicariously through my child" type of people, and putting up warnings in media to basically say why this is a bad thing. This was even the height of the craze (at least that I can remember) of the knee-jerk overblown reaction to things like participation trophies in schools and attendance awards; and while not directly related to Violet's character, it's part of the cultural undercurrent.

Look at their living room. In a panning shot for this scene, we see yet more trophies on another glass shelf before it cuts to Violet and her mother standing there, in identical athletic suits. There are no toys in this room. Across from there are a bunch of reporters to which Violet describes wanting to find the ticket, and be "better" then all the other ticket winners and be the one kid to "claim the special prize". The entire time, her mother is staring at her intensely with a crazed expression, like making sure she doesn't fumble her words or make a single mistake in front of all these reporters. She makes sure to show off her own trophies and awards, but the focus is clearly on her child. The father is not in the picture. Even her winning the ticket, something that should be appreciated as sheer luck and random chance, is chalked up to being her skill or yet again an achievement to work towards.

While it's not really accurate to the book; children and their problems aren't really the same as they were in 1964. I feel like this era, the era of the internet and mass media but not-quite social media was the perfect conditions for this very specific type of person; ambitious and driven, but not in a good way. Overly obsessed with looks and superficial value. Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, and with a world ever-shrinking in personal possibilities as every sport and industry became hyper optimized; the "Ripley's Believe It or Not" era of achievement was in full force. Amass pointless awards and world records even if they mean nothing; being a world champion gum chewer is a perfect shorthand for this kind of achievement. It doesn't represent any kind of personal growth or societal problem being solved; it's just a big number for your own ego. And her mother is the one behind it all; wanting her child to succeed and placing this pressure on her not because it would make her happy, but because she has to just be the best. You're the best kid, so I'm the best mom. Looking up the scene online, I've seen some people say there was a "mother vs daughter competitiveness" thing going on here, but I really don't see it. Violet's mom even says "She's just a driven young woman. I have no idea where she gets it.". I think it's pretty clear. She's a tiger mom.

Coming from someone who is a bit of an underachiever myself; I can't say I've been the victim of this kind of parenting myself. I have no trauma. But I did have friends who did. Kids who were literally afraid of showing their report card to their parents, kids who were in multiple clubs and HAD to be Valedictorian and HAD to have all AP classes and just HAD to get into the best collages and so on. It's not that working hard and achieving things is bad, it's the fact that parents do it their kids in a destructive and unhealthy way. I think it's easy to forget what it was like as a kid, because as an adult at some point you realize that you'll never live up to your full possible potential, you'll accept it. There are always people better then you, but also people worse. You can always sink into mediocrity and feel some comfort in it. You're at the age where you know people fail and burn out, so you can take things a little easier yourself, at least mentally. No matter how arrogant you are, this grounds you. But kids don't have this. Their parents word is law, and their approval is the most important thing in the world. It's no longer get a bad grade and feel bad because of that, it's get a bad grade and make your mom or dad upset and disappointed in you, and that's much worse. This version of Wonka has a much better Violet for this reason, because it's a cautionary tale that if you hollow out your child and fill them with your dreams instead of theirs, and put all the pressure on them to succeed at any cost, it turns out that eventually they'll blow up.

Headcanon for Exorcist I & Exorcist III's unusual cosmology (Long)

So when I was a kid, I was always scared of scary movies. And the big bad motherfucker of a scary movie was The Exorcist. I was terrified of this movie. It had some kind of cult legacy that followed it for decades after its release, so even kids like me, born decades after it released, had some kind of unholy fascination towards it. This was scarier then Freddy or Jason. Scarier then Saw or The Ring. This was a scarier motherfucking movie.

Of course, as an adult I went back and watched it. It was great. Now that I'm older, I can appreciate these movies for other factors beyond the horror- directing, acting, cinematography. It's a little laughable nowadays. The scariest part of The Exorcist were the medical scenes! But needless to say, I enjoyed the movie immensely.

Now at the time, I didn't even really know the Exorcist has sequels. At the time, the general consensus was the Exorcist 2 and the remakes were bad. Then I heard about the Exorcist 3. I watched about halfway through the Red Letter Media review of it, stopped to avoid spoilers, got the movie, and watched it myself. It was pretty great.

But between Exorcist 1 and 3, there's this really interesting implied cosmology. Note- if there is more Exorcist deep lore I am unaware of, or if any of this has been proven or disproved by the second film, I don't really care. This isn't about the actual “lore” of the Exorcist films, this is just my headcanon from one and three. I thought this would be a fun, unusual blogpost for here. So feel free to skip if it's not your normal thing. Also will obviously contain spoilers.

The Exorcist

The first Exorcist film is pretty simple. There's this lonely girl who gets an “imaginary friend” and starts acting weird. Turns out she's possessed by a demon. The only solution is to call in an Exorcist.

Most of the supernatural events in the movie are about in line what you consider for what a “demon” could do. Objects fly around the room. Strange, impossible biological stuff (like the head spinning around thing- endlessly parodied) as well as superhuman strength, especially for a young sick girl. Levitation and demonic voices. Knowledge that a little girl shouldn't have. All of it fits well with a general “haunted house” vibe. But notice the general theme- most of the stuff is “plausible”. Or rather, while clearly supernatural, there is no instant transformation into demonic forms, no creation of matter, or no totally overpowered magical demonic stuff.

There's this great line in the movie. When the younger of the two priests (Karras) sits down, a drawer opens on its own. He tells the possessed girl to do it again, and the entity speaking through her says “in due time”. It's a great conversation, which seems almost cordial despite how clearly evil and inhuman this being is. When asked if the entity could simply make the bonds tying the girl down disappear, it replies with “that would be too vulgar a display of power, Karras.” This line is great because it implies that these entities, spirits, whatever else have to follow some kind of rules. It never implies it can't do it, but it chooses not to.

There's another element here I want to add- the good guy priests here believe in God, but God never directly manifests in this film. God never directly acts. The end of the movie is even a bit ambivalent of who “wins” in the end; any victory that happens is a human victory.

The Exorcist 3

The third Exorcist film has a great atmosphere to it. The film is mostly set in a hospital, next to/in an old folks home. The entire movie is dotted with gruesome murders, which are in line with a famous serial killer called the Gemini. The Gemini killer has been dead for fifteen years- executed.

This movie also has a great police detective story feel to it. The murders here are thought to be a copycat killer, but there are two problems. The first is that the police released the details of the Gemini killer that were false intentionally, to weed out crazy people who might claim to be the Gemini. But this killer is not performing the false version of events, but copying the actual Gemini killer. Secondly, all of the murders have been done so precisely that it seems supernatural. The exact dosage of a paralyzing drug, every single drop of blood siphoned from the corpse without a single drop spilled, and so on.

Now onto the spoilers. It turns out that Karras, the exorcist priest from the first film, is actually still alive. See, at the end of the first Exorcist, Karras told the demon to take him instead to leave Regan's body, and when it started to take over him he jumped out the window and killed himself down the long flight of spooky stairs. He's not only still alive- but his body is still possessed.

This leads a great, almost cordial conversation again. Just like in the first movie; these scenes between the detective character and the entity inside of Karras were great. I loved these scenes. There was much more madness, but this concept of being face to face, able to ask and tell anything you wish to some entity immeasurably beyond anything human is a great story beat. It's also fun to think about, a kind of interaction with stakes and danger. What would I say to it in that jail cell? Do you honestly think you could convince it to change its ways? Probably not- it's evil is a deeper evil then any human could understand. But perhaps you could trick it to reveal something useful- or would you just set it off?

It's important because these conversations between Karras and detective Kinderman reveal to us some of the most important details about the cosmology about the Exorcist universe.

Exorcist 3 Evidence

In Kinderman's talks to the demon (also Gemini killer) several facts or ideas are put forward by the being. It is important to know that this is all we go on, but obviously a demonic entity would be prone to lying. I've included paraphrased quotes. From this we gather;

• Learned some kind of supernatural abilities from The Master- this is directly after he does a demon roar in Karras's body, not a normal human vocalization. (the Master is implied to be the demon in control of the body, who can be cruel)
• The Gemini Killer's soul was picked up “on the outside”. “It can be cruel at there”.
• “The Master is throwing me scraps from his table, a little reward for my service.”
• When the possessed Karras goes to sleep, the body (heartbeat, temperature, breathing) slows to a crawl. But his brainwave activity accelerates.
• As with the above fact; at the end of the movie it is revealed how the murders are being done- the elderly patients are being possessed by the Gemini killer. This is despite the fact that his/the demon's body is locked up in a padded cell.
• (Gemini Killer in Karras's Body) “There I was, in the void, without a body. And then came- well you know, my friend. One of them. Those others there, the cruel ones. The Master. And he thought that my work should continue- in this body. In this body in particular.”
• The Master intentionally chose a priest's body to spread panic among the men of faith- this is directly stated by the Gemini Killer as the devil's “scheme”.
• The Master brought the Gemini Killer's soul to Karras who was dying.
• Karras's body after the end of the first movie was dying or dead. “His brain was jelly. It took maximum effort to get out of the coffin. So much damage to Karras's brain cells.” and “It took quite an effort to regenerate your friend's puny little brain cells- It took me fifteen years!”
• “It's not enough to be a spirit. There's no magic- in this artificial box you call a world. We cannot touch except through bodies, you understand? We operate through brains- neurological systems and your friends was nearly past resurrection!”

The Glass Box

This, in combination with factors from the Exorcist 1, have given me a rough idea of a (very interesting) cosmology for the Exorcist universe. Once again, this is entirely my opinion and an interesting potential secondary interpretation of the otherwise very played-straight religious and demonic possession themes of the Exorcist universe.

Unfortunately for diversity of potential beliefs, both movies feature Catholicism very heavily. As far as the series is concerned, the Catholic faith is the correct one for our interpretation. However, if the second movie featured say, a Baptist or Protestant priest performing the exorcism, I think the interpretation would be the same or even enhanced by it. The reason for this minor complaint is that it puts too much emphasis on religion for our interpretations.

Essentially; there is nothing supernatural in the Exorcist universe. Everything that is “supernatural” in the movies is the result of psychic powers. Yes really. The universe as presented in the Exorcist is a box- a glass box. The “spirits” that exist outside of the universe can see in, and we inside can see out. They can even communicate through the glass, but alone they are powerless.

It is for this reason they are powerless without a body to inhabit.

All that shit flying around the room in Regan's room in The Exorcist? That's her own psychic powers, which have been magnified by the demon. I even believe psychic powers feature heavily in the second movie, which I have not seen nor care to see, so everything I'm saying here could already be established. Now I should mention here- just because humans can develop these kinds of abilities, doesn't meant they should. Think of Humans in this universe a bit like highly built, purpose crafted sports cars that demons break down for scrap parts and repurposed to cause havoc. It causes immense strain on the bodies of those they inhabit- cuts and bruises opening as the demons play with the muscles and scratch the skin- they don't know what these pain signals mean or care.

God, or the Creator in the Exorcist universe, created it to be orderly and fundamentally practical. It is a physical universe, created either for the benefit of humans, or to allow human free will. Given the presentation of the movies, we are pretty certain that this is the Christian and/or Catholic God, or at very least the Judeo-Christian God from the bible. However, I don't think this necessarily needs to be what is actually going on. For two reasons- the first is that in both movies, not all the main characters are Christian or at least aren't devout. Secondly, if you go with the psychic powers interpretation above, then God doesn't necessarily need to be the one granting the Exorcists their powers.

God in the Exorcist universe wanted humans to have free wills. The spirits outside, the cruel spirits which could be literal demons cast out of heaven OR some other fundamental and separate aspect of reality, they take over humans and make them do “fun” things, because they don't have bodies themselves. The souls of humans are inextricably tied to their bodies- as long as they are alive, they are within their own body. The demon in Exorcist 3 explicitly wants to torture Karras, who is still trapped within his body- why would God allow Karras to still be in his body for fifteen years, only to be forced to do things he doesn't want to do by an evil serial killer?

Because God can't intervene- at least not directly.

God of the Box

The same as the demons in these movies- God is outside of the glass box. Perhaps God simply doesn't want to intervene, same as the “Master” in the first movie- it would be too vulgar a display of power. I'm not a theologian nor a Christian, but I once heard a pretty good argument from one about why God doesn't show proof of his existence- it would take away the human ability of free will. Now that answer is very much an apologist answer- but I will accept it at face value. I don't think it's out of the question. God won't do anything directly in the Exorcist movies because he either chooses not to, or because he is locked out of his own universe he has created. There's no “magic” in that universe.

So whenever an Exorcism happens in the Exorcist movies- it is not God but it is the person performing the Exorcism. It is their own psychic power acting through them. This is why I complained a bit about the movies only having catholic exorcists- if we saw other faiths, we could say it was human conviction (or God just doesn't align to only one religion, which works too) that had the power in the scenario.

This is somewhat cooperated by the ending of the first film, where Karras jumps out a window as he's being possessed to kill himself. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound like a very properly Christian ending- it's more pragmatic. It's more human. That's why Exorcism is a battle, it's not a one sided show where God steps through his servant to crush the Devil. It's a battle of minds, where the priests channel their own faith and hope against a spirit who has puppet-mastered another human into being the opposite- an instrument of negative emotions and evil.

Therefore my secondary interpretation of the movies is one of a more pragmatic, human, universal take on the Exorcist genre. I don't claim that this is the REAL goings on behind the scenes in the movies, nor do I think this has any basis in real religious beliefs. I just wanted to share a weird headcanon that I hope you enjoy- or get something out of it.