Market Failure in Dwarf Actors

I leave the state solution as an exercise for more professional Planners, but note that filming of the new Dr. Who series is apparently stymied by a lack of available dwarf actors, all currently playing as either Oompa-Loompas in the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the new Tim Burton-directed, Johnny Depp-starring film is returning to the title of the Roald Dahl novel, not the first film, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) or the staff of Gringotts Bank in the latest Harry Potter flick.

While I love the ol' Doctor, I must say I'd sacrifice him for a while to enjoy this new Chocolate Factory. Revisiting the original Willie Wonka, I was re-amused by the absurd imbalance in the children's sins--general bossy greed and gluttonous sloth are apparently equal to the very specific behavioral problems of TV-watching and gum-chewing. I imagine the new one will re-imagine the personality flaws that bring the kids to doom, and hopefully in non-obvious ways (that is, not just Mike Teevee becoming Mike Videogame….). And I hope it plays more with the obvious Wonka-as-God trope. (After all, Charlie sinned just as the others did, and only chance allowed him his opportunity for redemptive grace, granted by Wonka not so much, as I see it, because it was earned through works--unless burping counts--but through Mystery. Arguments: Did Charlie truly deserve to be Saved, and why? welcome.)

[Link via Rational Review.]

Comments

[Crash]

Dude, please, "little person" is the preferred nomenclature.

[PintofStout]

Walter, please! These people didn't build the fucking Lollipop Guild, they turned me into a fucking Snasberry, man.

[Jennifer]

Would they settle for someone who's just short? I can slouch if I have to.

Personally, I hope the new movie is more faithful to the book, in which Charlie is Without Sin.

[Ken Shultz]

Where Charlie resisted the other sins, the other kids fell for them, one by one. Wonka didn't want someone who was bossy-greedy, gluttonous-slothful, easily entertained or inconsiderate. Charlie wasn't any of those things.

Charlie's "flaw" was taking a chance. He didn't do what he was told, and he took something that didn't belong to him, but what kind of executive would Charlie have made if he wasn't willing to break a rule or two? ...especially if there's a big pay off! Once confronted with his mistake, Charlie 'fessed up and did his best to make up for it.

...Of course Charlie deserved it!

P.S. Reminds me of the story of King David, who did such horrible things. In spite of it all, God called David a man after his own heart in the end.

P.P.S. Why doesn't Burton do the story of David instead? For goodness sake, if you can't improve on something--yes I saw that you thought it could be better--why would you try? Burton should never be forgiven for what he did to the Planet of the Apes.

...I know--the franchise had already been disgraced many times over--but if Burton had done a decent job, he might have revived the franchise!

...Why did the female apes have to look like transvestites? ...It turned the kissing scene at the end, which was intended to smack of bestiality, into a scene that made the viewer question the hero's sexual orientation.

...not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not what the plot called for.

[David]

Even in the movie, It was the demonic Grandpa Joe responsible for Charlie's fall. That was Charlie's flaw, trusting an old man who'd stayed in bed for twenty years and earlier advocated stealing bread.

There's a difference between dwarves and little people. I'm not positive but people with dwarvism have disproportional heads and stubby fingers.

[Ken Shultz]

Considering that it's Burton, he'll probably fly in some Pygmies.

[*]

Dwarves are the ones that have disproportionate features. "Short people" are the ones that tell big big lies.

[Jeff]

I am work at a TV Station. We are airing Springer. There is no shortage of little people on today's episode. Fightin', feudin', taking paternity tests, and stealin' each other's lovers.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Why did the female apes have to look like transvestites?

More to the point, why spend about 50X as much money and time as they did on the original, just to come up with ape makeup that looks about 4 percent better than it did in the original?

The sequels may have disgraced the franchise, but they always made sure to include some jaw-dropping surprise ending, sure to blow a stoner's mind. In fairness, the remake did too.

[Brian Doherty]

Ken, to clarify, it's not so much I think Burton could do it better, or improve it, compared to the original movie, or novel, both of which I adore; just that I hope, to make it interesting at all, that he does something DIFFERENT and suggested some obvious directions for that.

[Mo]

Why don't they do what they didn in LOTR for the Hobbits and shink normal people digitally?

Charlie was saved because he was the poorest and meekest, so his sinning was more understandable. A poor man that steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is is morally ambigiously. A rich guy doing the same thing is immoral. Plus, he didn't sell out to the competition.

P.S. I want my own Troy McClure so that I can sue the real Willy Wonka company for false advertising wrt their Everlasting Gobstoppers. 🙂

[Brian]

Mo--I think you mean Lionel Hutz.

[PintofStout]

I was discussing the other day how you could try to name a god-figure in nearly every movie, and how interesting it would be to compare how they were portrayed; ie. vengeful or benevolent, etc.

Of all the examples we came up with, Wonka would have been the best had we thought of it.

[Pavel]

just that I hope, to make it interesting at all, that he does something DIFFERENT

I'm told the screenwriter John August had never seen the original movie before writing his screenplay. Some reason for hope.

Plus, it seems to me that this is more or less the film Burton was born to direct.

[Mo]

Brian,
Dammit, so I did. I can't believe I made that mistake (outside the obvious Phil Hartman connection).

[Matt]

Did you know that one of the leading Asperger Syndrome programs shows kids Willy Wonka to help them read facial expressions, because there's such a range and they're so exaggerated?

Did you care?

[Dahlface]

I love the concept of the children being sinners, but there's one thing I'm not able to follow through on.

Augustus Gloop was a glutton; Mike TeeVee was slothful; Veruca Salt was spoiled and self-centered.

But what was Violet Beauregard's sin? Excessive chewing? I remember the Oompa-Loompas chastising gum-chewing for being "revolting and wrong" when you chew it "all day long, the way that a cow does," but can that really be considered sinful? She certainly was a snotty brat, rudely grabbing the full-course-dinner gum - is THAT the sin?

[Stevo Darkly]

It has been many years since I read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and nearly as many since I saw the movie. All I can remember is, knowing nothing of political correctness, I was very surprised so see the movie portraying the Oompa-Loompas as a bunch of little white guys, like leprechauns.

I will say that the original Planet of the Apes was a classic that did not need to be remade, and I didn't care for Burton's version. The original franchise degraded with each installment, but only the final Battle for Planet of the Apes was actually lame.

Utterly OT, but I do await with great eagerness Peter Jackson's impending remake of KING KONG.

[Captain Spaulding]

The redemptive work that saved Charlie was returning the Everlasting Gobstopper rather than selling it to Slugworth. Wonka even says that was the real test (and to aid in David's interpretation of Grandpa Joe as "demonic", Grandpa Joe even encourages Charlie to sell the Gobstopper when it seems Wonka has thrown out Charlie).

Follow-up question: Would returning the Gobstopper have been enough to reddem the other four children (of course, Glump never got one)?

[Stevo Darkly]

Maybe Violet's sin was something subtle, like, "being insufficiently mindful of the sensitivities of others," or just plain rudeness.

[Brian]

Mo--perhaps it was the connection of Troy to "Stop the Planet of the Apes, I Want to Get Off!"

I hate every ape I see...

[Brian Doherty]

My point was, the nature of the punishment for the other kids sins (and it amuses me to hold fast to the notion that Mike's sin was...watching TV too much. And Violet's was....chewing gum too much...mysterious are the ways of the lord Wonka) didn't ALLOW THEM EVEN THE CHANCE to reconsider, or do a redemptive act like return the Gobstopper.

[Jennifer]

Brian Doherty-

True, Violet and Mike weren't doing anything immoral, but they WERE doing things that children, for their own good, shouldn't do to excess. Since Dahl wrote this book for kids, and kids don't respond well to subtlety, I see nothing wrong with things being so over-the-top.

Though if ANYONE should have gone through life with a permanently purple face, it should have been Veruca.

[Mo]

Brian,
If you're doing the religion comparison thing how about this:
Chewing gum/TV:Wonka::Shellfish/Pork:Yahweh

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Maybe Bridget the Midget is available.

[Ken Shultz]

In regards to Violet, I would add that this isn't the first time in children's literature/cinema in which adults appear to behave arbitrarily.

...Lewis Carrol is full of that, and I think Wonka owes something to him.

[Daniel Montiel]

Brian--
If I remember correctly, I was beyond annoyed when I first saw the WW movie, as I was a huge fan of the books. Again, IIRC--the whole "Charlie stole Fizzy Lifting Drinks" and "angry Willy Wonka" scene was completely made up and is not in the books. Charlie won the day and the factory because he was the last one left standing, because he didn't steal or break the rules. I never liked the fact that he did break and drink the FL drinks, that WW screamed at him, that handing the Everlasting Gobstopper back was the key, and that "Slugworth" worked for WW. Again, anyone with the book handy is welcome to correct me, but I don't think the movie was ever Dahl's vision.

[Ken Shultz]

Show me a film that's better than a book, and I'll show you a bad book.

[Jeff]

I thought Veruca was hot. I was ten when I thought this so it doesn't count as pedophelia

[Matt Frost]

I wonder if the Burton movie is just a stepping-stone to his film version of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.

If you haven't read it, you aren't missing much, but it has a certain slapdash appeal. Dahl must have been wasted when he cranked it out - it includes a trip into Earth orbit and a massacre of humans by carnivorous space aliens. Terry Southern probably enjoyed Dahl's depiction of the US President and his cabinet.

[Captain Spaulding]

Brian,

My point was, the nature of the punishment for the other kids sins [...]didn't ALLOW THEM EVEN THE CHANCE to reconsider, or do a redemptive act like return the Gobstopper.

I'm assuming that Wonka kept his promise of being able to cure the other kiddies and that there are scenes we didn't see where the other kiddies are informed that they don't get chocolate for breaking rules and are thus offered the chance for redemption.

So what happens when those kids go to the real Slugworth and offer their Gobstopper. They won't get whatever elaborate promise fake-Slugworth made but it should be worth a good four-or-five-figure sum.

[crimethink]

Captain Spaulding,

Problem is, they don't know that fake Slugworth is fake; and when/if they give him the gobstoppers, he won't give them back.

[crimethink]

Also, I don't know if anyone's explored the Wonka-as-child-molester possibilities:

"You can suck on it and suck on it and it never gets any smaller"

"I couldn't give it to a grown-up. A grown-up would want to do things his own way."

[digamma]

Yeah, Charlie's theft of the fizzy lifting drink was totally added by the filmmakers, for no good reason that I can tell. And it screwed up what could have been one of the great book-to-film adaptations ever.

[David]

It was still great kids film. Even today, if it's on TV i have trouble flipping past it. There's something uplifting about the opening credits with the chocolates on the conveyor belts.

The only thing that's pure agony is the "Cheer up, Charlie" song, which to my chagrin is stuck in my head now.

[Garth]

A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men

[joe]

Does anyone remember the Al Gore SNL, in which Al plays Willy Wonka's accountant?

"Is anything in here made of candy?"

"There are some Tums in my desk. Knock yourself out."

[K-9]

What, they can't put a kid in the Dalek suit?

[keith]

That Fox Dr Who TV special was abominable.

Any word if this one will mix antique-video for interiors with film for exteriors?

[Franklin Harris]

The new "Doctor Who," like all current BBC dramas, will be shot on digital video. For reference, see "MI-5," currently running Saturday nights on A&E.

[Meg]

True, Violet and Mike weren't doing anything immoral, but they WERE doing things that children, for their own good, shouldn't do to excess. Since Dahl wrote this book for kids, and kids don't respond well to subtlety, I see nothing wrong with things being so over-the-top.
Well... I suppose this may be true for most kids, but it also scared the heck out of me when I saw the gum-chewing scene as a little kid! In fact, I spent five years- (**calculates...**) one-fourth- of my life avoiding blueberries after seeing that movie, and initially didn't chew gum for a year. In fact, it wasn't until I was nineteen, when I watched the DVD, that I was able to watch that scene again.
Sure, I'm an extreme case, and I totally agree that the majority of people find Charlie/Willy to be good clean fun, but I sure wouldn't show it to anybody's kids... just in case! I've never been fond of scaring morals into/bad habits out of kids.

Hmmmm... Wonka as a child molester... Hadn't thought of that. Though I have thought about the day when the Oompa-Loompas break free from their bonds and overthrow Wonka or Charlie, putting an end to their slavery...