I realize this is neither modern nor widely regarded as a classic, but I've encountered just enough references to it that I thought to educate myself. Besides, after some of the rather ugly films I'd seen recently, a G movie seemed up my alley.
In 1920s England, eccentric inventor Caractacus Potts (Dick Van Dyke, no longer even attempting a British accent) has trouble looking after his eight-year-old twins, Jeremy (Adrian Hall) and Jemima (Heather Ripley), as candy magnate heiress Truly Scrumptious (Sally Ann Howes) discovers upon almost running them over. Despite her and the Pottses getting off on the wrong foot, Truly soon finds the kids endearing and encourages Caractacus to pursue his more promising ideas. Once he get enough money, he buys the kids' beloved scrapyard car, which had won races in the aughts, and refurbishes it into a surprisingly nifty vehicle, named for its distinctive sound. As he gives the kids and Truly a ride, Truly feels more like a member of the family....
Nearly half the movie takes place in their collective imagination as Caractacus spins a yarn involving the four of them, his dotty veteran father (Lionel Jeffries), and the highly adaptive CCBB. Baron Bomburst (Gert Fröbe), despot of Vulgaria (which resembles Germany more than Bulgaria), will do anything to get his hands on a car like that, even when far from his own borders. The threat increases when the action moves to his home turf, where every child gets locked up and anyone found to be hiding children is liable to be executed, because the baroness (Anna Quayle) hates them that much. The baron doesn't like her much better, but I guess he finds her more tolerable when he legislates to her whims.
I was surprised to discover how much this movie had in common with early James Bond features. Not only does it include Goldfinger's Fröbe, but Desmond Llewelyn plays the scrap vendor, it's produced by Albert Broccoli, and the original book was written by Ian Fleming, who sure had a thing for cars with nonstandard abilities. Alas, this adaptation, with a Roald Dahl screenplay, deviates vastly by the second act. From the summary I read, the book's adventure involves more common criminals and more signs that CCBB has a will of its own.
I dunno; this story might be better suited to the big screen. But I am bothered by the transition to an extended imagination sequence. You may ask why I even care, since fiction is fiction. Well, it has a way of reinforcing the realization that there are no actual stakes, provided you don't get confused by the length of the sequence and assume it came "true." It also appears to be an excuse for an upgrade in silliness. Never mind the slight fantasy aspects; the social behaviors are hard for grown-ups to buy. Any real government to ban all kids indefinitely, for instance, would be ousted within the day. Not that the rest of the picture is especially realistic.
In general, I'd say it suffers from aiming too squarely at viewers under 13, if not under 10, with little to offer anyone else (e.g., insipid gags, barely-there romantic developments, cookie-cutter kids). That complaint seems more common for '60s kiddie fare, before Hollywood caught on to the possibility of balancing acts. At the same time, it has qualities far from ideal for the target audience, such as a 145-minute run with an intermission (well before the Harry Potter era) and a notoriously creepy Child Catcher (Robert Helpmann, who didn't scare me, but again, this isn't for me anymore).
Perhaps the real problem is that it brings whimsy but not enough whimsy. Caractacus' creations are only fitfully creative, his Rube Goldberg cooking device a bit undercooked. Apart from the half-imagined talents of CCBB, there's no outright fantasy or sci-fi. Vulgaria isn't that exotic. Grandpa could have had more to do. And the resolutions could have been less predictable.
I suppose the main highlight, other than CCBB, is the dancing. Van Dyke gets a couple of scenes of that, more amusing than impressive, while Howes is more impressive than amusing. Too bad the songs are pretty much uniformly bland and overly long/repeated, and only two at most could stand alone.
I'm not sure how best to do such an adaptation justice, but this isn't it. Almost everything is either overdone or underdone. In childhood, I might have liked it moderately well, but still not enough for multiple viewings.
No comments:
Post a Comment