Simply Second Nature - The Internal Mythology of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory: The Musical

A project I've been kicking around for a while now is an index detailing the various references made throughout the West End musical of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory to the film adaptations that came before it. As the number of variations on Roald Dahl's most iconic tale has grown over the years, it's interesting to chart the influence they've had on one another, the ways in which they've developed their own enduring canons and traditions separate from the book, and how each adaptation has striven to distinguish itself from the others. I know a lot of people are reacting to the upcoming film Wonka starring Timothée Chalamet from the angle of, "Another one? Jeez, how many more takes on this character do we need?", but Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is one of those IPs that I seriously anticipate providing the basis for many new takes and retellings for decades to come. We should fully expect to get a new Wonka at least once a generation (the only thing that amazes me is the dearth of notable attempts, to date, to adapt the book's sequel, Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator ^[1]). The original novel is nearly 60 years old, and it still strikes one heck of a chord with the youth of today. There are some aspects of it have obviously aged rather questionably (*cough* Oompa Loompas *cough*), but at its heart it is an evergreen story with an indelible cast of characters and a unique concept that's just the right mix of whimsy and ghoulishness. There's a reason why its popularity has endured over the years. I'm not saying that I'm not a little apprehensive about that Chalamet film myself, but it doesn't surprise me that we're back at the Wonka well yet again.

Of the current roster of Charlie iterations, I would say that, on balance, the West End musical is the one for which I feel the greatest personal affection - although, as I've previously indicated, there is no uniformly exemplary telling for me (just almost nearly perfect tellings), and my ideal Charlie and The Chocolate Factory experience would have to be comprised of an impossible pick n' mix of elements from the various incarnations across the decades (the West End musical gets enough pieces in the right place in terms of atmosphere and character, and yet there is at least ONE thing about it that will be stuck in my craw for all eternity). And it is specifically the musical in its original London form I'm looking to bat for. Directed by Sam Mendes, with a book by David Greig and with music and lyrics by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, it made its debut in June 2013 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where it ran until January 2017. After that, it was given an extensive retooling and a new (albeit short-lived) lease of life as a Broadway production...which, from what I've seen of it, might actually be my least favourite adaptation to date. I wasn't crazy about a number of the changes they made - in particular, I strongly dislike the move to have the bad children be played by adult actors. The defence that it creates more of a contrast with Charlie's innocence doesn't hold water, since a good cast of child actors would achieve that anyway by the sheer force of their personalities, and really, it's so much funnier and livelier when you get to see their outrageous antics coming out of actual children. I could accept it as a necessary evil during the recent UK and Ireland tour created by Leeds Playhouse (given the complications of having to travel all up and down the place whilst rotating out five different cast members with every performance) but I hope that for future productions we can go back to casting kids in the roles again. Kids who are clearly having a blast channelling their inner rapscallion. It's what I love to see.

In addition to Dahl's text, the musical also had two major Hollywood productions from which to draw inspiration, each of which had already made their own particular marks on popular culture and the public's perception of the tale. There's the much-loved 1971 film Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory, directed by Mel Stuart and starring Gene Wilder as the capricious confectioner, and Tim Burton's 2005 take on the story, Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, starring Johnny Depp (not quite so well-loved, although it is remembered, if for no other reason then for Depp's performance flummoxing absolutely everybody who saw it). The musical worked in some obvious shout-outs to the 1971 film, but there are also more allusions to the 2005 film than I think are often credited. Below, I've had a crack at compiling a definitive list of what came from which source, the common ground that all three adaptations share (independent of the book) and the narrative innovations unique to the musical.

 

Allusions to both the 1971 and 2005 films (but not the book):

• In the original novel, Dahl never specified the nationalities of the Golden Ticket winners (curiously, he did specify that Charlotte Russe, the submitter of the fake Golden Ticket, was from Russia, but then look at the name he gave her), yet the 1971 film, 2005 film and 2013 musical have all been overwhelmingly consistent in depicting Augustus as German, Veruca as British and Violet and Mike as American (although their exact locations tend to vary). One of the rare deviations from this pattern was in the musical's Broadway retooling, which recast Veruca as Russian, possibly to go with the ballet motif the musical gave her - otherwise, the kids just fit the aforementioned national stereotypes so perfectly that it seems almost sacrilege for them to be presented as anything else.
• The stage musical, much like the 1971 and 2005 film adaptations, implements some element of rivalry between Violet and Veruca. In the 1971 film, the two girls openly squabble with one another during the tour, while in the 2005 film they make an ostensible gesture of friendship, before Veruca visibly enjoys watching Violet's downfall (based on one of the TV spots, I believe their rivalry originally got a whole lot dirtier, in ways not included in the final cut). In the West End musical, it's actually Violet who starts it, since she explicitly insults Veruca in the lyrics of her introductory song, "The Double Bubble Duchess" (and later "The Queen of Pop", which replaced it for the Broadway version). Veruca ultimately returns the favour by taunting Violet during the "Juicy!" sequence. 
• Both movies deviate from the book in having each of the children be accompanied by only one adult (presumably in the interests of cast decluttering), although between them there is some variation in which of their parents get to go on the tour. The West End musical adheres to the model of the 1971 film, where the bad nuts were each accompanied by the parent of the gender opposite to their own, and this was retained for the Broadway transfer. The UK tour mixed things up in having Violet be accompanied by her mother, bringing it more into line with the 2005 film - which remains, to my knowledge, the only major adaptation to date where Mike is accompanied by his father. (Note: in the West End musical, Mr Gloop, Mrs Beauregarde and Mr Teavee all have cameos in their family's respective introduction songs, but Mrs Salt is nowhere to be seen. She does, however, get a mention in "Veruca's Nutcracker Sweet".)
• In the book it was Mrs Salt who professed to be a geography teacher and challenged Wonka on the existence of Loompaland - but of course, she never goes on the tour in adaptations. In her place, it seems to be tradition to delegate this honor to whichever of Mike's parents is along for the ride.
• Speaking of the parents' professions, the detail about Mr Gloop being a butcher is included in both movies and the West End musical, but not the original novel.
  

Allusions to the 1971 film:

• The most obvious means by which the West End musical borrowed from the 1971 film was the inclusion of its most celebrated song, "Pure Imagination" - the ONLY pre-existing musical number to be incorporated into the original London production. In the 1971 film, Wonka sings it to the group at the start of the tour, after leading them into the Chocolate Room, while the West End musical relocates it to the narrative's climax, as Wonka and Charlie are flying in the Glass Elevator. When the musical was reworked for Broadway in 2017, one of the most significant changes made was to incorporate even more songs from the 1971 film (presumably to entice more of the nostalgia crowd, and to appease those who view the 1971 film as the "default" version), including "The Candy Man", "I've Got A Golden Ticket" and a variation on "The Oompa Loompa Song". "Pure Imagination" was also moved the Chocolate Room sequence, replacing "Simply Second Nature", to better correspond with where it occurs in the 1971 film, while a new song, "The View From Here", was written for the Glass Elevator sequence. The UK tour moved to undo a few of these changes and to restore some of the excised West End material, although "The Candy Man" and "The Oompa Loompa Song" were retained. That's another aspect of the Broadway overhaul that I seriously don't dig, as I personally feel it was a huge mistake to make the musical too indebted to the 1971 film over letting it be its own thing. The original West End production did a fine and convincing job of incorporating "Pure Imagination" into its take on the story, but the others have the conspicuous air of being shoehorned in after the fact. "Candy Man" might be catchy and iconic on its own terms, but its upbeat, old-fashioned flavour sticks out like a sore thumb amid the darker, more contemporary tones of the West End score, and while "The Oompa Loompa Song" still touches a number of raw childhood nerves in me, I happen to think the original introduction to "Auf Wiedersehen Augustus Gloop" was far funnier ("He was not obedient, now he is an ingredient!"). The UK tour also kept "Pure Imagination" in the Chocolate Room, which bothers me less, but I sincerely hope we haven't seen the last of "Simply Second Nature". It's the part of the musical where Wonka gets to bear his soul in a way that's authentically touching, with one or two unsettling Wonka-isms thrown in along the way.
• At the beginning of "It Must Be Believed To Be Seen", West End Wonka makes an entrance similar to Wilder's Wonka, by feigning a limp.
  
• "Strike that, reverse it", here the basis of an entire song, and repeated by Wonka throughout the narrative, was a catchphrase originating with Wilder's Wonka, not Dahl's (although Dahl's Wonka did use it in Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator, which was published a year after Stuart's film).
  
• Much like Wilder's Wonka, West End Wonka requires his visitors to sign a contract before allowing them into the factory.
• The West End depiction of Mike draws more heavily from his characterisation in the book and the 2005 film. There's very little that specifically references Mike '71, as portrayed by Paris Themmen, although the reference to his favourite video game hero, Captain Knuckleduster, being of the "futuristic rodeo" feels like it was implemented as a nod to that incarnation's specific fascination with westerns. (The name "Captain Knuckleduster" itself, meanwhile, derives from his book counterpart's addiction to gangster movies and to their championing of the weapon in question.)
• As in the 1971 film, Mr Salt intentionally throws himself down the chute along with Veruca. In the book and 2005 film he was pushed down by the squirrels.
• After Mike has been shrunken down in the Television Room, Mrs Teavee contains him by putting him into her purse, as she does in the 1971 film (in the book, Mr Teavee subdues Mike - having caused him to throw a tantrum - by putting him into his shirt pocket, while in the 2005 film Mike is comparatively docile and doesn't show any kind of panic or resistance after being removed from Wonka's television). West End Mike is less resourceful than Mike '71, and doesn't threaten to fight back using items found inside his mother's purse.
  
• In the book, as soon as Mike has gotten himself eliminated from the tour, Wonka openly declares Charlie the winner and reveals his ulterior motive for distributing the Golden Tickets. This is more-or-less what happens in the 2005 film (drawn-out epilogue with Christopher Lee notwithstanding). In the 1971 film, things go down slightly differently, as Charlie still needs to pass one final test to prove himself to Wonka. The same is true in the musical, although the nature of the test differs. In both cases, Wonka indicates that he doesn't intend to give Charlie the promised lifetime supply of candy, much to the indignation of Joe, who contends that he has treated Charlie unfairly, while Charlie himself manages to contain his disappointment graciously. The everlasting gobstopper, a passing curiosity in the book and the 2005 film, has greater significance to the resolution of the 1971 film and the West End musical (as a red herring in the latter's case). Compared to the book, where Charlie was basically crowned the winner by default (two sweetest words in the English language, as Homer Simpson would have it), this gives Charlie a bit more active agency in determining the final outcome. I know Dahl wasn't ecstatic about some of the changes the 1971 film made to his story, but let's face it - in the default version, Charlie is a bit of a milksop (something the 2005 film merely accentuated), and I think it's far more satisfying to see him put to the test in some way before he gets his factory. The 1971 film and West End musical did alright by me.
  
• Another change made for the Broadway retooling was to eliminate the character of Mr Bucket, so that Mrs Bucket became the family's sole breadwinner - which is more in line with the 1971 film, where Charlie's father wasn't on the scene. This change was retained for the UK tour. 

Allusions to the 2005 film:

• The West End musical didn't take a whole lot from the 2005 film when it came to the characterisation of Wonka or Charlie - which is fine by me, since I'm not overly fond of how Burton's film represented either of them. There's nothing in the musical regarding Wonka's dentist daddy issues (the only reference made to his childhood is during one verse of "It Must Be Believed To Be Seen", when he tells the visiting party, "My childhood home was bland like yours"), nor is Charlie such a ghastly goody two-shoes that he has to be talked out of selling his Golden Ticket by his family. So much the better. Where the influence is obvious is with the bad nuts; the 2005 film provided a much better model for depicting them as modern children with modern vices, and in the musical they generally feel a lot closer in spirit to their 00s counterparts than to their 70s. The one exception is Veruca, who doesn't appear to have taken much specifically from either her 1971 or 2005 depictions, outside of her aforementioned rivalry with Violet.
• An aspect of Charlie's character that was lifted from the 2005 film is his propensity for hoarding the wrappers of Wonka bars.
  
• A general plot point carried over from the 2005 film is the idea that the children are aware, going into the factory, that there is an even bigger prize up for grabs and that one of them will emerge as the overall victor. In the book and 1971 film all five ticket winners were promised a lifetime supply of candy in addition to the tour (a promise Wonka actually made good on in the book), with the special prize of the factory itself being the story's big twist, revealed only to Charlie at the end. In the 2005 film, Depp's Wonka advertises upfront that there will be an extra prize for just one of the children...which frankly strikes me as something of a dick move on his part. In theory, shouldn't it have been about giving these kids a fun day out, instead of encouraging them to feel like they were in competition with each other the whole time? West End Wonka at least drops them an anvil-sized hint as to what he's looking for ("For in the end there's quite a prize, if you can see with more than eyes!").
• A possible reference to the 2005 film, albeit one implemented somewhat confusingly, are the circumstances under which Mr Bucket loses his job at the toothpaste factory. He tells Charlie that "the toothpaste factory's closed", which is true to what happened in the novel. Joe then mutters "Blooming machines!" My immediate assumption would have been that the factory closed because the machinery broke down, but maybe it's a roundabout reference to how machinery rendered Mr Bucket's job obsolete, as in the Burton film. Either way, technology is to blame.
  

Now for those bad nuts:

• In the song "More of Him To Love", the circumstances under which Augustus describes finding his Golden Ticket are the exact same as in the 2005 film. He bit into a Wonka bar and unwittingly started to eat the ticket, before noticing that the taste was off. "So I spit it out, and saw I had struck gold!"
• One of the more successful changes made in Burton's film was to reframe the vices of Violet, as portrayed by Annasophia Robb - her gum-chewing habit is retained, but rather than focussing on it as though it were the most distasteful thing about her, it's treated as part of a broader personality flaw, and this is something the West End musical blatantly took notes on. Like Violet '05, West End Violet is ultra competitive and obsessed with winning  - a trait implicit in the novel, where Violet took immense pride in her gum-chewing record and had a rival, Cornelia Prinzmetel (Cornelia is mentioned in the 1971 film and 2013 musical, though curiously not in the 2005 film), but it was the 2005 film that really brought this to the foreground. It's also obvious that she's been pushed into this mindset by an exploitative parent who is essentially using her as an outlet for their own egotistical ambitions (in the West End version it's her father rather than her mother). Gum addiction aside, there are some notable differences in how the two incarnations choose to express their competitive cravings - Violet '05 was into judo and the acquisition of endless sporting trophies, whereas West End Violet is more interested in vapid celebrity, being a commentary on those media personalities who are "famous for being famous" (the Broadway version, meanwhile, made her a YouTube influencer). In both cases, the gum-chewing might not constitute the root of the problem in itself, but is emblematic of the intrinsic absurdity of Violet's obsession with making herself stand out.
  
• In the UK tour, Mr Beauregarde was swapped out for Ms Beauregarde. I can confirm that the character, as played by Julie Mullins, was blatantly modelled on Ms Beauregarde as played by Missi Pyle. She had a similar jogging suit and everything.
  
• When Violet first encounters Wonka during "Strike That, Reverse It", she tells him, "Just let me in, I'm here to win!" - recalling her insistence, on meeting him in the 2005 film, that she was going to win the special prize. West End Wonka, like Depp's Wonka, responds by acknowledging her inflated confidence ("Your confidence is quite intense, but just don't jump the gum!").
• Likewise, there's a lot about West End Mike that was clearly influenced by his 2005 counterpart (not least, his pastime of choice being updated to playing video games as opposed to watching television per se), although their basic demeanors are fairly different - Mike '05, as portrayed by Jordan Fry, is a generally reserved child prone to intermittent displays of aggression, whereas West End Mike is an absolute hurricane of hyperactive chaos who can't seem to stop causing trouble for those around him. Their attire is notably similar - like Mike '05, West End Mike wears a shirt with a skull design. He also wears camo trousers, which Mike '05 wore during the scene at his family's home (although not to the factory itself).
• Throughout "It's Teavee Time!", Mike signs off his verses with the refrain, "This is the life, now die!", a line amalgamating his impressions of the gangster lifestyle in the book ("It's the life, I tell you!"), and his eccentricity, in the 2005 film, of screaming "Die!" at the computer screen.
  
• One of Mike '05's defining traits was his precociousness; West End Mike doesn't flaunt it in the same way, but the circumstances under which he obtained his ticket would imply that he is similarly advanced for his age. In the 2005 film, Mike deciphered the location of the fourth Golden Ticket using a complex mathematical equation that apparently came very easily to him. In the West End musical, he also uses his technological prowess to secure a ticket, but in a way more reflective of this incarnation's gravitation toward chaos - he straight-up admits to having hacked into Wonka's computer system. In the 2005 film, Mike tells the press that "In the end, I only had to buy one candy bar", while West End Mike goes a step further and boasts that he "never had to buy a bar" (however that worked). On the subject of candy bars, Mike '05 vocally disliked the taste of chocolate. West End Mike is also of the opinion that "chocolate sucks", although he is momentarily disarmed by the marshmallow flowers in Wonka's Chocolate Room.
• In the book we had the running gag where Mike would persistently question Wonka, who in turn would rebuff Mike by pretending not to understand him. This was somewhat downplayed in the 1971 film, but accentuated in the 2005 film, where Mike's interactions with Wonka were given an overall more antagonistic edge. The West End musical followed the model of making the Wonka/Mike dynamic more overtly antagonistic, something they went even harder with in the Broadway and UK tour productions, where Mike is the one who refuses to go along with Wonka's philosophy of "It must be believed to be seen."
  
• The most direct call-out to the 2005 film occurs during "Strike That, Reverse It", when Mike and Wonka first cross paths. In the original West End production, Wonka asks Mike to explain to him "just how you cracked my system", the wording being strikingly similar to when Depp's Wonka addresses Fry's Mike as "the little devil who cracked the system". In the Broadway retooling they changed Wonka's question to "how you hacked your ticket", providing the set-up for a slightly different response from Mike, but unfortunately torpedoing the reference. Then the UK tour production, for some reason, removed the references to Mike's hacking practices altogether.

Changes exclusive to the musical:

It's here that I should address the single most unsettling change made by the West End production - in this version, we don't actually know for certain if three of the bad kids survived. Some people will tell you that Augustus, Violet and Veruca/Mr Salt die in the musical, but it's really more accurate to say that their fates are left hanging. We don't find out what happens to them, and the musical gives out distinctively mixed signals as to how we should interpret that. You might be thinking that's not so different to the 1971 film, which doesn't definitively show us what becomes of the other children, but there Wilder's Wonka was at least at pains to reassure us that they would all be okay. West End Wonka, meanwhile, seems only too happy to leave us in the dark. There's enough ambiguity that you could potentially have it either way - the Oompa Loompas get exceedingly gruesome, in their song lyrics, describing the hypothetical fates awaiting the children, most notably with Augustus and Violet (egad, are they ever gruesome with Violet) but then the Oompa Loompas have always been full of hyperbole, and while Wonka blatantly has a sick sense of humor, just how sick is open to interpretation. Really, who understands how anything works in his nightmare of a factory? Whichever way you slice it, there are some bothersome loose ends in the West End musical, since we also don't find out what happens to some of the non-endangered characters. I would presume that when Mrs Teavee carries the shrunken Mike off of stage, they left the factory. They went back home, to suburbia. But what of Mrs Gloop and Mr Beauregarde? Were they still wandering the factory, anxiously trying to chase up what became of their children as Charlie and his family were moving in? And if you're mean-minded enough to theorise that they were whacked behind the scenes...they do each have spouses back in Bavaria/California who are going to cry foul somewhere down the line. Since Wonka is in such a hurry to get away at the end of the musical (see below), one way of looking at it is that he's just scarpered and left Charlie to deal with a deluge of backstage trauma. The morbidness of the musical doesn't stop with the uncertainty regarding the children's fates, as Charlie's grandparents claim that Prince Pondicherry and his girlfriend died in this particular recounting of their story. Heck, there are some who interpret the final visual trick to mean that Wonka himself dies at the end. The stench of impending death is all around us!

If I'm frank, this ambiguity is the one aspect of the West End musical that really tested my sensibilities. It's contrary to the book, which was dark, but not that dark, and made it crystal clear that all of the children survived their experiences; I also don't believe that these kids did anything so egregiously evil as to make death an even remotely proportionate comeuppance. Augustus and Violet's respective exits are arguably too silly and over the top to take particularly seriously, but the one I do think pushes the boundaries of bad taste is that of Veruca and Mr Salt (and if Veruca is dead, then the Oompa Loompas straight-up murdered her, since technically they drop her down the chute in this version and not the squirrels). Then again, in this house we stan Mike Teavee, and I can't help but feel such overwhelming gratitude that he's the one child who isn't last seen in a life-threatening predicament. The million dollar question is, would the West End musical still be my favourite adaptation if it had treated Mike in a similar manner? I'll admit that it would likely have been a deal-breaker. You touch Mike, and it suddenly feels a whole lot more personal.

I've heard it said that the West End production originally planned to include a reprise of "Strike That, Reverse It" in which each of the families were seen leaving the factory, thus confirming that they all got out in one piece, but this didn't make it into the final presentation. I've yet to see an official source on that, but in the UK tour production, I did pick up on a small change made to the lyrics of the familiar "Strike That, Reverse It" that I think gives credibility to that claim. Wonka's exchange with Veruca was completely different, swapping out his comments about her baby harp seal coat for something it would honestly make a lot more sense for him to say to her at the end of the story, after her ordeal in the bad nut chute (Veruca: "I will jeté the other way!", Wonka: "Just don't stink up the joint!"). It does sound to me like Veruca's is looking to get to the hell out of there, while Wonka is mocking her for her garbage-inflicted odor, so I do have to wonder...were those lyrics taken from the alleged reprise? The mere thought that it might have existed is seriously a load off my mind, since it implies that Greig and co didn't set out with the mindset of, "You know how this story could have been improved? If a few of those children had actually snuffed it!"

Another small but all-important change made for the UK tour production (one I'm surprised not to have seen more people comment upon) is that Wonka does actually assure Charlie during the Glass Elevator sequence that the other kids are all alive and on their way home, if "changed" in some way (again, Mike is the only child for whom we have any insight into what he means by that). We still only have Wonka's word to go on, so if you're one of those sickos who's absolutely determined to believe otherwise then I suppose you can still have your way, but it makes a huge difference to the aftertaste you go away with, and I do wish that the West End musical had had the prudence to also include a moment of this nature. For all the concern Charlie expressed throughout the tour regarding the welfare of the other children, it bothered profoundly me that he seemed to forget all about them once he'd climbed aboard that elevator.

But enough of my ranting. Here are the other musical-exclusive changes:

• Veruca's passion for ballet was introduced just for the musical. The intention was to give each of the children their own signature musical style, and ballet music works as a reflection of Veruca's higher class social status while facilitating a "Nutcracker Suite" pun that goes along nicely with her father's profession and her fateful squirrel troubles.
  
• The Beauregardes are now an African American family, in the interests of a more diverse cast. Actually, I'm surprised it took until 2013 for them to try switching things up, and that it was apparently acceptable for Burton's film to feature an all-white main cast just eight years prior. I guess Hollywood was still a very different world back then.
  
• The musical has a new recurring character, Cherry Sundae, who conducts press interviews with all of the ticket winners.
  
• Mike's TV-induced shrinkage in the musical is apparently permanent. Wonka doesn't offer to stretch him back to his regular size, and Mrs Teavee, while initially horrified, quickly comes around to the idea, since Mike has been restored to what she sees as his ideal state - small, helpless and with no real capacity to resist her desire to cosset him 24/7. Such is the peculiar trade-off I get with the musical - a lot of disturbing ambiguity regarding the rest of the children, and for my favourite character, an outcome I actually like better than the default version. I mean, it's touching how his mother basically just wants to take care of him, and we sidestep that entire nasty business with the taffy-puller and come away feeling that something was actually resolved within the dynamics of the Teavee household. Mike and his mother are certainly now a lot tighter, whether Mike's happy about that or not (compare this to the 2005 film, where he and his father still weren't communicating by the tour's end). That it happens to be the musical's funniest moment doesn't hurt it either.
  
• If you come away from ANY version of this story wondering if Wonka planned for all of these horrifying "accidents" to happen and if he knew from the outset that Charlie would be the winner, then that's a silly question - of course he did. The West End musical goes a fair bit further with the idea, implying that Wonka has been observing Charlie for some time (under the guise of a homeless man he meets at various points throughout the play) and that the whole thing was orchestrated exclusively for Charlie's benefit. At the end of the tour, Wonka leaves Charlie in his Imagination Room with the notebook in which he jots down all of his ideas, but warns Charlie not to touch it. Charlie can't resist the urge, and is inspired to add a few new ideas of his own. Wonka returns and, impressed by Charlie's irrepressible creativity, reveals to him that he just passed the test. The chilling implication is that Wonka might have set up the other children just to test whether or not Charlie, after witnessing their respective downfalls, would still be willing to break the rules for the sake of his creative expression. So yes, the musical does effectively reward Charlie for an act of disobedience, but it's the type of disobedience that marks him out as Wonka's soulmate.
  
• Unlike the book and both of the movies, where Wonka intends to take Charlie under his wing and mentor him in his assorted chocolate-making techniques, Wonka doesn't actually stay with Charlie at the musical's end. Assuming the anonymity of the homeless man, he makes his slippery exit, extending the warning to the audience that "that may be Willy Wonka by your side". Now that is a truly horrifying thought to send us all home with.
  
• One of the most striking innovations of the recent UK tour was the depiction of the Oompa Loompas, who've been a persistent subject of controversy from about as far back as the book's publication (since the implication is that Wonka found a tribe of pygmies and roped them into becoming his slave labor/human guinea pigs, all while passing himself off as their white savoir). The UK tour elected to sidestep this altogether by reimagining the Oompa Loompas as mechanical beings (presumably created by Wonka himself) and removing the backstory about Loompaland. For what it's worth, I thought the metal Oompa Loompas were pretty cool; they were unsettling, but in a way I found enjoyable for once, and they had a presence and an aesthetic that really helped set them apart from previous incarnations. If this was the future direction we'd be going with the Oompa Loompas, I was frankly all for it. Then the first Wonka trailer dropped, and Hugh Grant seemed to shoot that possibility to shit; apparently we're back to little orange people again.
  
• Another change made during the UK tour, but one I fully expect to stick around for future productions, is that Charlie can now be played by either boys or girls. Again, I'm only surprised that this one was so long in coming. The name Charlie is already gender-neutral, the character's gender doesn't have any bearing on plot and, as a bonus, it doesn't make the gender divide among the ticket winners any more imbalanced than it was before...so why not?

 

Allusions to other Dahl works:

• The candy vendor in the West End musical is named Mrs Pratchett, a nod to the sweet shop-owner described in Dahl's 1984 autobiography Boy as the source of much childhood angst, disgust and loathing among Dahl and his friends. One day they decided to prank her by leaving a dead mouse in one of her jars, and it just got uglier from there.

 

 

Of course, something that none of these adaptations have yet accomplished is to incorporate the particular detail of Mike showing up to the factory with 18 toy guns strapped to his body. So that's a challenge still open to the next depiction of the character, whenever he's arriving. I'm guessing it won't be in the upcoming Wonka, since that movie clearly takes place some decades before the any of the children were born (barring some kind of flash-forward). In which case, it's over to you, Netflix, and your "animated series event" (once again, I am a little apprehensive as to what they actually have in store, but we shall see).

[1] Then again, Mike, Augustus, Violet and Veruca aren't in the sequel, so that's a massive strike against it. If they are going to keep expanding the Charlie IP then the thing I'd really like to see is a Bad Nut spin-off. I figure we can only have so much focus on Wonka for so long before it has to occur to somebody with the power.