WEBVTT - Adaptation

0:00:02.560 --> 0:00:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Throughout this series, we've covered Doll's monumental literary successes. But

0:00:06.440 --> 0:00:09.559
<v Speaker 1>here's the thing. For countless children around the world, their

0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>first taste of dolls stories came not from turning pages,

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:15.640
<v Speaker 1>but from watching screens. And all of these films and

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:18.560
<v Speaker 1>TV shows were created through the work of the screenwriters

0:00:18.640 --> 0:00:23.239
<v Speaker 1>and directors who adapted Doll's stories. These adaptations create a

0:00:23.239 --> 0:00:26.480
<v Speaker 1>whole new dimension to a storytelling legacy. That's what we're

0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:33.480
<v Speaker 1>diving into today for my hard podcasts, Imagine Entertainment and Parallax.

0:00:33.840 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm Marrion Tracy, and this is the secret world of

0:00:37.720 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>Roll Doll. To start, let me take you back to

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 1>the early in eighteen sixties. We're at a starry Hollywood

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:49.440
<v Speaker 1>party and a giant, opulent producer's house in the hills,

0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:52.280
<v Speaker 1>one of those suffocating parties where everyone's on top of

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 1>each other and thick cigarette smoke gives all the faces

0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 1>a hazy sheen. Roll Doll lurks in the corner, glass

0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:02.639
<v Speaker 1>in hand, rattling his ice cubes, keeping himself apart. He's

0:01:02.640 --> 0:01:06.280
<v Speaker 1>studying his surroundings, taking mental notes, a habit he found

0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:09.520
<v Speaker 1>useful both as a spy and a writer. He's watching

0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:12.920
<v Speaker 1>his actress wife, Patricia Neil, float through the room, working

0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:15.880
<v Speaker 1>her magic with a kind of effortless charm. It is,

0:01:15.959 --> 0:01:18.760
<v Speaker 1>after all, the rap party for her latest film. She

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:21.440
<v Speaker 1>thinks it turned out well. You may have heard of it.

0:01:21.440 --> 0:01:27.320
<v Speaker 1>It's called Breakfast of Tiffany's. Doll is very much his

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:30.440
<v Speaker 1>wife's plus one tonight, which he always hates. He hasn't

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:32.960
<v Speaker 1>enjoyed a Hollywood party since the one Walt Disney through

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:37.200
<v Speaker 1>in his honor decades earlier. Doll can't stand actors, especially

0:01:37.280 --> 0:01:39.240
<v Speaker 1>the ones always coming in and out of his house,

0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:42.839
<v Speaker 1>being loud and emotional, disturbing his work, and he really

0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 1>can't stand the phony unsophisticated producers who continue not to

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:50.320
<v Speaker 1>see his brilliance. He's still several years away from getting

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:54.560
<v Speaker 1>hired to write James Bond. But then scanning the room,

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>he spots something that intrigues him. An incredibly beautiful brunette

0:01:58.520 --> 0:02:01.560
<v Speaker 1>delicately perched on the back of the couch. Audrey Hepburn

0:02:01.840 --> 0:02:03.840
<v Speaker 1>is in the middle of a story to her captivated

0:02:03.920 --> 0:02:08.560
<v Speaker 1>circle of admirers, her giant eyes flashing despite himself, Dahl

0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:11.080
<v Speaker 1>moves toward her, as if helplessly pulled in by a

0:02:11.080 --> 0:02:17.120
<v Speaker 1>movie star's gravitational force. He listens transfixed as Hepburn recounts

0:02:17.120 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>a story from her youth. She was sixteen, she says,

0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:24.240
<v Speaker 1>living in a small village in the Netherlands, which had

0:02:24.280 --> 0:02:27.760
<v Speaker 1>been invaded by the Nazis. During the occupation, her uncle

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.360
<v Speaker 1>was shot and both of her brothers were forced underground.

0:02:30.840 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 1>All Dutch civilians faced severe food shortages, regardless of whether

0:02:34.639 --> 0:02:37.520
<v Speaker 1>or not they were Jewish. It became especially dire in

0:02:37.600 --> 0:02:40.639
<v Speaker 1>late nineteen forty four, when Audrey and many others nearly

0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:43.960
<v Speaker 1>starved to death. She weighed about eighty pounds and suffered

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:49.280
<v Speaker 1>from severe anemia and edema. Then on April sixteenth, nineteen

0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:52.800
<v Speaker 1>forty five, she continues, her town was finally liberated by

0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 1>Allied forces. The Nazi occupation was over. Audrey could finally

0:02:57.280 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 1>venture into the streets, the first time in years. She

0:02:59.600 --> 0:03:02.360
<v Speaker 1>had been alloted in public without fear of punishment or attack.

0:03:02.880 --> 0:03:06.840
<v Speaker 1>The entire population was just erupting in celebration and embracing

0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:09.880
<v Speaker 1>the Canadian and Dutch soldiers who pressed condensed milk and

0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:13.959
<v Speaker 1>chocolate bars into their desperate hands. One officer spotting this

0:03:14.120 --> 0:03:16.880
<v Speaker 1>skeletal waif of a girl with the giant brown eyes

0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:20.120
<v Speaker 1>handed Audrey all seven of the chocolate bars he was carrying.

0:03:20.639 --> 0:03:22.680
<v Speaker 1>It had been a very long time since Audrey had

0:03:22.680 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 1>eaten anything sweet. The taste of these chocolate bars was

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:29.080
<v Speaker 1>the polar opposite of the fear and pain she had

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 1>been forced to live in throughout the war, and so

0:03:31.919 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>having barely eaten in weeks, she devoured all seven bars

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:38.200
<v Speaker 1>in a row, just gobbled them all up, and then

0:03:38.560 --> 0:03:46.040
<v Speaker 1>she threw up. Despite that, Audrey tells her spellbatt listeners,

0:03:46.400 --> 0:03:49.440
<v Speaker 1>all these years later, after everything she's been through, all

0:03:49.480 --> 0:03:53.440
<v Speaker 1>the fame and success she's achieved, chocolate, more than anything else,

0:03:53.800 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>represents freedom to her and opportunity. The very smell of

0:03:57.560 --> 0:04:00.880
<v Speaker 1>it feels like an escape from darkness into the life.

0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:06.240
<v Speaker 1>Doll is mesmerized, and like I said, he's taking notes.

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:10.080
<v Speaker 1>It's not too long after hearing Audrey Hepburn tell this

0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:12.800
<v Speaker 1>Dale that he begins work on his own story of

0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.800
<v Speaker 1>a child for whom chocolate also represents the kind of

0:04:15.840 --> 0:04:20.240
<v Speaker 1>freedom and opportunity beyond his wildest dreams. And ironically, even

0:04:20.279 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>though it was one of Hollywood's greatest legends who may

0:04:22.400 --> 0:04:27.039
<v Speaker 1>have partially inspired his chocolate factory, Doll absolutely despised what

0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:30.080
<v Speaker 1>Hollywood did with that story and so many of the others.

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:33.120
<v Speaker 1>I reached out to an expert on the subject to

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:35.800
<v Speaker 1>hear more. All Right, hopefully you've got a message that

0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:36.960
<v Speaker 1>says you're being recorded.

0:04:37.520 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 2>Okay.

0:04:38.520 --> 0:04:41.400
<v Speaker 1>If you're a long time podcast junkie, you might recognize

0:04:41.400 --> 0:04:44.080
<v Speaker 1>that voice just from that one word. I've been following

0:04:44.120 --> 0:04:47.040
<v Speaker 1>his film and TV criticism for years, and his perspective

0:04:47.080 --> 0:04:50.080
<v Speaker 1>has genuinely changed how I watch things. I'll let him

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:50.960
<v Speaker 1>introduce himself.

0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:55.200
<v Speaker 3>I'm David being Cooley. I'm the TV critic for Fresh

0:04:55.240 --> 0:04:58.360
<v Speaker 3>Air with Terry Gross on NPR. I'm also a professor

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:01.919
<v Speaker 3>of Television studies at Rowing univer and I'm a lifelong

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:02.680
<v Speaker 3>TV critic.

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 1>I asked David what he thought about the most famous

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:07.839
<v Speaker 1>and most beloved of the Doll adaptations.

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:13.119
<v Speaker 3>Mel Stewart, who directed the original Willy Walko movie, gets

0:05:13.160 --> 0:05:17.160
<v Speaker 3>it so right in terms of tone that my kids

0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:20.599
<v Speaker 3>watching it growing up, they're in their forties now, they

0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:24.440
<v Speaker 3>still quote from it. There are still so many lines

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:27.200
<v Speaker 3>that hit them very long in there from the book.

0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:29.800
<v Speaker 3>They were also in the Johnny Depp movie directed by

0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:33.520
<v Speaker 3>Tim Burton. They landed better in the original.

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:36.360
<v Speaker 1>I think a movie the doll really didn't like and

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:37.440
<v Speaker 1>sort of disowned.

0:05:37.800 --> 0:05:39.080
<v Speaker 3>Oh see, I don't even know that.

0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:41.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, he wrote the screenplay, Yeah, but I.

0:05:41.240 --> 0:05:42.320
<v Speaker 3>Didn't know he disowned it.

0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>What was his dissatisfaction, My guess is a big part

0:05:45.760 --> 0:05:47.839
<v Speaker 1>of it was just the shift and focus. You know,

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:50.520
<v Speaker 1>he wrote Charlie in the Chocolate Factory, and the studio

0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>made Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and it's just

0:05:53.160 --> 0:05:55.560
<v Speaker 1>that was not his intention. I think he had issues

0:05:55.600 --> 0:05:59.080
<v Speaker 1>with Gene Wilder's performance, and he overall had a terrible

0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:01.640
<v Speaker 1>taste in his mouth from Hollywood. The only experience you

0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:04.839
<v Speaker 1>ever liked in Hollywood. The two experiences were with Hitchcock

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:07.720
<v Speaker 1>and then writing the first James Bond film that he wrote.

0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:11.080
<v Speaker 1>Let's pause for a second to dive a little deeper

0:06:11.120 --> 0:06:14.000
<v Speaker 1>into the Chocolate River. Several movie stars have played Willy

0:06:14.040 --> 0:06:17.760
<v Speaker 1>Wonka over the decades, including Timothy Shalomy, Johnny Depp, and

0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:20.520
<v Speaker 1>even Neil Patrick Harris in a strange video parody you

0:06:20.520 --> 0:06:23.200
<v Speaker 1>can find online now to mention all the stage actors

0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:25.680
<v Speaker 1>who performed the role on Broadway and in various theater

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:28.440
<v Speaker 1>productions around the world. But for me, and I think

0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:32.240
<v Speaker 1>for most people. The defining portrayal of Doll's most memorable,

0:06:32.440 --> 0:06:35.599
<v Speaker 1>most elusive character is by Gene Wilder in the nineteen

0:06:35.640 --> 0:06:36.720
<v Speaker 1>seventy one film.

0:06:38.040 --> 0:06:43.719
<v Speaker 2>There's no earthy way of lowing, singing which direction we

0:06:43.920 --> 0:06:51.040
<v Speaker 2>are going, There's no knowing where we're rolling or which

0:06:51.080 --> 0:06:58.159
<v Speaker 2>way the river's flowing. Is it raining? Is it snowing?

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:02.120
<v Speaker 2>Is a cane of blowing?

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:07.320
<v Speaker 4>Not a speck of light is showing, So the danger

0:07:07.440 --> 0:07:11.280
<v Speaker 4>must be grown. Are the fires of hell a glowing?

0:07:12.720 --> 0:07:18.560
<v Speaker 4>Is the grizzly Reaper mowing? Yes, the danger must be growing,

0:07:18.680 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 4>for the rowers.

0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 5>Keep on rowing, and they're certainly not showing any signs

0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:28.480
<v Speaker 5>that they are flowing.

0:07:33.120 --> 0:07:36.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's a nutty performance. As I mentioned to David,

0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:41.880
<v Speaker 1>Roald Dahl hated it. Doll's friend and biographer Donald Sturrek says, quote,

0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:44.600
<v Speaker 1>I think he felt Wonka was a very British eccentric.

0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:47.720
<v Speaker 1>Gene Wilder was rather too soft and didn't have a

0:07:47.720 --> 0:07:50.960
<v Speaker 1>sufficient edge. His voice is very light, and he's got

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:54.040
<v Speaker 1>that rather cherubic sweet face. I think Roll felt there

0:07:54.080 --> 0:07:56.680
<v Speaker 1>was something wrong with Wonka's soul in the movie. It

0:07:56.840 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>just wasn't how he imagined the lines being spoken. According

0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 1>to Derek, to be fair at it, do all, Geen

0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 1>Wilder does take some crazy swings in that movie. If

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:07.800
<v Speaker 1>you've seen it, and since you're still listening to the

0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:10.120
<v Speaker 1>show nine episodes in, I bet you have, you know

0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:13.640
<v Speaker 1>what I'm talking about. Wilder's entire performance is just kind

0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 1>of nuts in a really glorious way. Terrifying one second,

0:08:17.360 --> 0:08:21.080
<v Speaker 1>bursting into song for no reason, the next sadistic, cruel

0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:24.520
<v Speaker 1>and incredibly creepy later on, and then ends as kind

0:08:24.520 --> 0:08:26.800
<v Speaker 1>of a teddy bear. It's just all over the place

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:30.040
<v Speaker 1>in a way that feels really interesting and unexpected. The

0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:33.320
<v Speaker 1>director Mel Stewart says about Wilder, quote, he came up

0:08:33.360 --> 0:08:36.120
<v Speaker 1>with the most wonderful moments in the film portraying Wonka's

0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:38.720
<v Speaker 1>half man, half saint, and that's what makes the movie

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:42.360
<v Speaker 1>so good. In fact, it's such a unique performance that

0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:44.760
<v Speaker 1>there's been a persistent rumor for half a century that

0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:47.640
<v Speaker 1>Geen Wilder improvised the whole thing when he arrived on set,

0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:50.240
<v Speaker 1>And of course that's not true, but it does sort

0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:52.520
<v Speaker 1>of feel that way, and the actor did have a

0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:55.719
<v Speaker 1>lot of input. Here's Wilder from an interview he did

0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:58.160
<v Speaker 1>with filmmaker Stuart Maybe in two thousand.

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:00.560
<v Speaker 6>And nine, I wouldn't have done the film. And if

0:09:00.600 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 6>they didn't let me come out walking as a cripple

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:08.679
<v Speaker 6>and then getting my cane stuck into a cobblestone and

0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:11.720
<v Speaker 6>then doing a forward somersault and then bouncing up and

0:09:11.720 --> 0:09:16.400
<v Speaker 6>they all applauded. And the director said, well, what do

0:09:16.440 --> 0:09:19.000
<v Speaker 6>you want to do that for? And I said, because

0:09:19.040 --> 0:09:23.280
<v Speaker 6>from that point on, no one will know whether I'm

0:09:23.880 --> 0:09:27.800
<v Speaker 6>telling the truth or a lyne. And he said, you mean,

0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:30.200
<v Speaker 6>if I say no, you won't do the film. And

0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:33.080
<v Speaker 6>I said, that's right, I won't and I meant it too,

0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:37.319
<v Speaker 6>so they let me do it.

0:09:37.320 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 1>It's not a surprise that role. Dahl had a problem

0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:41.920
<v Speaker 1>with this, As I already mentioned, he wasn't a fan

0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:44.280
<v Speaker 1>of actors in general, and here's an example of an

0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 1>actor being given a lot of authority to alter a

0:09:47.000 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 1>role that Dahl created. But I think Doll was always

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:52.640
<v Speaker 1>going to have a problem with whoever played Willie Wonka.

0:09:53.200 --> 0:09:57.000
<v Speaker 1>In his book, Wonka is very underwritten purposefully. He's an

0:09:57.120 --> 0:10:00.680
<v Speaker 1>enigma like his author, which offers the reader al mystery.

0:10:01.200 --> 0:10:03.520
<v Speaker 1>But when you put that same character on film and

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:06.200
<v Speaker 1>put a human face and voice behind him, either the

0:10:06.240 --> 0:10:08.640
<v Speaker 1>mystery fades, or the actor comes up with such a

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:14.920
<v Speaker 1>strange interpretation that a whole new mystery is born. When

0:10:14.960 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 1>Tim Burton made his version of Wonka in two thousand

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:19.520
<v Speaker 1>and five, he went back to the source material and

0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:22.440
<v Speaker 1>gave his film the same title as Doll's book, Charlie

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:24.840
<v Speaker 1>and the Chocolate Factory. But I'm not sure Dal would

0:10:24.840 --> 0:10:27.520
<v Speaker 1>have liked it any better. Johnny Depp also gives a

0:10:27.559 --> 0:10:30.559
<v Speaker 1>banana's performance as Wonka, basing it on the hosts of

0:10:30.679 --> 0:10:31.680
<v Speaker 1>children shows from.

0:10:31.559 --> 0:10:35.200
<v Speaker 7>His youth improvisation You Little Girl, Say Something.

0:10:35.600 --> 0:10:37.960
<v Speaker 1>Any schelling gum?

0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:39.760
<v Speaker 6>Chewing gum is really gross chewing gum.

0:10:39.800 --> 0:10:42.440
<v Speaker 5>I hate them most see exactly the same.

0:10:43.280 --> 0:10:46.400
<v Speaker 1>Depp's performance is a big swing, but it isn't nearly

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:50.040
<v Speaker 1>as interesting or live or compelling as Gene Wilder's take.

0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:53.880
<v Speaker 1>Doll's other issue with the nineteen seventy one version is

0:10:53.880 --> 0:10:56.200
<v Speaker 1>the big compromise that had to be made due to

0:10:56.240 --> 0:11:00.720
<v Speaker 1>its really strange production story. It's actually pretty nuts. Apparently,

0:11:00.840 --> 0:11:03.720
<v Speaker 1>it all began when the director, Mel Stewart's daughter ordered

0:11:03.720 --> 0:11:05.720
<v Speaker 1>her father to make a movie out of this book

0:11:05.720 --> 0:11:09.040
<v Speaker 1>that she loved so much. So Stewart took Dahl's novel

0:11:09.080 --> 0:11:12.920
<v Speaker 1>to his friend David Wolper. Wolper was a prolific producer

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:16.160
<v Speaker 1>with the rare ability to think and work outside the box.

0:11:16.720 --> 0:11:19.920
<v Speaker 1>As an example, he was having conversations with the Quaker

0:11:19.960 --> 0:11:22.640
<v Speaker 1>Oats Company, trying to convince them to make a movie

0:11:22.720 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 1>that would introduce a new candy bar they were working on. Somehow,

0:11:27.480 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 1>Wolper persuaded the food company, which of course had zero

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:33.959
<v Speaker 1>previous experience in the film industry, that Doll's book was

0:11:34.000 --> 0:11:37.400
<v Speaker 1>a once in a generation opportunity for them. Amazingly, he

0:11:37.520 --> 0:11:40.199
<v Speaker 1>got Quaker Oats to buy the rights to Doll's book

0:11:40.320 --> 0:11:43.480
<v Speaker 1>and to fund the entire budget of the movie Go

0:11:43.520 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Back and Rewatch the opening credits of the nineteen seventy

0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:48.240
<v Speaker 1>one film. You'll be surprised when you notice for the

0:11:48.240 --> 0:11:51.040
<v Speaker 1>first time that, in small type it clearly states the

0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:54.520
<v Speaker 1>movie's copyright is held by Wolper Pictures Ltd. And the

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:59.920
<v Speaker 1>Quaker Oats Company. Bizarre. Now, if Quaker Oats had just

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 1>funded the movie and stepped away, that might have been

0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:05.319
<v Speaker 1>fine with Doll, but that's not how Hollywood works. Everyone

0:12:05.360 --> 0:12:08.560
<v Speaker 1>wants their say, especially those opening their wallets. In my

0:12:08.600 --> 0:12:11.640
<v Speaker 1>conversation with David, just now, I suggested Doll didn't like

0:12:11.640 --> 0:12:14.680
<v Speaker 1>the shift and focus to Wonka away from Chartley. The

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:18.000
<v Speaker 1>reason this change was made was because Quaker Oats needed

0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:21.439
<v Speaker 1>Wonka's name front and center. Otherwise the film wouldn't help

0:12:21.480 --> 0:12:23.679
<v Speaker 1>sell the line of Willy Wonka branded candy bars they

0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:26.840
<v Speaker 1>were manufacturing, and it was this change that shifted the

0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:31.040
<v Speaker 1>entire focus of the film. It's pretty hard to blame

0:12:31.080 --> 0:12:33.520
<v Speaker 1>Doll for being annoyed about this. It's one thing to

0:12:33.559 --> 0:12:36.240
<v Speaker 1>receive an annoying note from a studio executive. We all

0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:38.719
<v Speaker 1>get that, it's quite another to get a creative note

0:12:38.760 --> 0:12:42.120
<v Speaker 1>from a company known for their oatmeal. Honestly, even though

0:12:42.120 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 1>I loved the movie, learning this backstory has definitely put

0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:47.440
<v Speaker 1>me in Doll's camp. Of course, he resents his hard

0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:50.319
<v Speaker 1>fought story becoming a crass money grab for product placement.

0:12:51.760 --> 0:12:53.880
<v Speaker 1>One of the great ironies in all this that Doll

0:12:53.960 --> 0:12:57.440
<v Speaker 1>probably really enjoyed is that although Quaker Oats did indeed

0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:00.880
<v Speaker 1>develop a Wonka bar, apparently they couldn't get the recipe right.

0:13:01.200 --> 0:13:04.280
<v Speaker 1>The chocolate kept melting before being opened, which is like

0:13:04.559 --> 0:13:06.560
<v Speaker 1>the one thing you don't want your candy bar doing.

0:13:07.200 --> 0:13:09.880
<v Speaker 1>The company eventually had to remove it from shelves, and

0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:12.360
<v Speaker 1>to add insult to injury, the movie kind of bombed.

0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:14.679
<v Speaker 1>It got some good reviews, but no one went to

0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:17.360
<v Speaker 1>see it in the theater. It wasn't until VCRs came

0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:19.920
<v Speaker 1>around years later that the movie became the classic we

0:13:20.000 --> 0:13:23.520
<v Speaker 1>now think of it as. Eventually, Nestley was able to

0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:26.320
<v Speaker 1>buy the Willy Wonka candy factory and started making a

0:13:26.440 --> 0:13:28.880
<v Speaker 1>new Wonka bar to write off the good will the

0:13:28.960 --> 0:13:33.320
<v Speaker 1>movie has since accrued. Doll was never shy about telling

0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:35.840
<v Speaker 1>people how much he hated the film. It wasn't just

0:13:35.880 --> 0:13:39.520
<v Speaker 1>the title, or the focus or Gene Wilder's performance. He

0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:43.240
<v Speaker 1>also hated the music, which he described as saccharine, sappy

0:13:43.400 --> 0:13:46.800
<v Speaker 1>and sentimental. Here he is on Desert Island Discs in

0:13:46.880 --> 0:13:49.599
<v Speaker 1>nineteen seventy nine talking more about it.

0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:52.560
<v Speaker 8>It was made into rather crummy film. Yes, I wasn't

0:13:52.600 --> 0:13:53.800
<v Speaker 8>pleased with it at all.

0:13:53.880 --> 0:13:55.120
<v Speaker 2>Did you have anything to do with it?

0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:55.360
<v Speaker 5>Well?

0:13:55.400 --> 0:13:58.680
<v Speaker 8>I originally wrote the screenplay, but I made the mistake

0:13:58.760 --> 0:14:01.840
<v Speaker 8>of letting Holly would have a free hand, and I

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:03.040
<v Speaker 8>shall never do that again.

0:14:04.720 --> 0:14:06.800
<v Speaker 1>I want to bring in another voice now, a critic

0:14:06.880 --> 0:14:10.120
<v Speaker 1>who's written extensively on the Doll adaptations, including a piece

0:14:10.160 --> 0:14:12.920
<v Speaker 1>I loved on Wonka. He's someone whose childhood was really

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.239
<v Speaker 1>shaped by the author's.

0:14:14.760 --> 0:14:17.040
<v Speaker 9>Bet Court and I'm the author of Hello Stranger and

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:20.000
<v Speaker 9>The Mail Gazed. I grew up in Columbia, but I

0:14:20.040 --> 0:14:22.960
<v Speaker 9>went to a British private school in Bowaka and so Oli.

0:14:23.000 --> 0:14:26.800
<v Speaker 9>Our curriculum, especially for English, was very British focused, and

0:14:26.840 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 9>so Dahl was my gateway drug to literature in general.

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:33.440
<v Speaker 9>So I was reading George's Martin's Medicine and James de

0:14:33.480 --> 0:14:36.880
<v Speaker 9>Giant Peach eventually something like The Witches in Matilda before

0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:39.520
<v Speaker 9>I was like twelve and I was reading in my

0:14:39.600 --> 0:14:41.960
<v Speaker 9>second language. It's one of those writers that I owe

0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:45.440
<v Speaker 9>my own career as a writer and as a critic,

0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:49.520
<v Speaker 9>because even then, there's no way to read Dahl without

0:14:49.800 --> 0:14:55.240
<v Speaker 9>understanding how a sentence is structured, how language helps shape

0:14:55.240 --> 0:15:00.280
<v Speaker 9>a character, how an adjective can suddenly turn a phrase. Hadn'

0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:03.160
<v Speaker 9>dawned on me until I was starting to pull everything

0:15:03.160 --> 0:15:06.160
<v Speaker 9>for that piece, how much of my childhood had been

0:15:06.360 --> 0:15:09.520
<v Speaker 9>shaped by him in ways that I hadn't even remembered.

0:15:10.040 --> 0:15:11.920
<v Speaker 1>I asked ben Well to talk a little bit more

0:15:12.040 --> 0:15:15.240
<v Speaker 1>about Roald Dahl's specific feelings about the gene Wilder film.

0:15:15.440 --> 0:15:18.360
<v Speaker 9>I think it is the one that everyone knows the best,

0:15:18.480 --> 0:15:21.000
<v Speaker 9>and it's probably the one that he disliked the most,

0:15:21.720 --> 0:15:25.840
<v Speaker 9>and so it exists at this weird intersection where like,

0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:27.760
<v Speaker 9>if he had had his way, that is not the

0:15:27.800 --> 0:15:30.080
<v Speaker 9>felt that we would have gotten. There's a reason why

0:15:30.120 --> 0:15:34.320
<v Speaker 9>there was never another Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation

0:15:34.440 --> 0:15:36.280
<v Speaker 9>that happened in his lifetime, because that is how much

0:15:36.320 --> 0:15:39.360
<v Speaker 9>he hated the Gene Wilder version, the way that it

0:15:39.480 --> 0:15:42.840
<v Speaker 9>focused on Wonka rather than Charlie. I think the reasons

0:15:42.880 --> 0:15:46.440
<v Speaker 9>why he disliked it, or he voiced his dislike, is

0:15:46.440 --> 0:15:48.920
<v Speaker 9>also one of the reasons that made it such a classic.

0:15:48.960 --> 0:15:52.520
<v Speaker 9>There is a kind of honeying of his tone and

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.640
<v Speaker 9>a kind of softening of even the Wonka character. I

0:15:55.680 --> 0:15:58.600
<v Speaker 9>think once you'd cast Gene Wilder, who is cookie and

0:15:58.760 --> 0:16:02.200
<v Speaker 9>quirky and kind of out there, but immediately draws you

0:16:02.360 --> 0:16:04.920
<v Speaker 9>in and is able to sort of ground a kind

0:16:04.920 --> 0:16:09.480
<v Speaker 9>of crazed energy into something that's intriguing and alluring rather

0:16:09.560 --> 0:16:12.600
<v Speaker 9>than terrifying, which I think you can sometimes read into

0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:16.080
<v Speaker 9>the book. You have a very different story, a story

0:16:16.120 --> 0:16:18.880
<v Speaker 9>that welcomes you, a story that the music is sort

0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:23.480
<v Speaker 9>of enveloping you, that kind of wants you to embrace

0:16:23.880 --> 0:16:27.840
<v Speaker 9>this bizarre world of chocolate factory that was creating the

0:16:27.920 --> 0:16:31.200
<v Speaker 9>nineteen seventy one film and continues to speak to a

0:16:31.240 --> 0:16:33.840
<v Speaker 9>lot of people. I'm both happy that we have it,

0:16:33.920 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 9>and then also keep wondering what kind of film would

0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:38.840
<v Speaker 9>he have wanted for Charlie That maybe needed to be

0:16:38.880 --> 0:16:42.200
<v Speaker 9>more biting, It maybe needed to be crueler, and needed

0:16:42.240 --> 0:16:45.800
<v Speaker 9>to be a little bit more childlike and also.

0:16:47.320 --> 0:16:47.720
<v Speaker 5>Adult.

0:16:48.120 --> 0:16:51.280
<v Speaker 9>It's a fascinating curiosity that he so disowned it.

0:16:52.040 --> 0:16:54.040
<v Speaker 1>But of course Dahl didn't hate all of his Hollywood

0:16:54.080 --> 0:16:57.520
<v Speaker 1>experiences or adaptations. He loved writing James Bond, and he

0:16:57.560 --> 0:17:00.720
<v Speaker 1>loved working with Alfred Hitchcock on TV. Being Coolly is

0:17:00.760 --> 0:17:03.680
<v Speaker 1>an expert on the Hitchcock anthology that adapted Doll, so

0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:05.119
<v Speaker 1>I asked him to tell me a little bit more

0:17:05.160 --> 0:17:05.600
<v Speaker 1>about that.

0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:09.840
<v Speaker 3>Six stories of his were done for the Hitchcock Show.

0:17:10.040 --> 0:17:13.600
<v Speaker 3>Two of them are absolute classics, Man from the South

0:17:13.960 --> 0:17:17.720
<v Speaker 3>and Lamb of the Slaughter, And so I think anybody

0:17:17.760 --> 0:17:21.520
<v Speaker 3>who who knows Hitchcock has run into both of those

0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:26.720
<v Speaker 3>as absolute classics, and I think that the treatment of

0:17:26.800 --> 0:17:31.400
<v Speaker 3>them was absolutely perfect. Interestingly, one of those, Man from

0:17:31.440 --> 0:17:35.560
<v Speaker 3>the South was remade by Quentin Tarantino in a movie

0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:40.000
<v Speaker 3>Four Rooms, where he wrote, directed, and starred in one

0:17:40.040 --> 0:17:43.399
<v Speaker 3>of the four segments, and he took the story and

0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:47.159
<v Speaker 3>renamed it The Man from Hollywood, took the same basic

0:17:47.240 --> 0:17:50.560
<v Speaker 3>idea and ruined it. I mean, much as I love

0:17:51.000 --> 0:17:55.920
<v Speaker 3>Quentin Tarantino, you do not improve Hitchcock or Roll Doll

0:17:56.119 --> 0:18:00.720
<v Speaker 3>by just adding five thousand percent more profanities. It's just

0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:01.359
<v Speaker 3>didn't work.

0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:05.840
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, any thoughts on why and Hitchcock were such a

0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:09.520
<v Speaker 1>good match and maybe why he and Tarantino were a

0:18:09.600 --> 0:18:10.280
<v Speaker 1>less good match.

0:18:11.000 --> 0:18:13.280
<v Speaker 3>Sure, I think if you think of the other great

0:18:13.359 --> 0:18:16.840
<v Speaker 3>anthology series of the time, which was The Twilight Zone

0:18:17.000 --> 0:18:21.840
<v Speaker 3>by Rod Serling when he went and had writers writing

0:18:21.880 --> 0:18:26.359
<v Speaker 3>for him, Richard Matheson was a really good match for

0:18:27.080 --> 0:18:30.320
<v Speaker 3>Rod Serling in much the same way. I mean, Hitchcock

0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:36.439
<v Speaker 3>already thought like Roald Doll did in terms of wanted

0:18:36.480 --> 0:18:41.159
<v Speaker 3>twist endings. Wanted a lot of macabre subtext but also

0:18:41.640 --> 0:18:46.679
<v Speaker 3>humor and surprise, and they seemed to be almost the

0:18:46.720 --> 0:18:51.080
<v Speaker 3>same person in that regard. So whether Hitchcock was directing

0:18:51.119 --> 0:18:55.159
<v Speaker 3>it or one of his trusted people like Norman Lloyd

0:18:55.240 --> 0:18:58.240
<v Speaker 3>was directing it, it came out the same way. And

0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:03.719
<v Speaker 3>also Hitchcock British and so there's that sort of affinity

0:19:04.000 --> 0:19:10.159
<v Speaker 3>with understanding the understated approach to things that works with

0:19:10.359 --> 0:19:11.400
<v Speaker 3>roal doll stories.

0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:14.520
<v Speaker 1>I asked David to describe two of the most famous

0:19:14.520 --> 0:19:17.240
<v Speaker 1>doll stories that were used on Hitchcock Show, the ones

0:19:17.320 --> 0:19:18.919
<v Speaker 1>David referred to as classics.

0:19:19.760 --> 0:19:23.280
<v Speaker 3>Man from the South stars Steve McQueen before he was star,

0:19:23.680 --> 0:19:27.200
<v Speaker 3>Steve McQueen in Vegas with his last like dollar and

0:19:27.240 --> 0:19:31.520
<v Speaker 3>a half, and a guy early early in the morning

0:19:31.720 --> 0:19:35.880
<v Speaker 3>in Vegas comes up to him and offers him basically

0:19:35.880 --> 0:19:39.719
<v Speaker 3>a bar bet and says, I've got the latest convertible.

0:19:40.119 --> 0:19:42.960
<v Speaker 3>I'll give that to you if the lighter that you

0:19:43.119 --> 0:19:45.960
<v Speaker 3>just let your cigarette with can light ten times in

0:19:46.040 --> 0:19:49.720
<v Speaker 3>succession without failing. And Steve McQueen's character says, well, I

0:19:49.720 --> 0:19:51.560
<v Speaker 3>don't have anything to bet, and he said, well, I

0:19:51.600 --> 0:19:54.040
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't ask you to beout anything that you couldn't afford

0:19:54.040 --> 0:19:56.600
<v Speaker 3>to lose. I'm just how about just the little finger

0:19:56.640 --> 0:20:00.040
<v Speaker 3>on your left hand, And so that's what the the

0:20:00.080 --> 0:20:03.680
<v Speaker 3>whole show is. It just screams, don't try this at home.

0:20:03.760 --> 0:20:07.080
<v Speaker 3>I can't imagine this being on TV today, But that

0:20:07.280 --> 0:20:08.280
<v Speaker 3>was the idea.

0:20:08.800 --> 0:20:12.200
<v Speaker 10>He is a menace. Of course in the islands where

0:20:12.200 --> 0:20:16.080
<v Speaker 10>we used to live. He took forty seven fingers from

0:20:16.200 --> 0:20:20.320
<v Speaker 10>different people and he lost eleven cars.

0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:25.040
<v Speaker 3>That was one roll dull story. Another is a woman

0:20:25.119 --> 0:20:29.639
<v Speaker 3>played by Barbara Belgetti's who later was the matriarch on Dallas.

0:20:29.840 --> 0:20:32.560
<v Speaker 3>She plays a pregnant woman. Her husband's a cop. He

0:20:32.600 --> 0:20:35.960
<v Speaker 3>comes home and tells her that he wants a divorce,

0:20:36.119 --> 0:20:38.320
<v Speaker 3>but she can keep the baby because he's fallen in

0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:40.560
<v Speaker 3>love with a younger woman and he just wants to leave.

0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:43.160
<v Speaker 3>So she tells him he's had a bad day at work,

0:20:43.240 --> 0:20:45.800
<v Speaker 3>he's upset, he's probably hungry. Let her make him some

0:20:45.920 --> 0:20:48.800
<v Speaker 3>dinner and then they can discuss it. And she pulls

0:20:48.840 --> 0:20:51.080
<v Speaker 3>out a frozen leg of lamb from the freezer and

0:20:51.160 --> 0:20:53.360
<v Speaker 3>instead of cooking it, she hits him over the head

0:20:53.400 --> 0:20:55.760
<v Speaker 3>with it and kills him. Then she puts it in

0:20:55.800 --> 0:20:58.120
<v Speaker 3>the oven and serves it that The cops who come

0:20:58.200 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 3>looking for the murder weapon just you know, it's just classic.

0:21:05.400 --> 0:21:06.520
<v Speaker 7>Boy, this is great.

0:21:06.600 --> 0:21:08.440
<v Speaker 3>This piece of meat I've had in food.

0:21:08.680 --> 0:21:10.040
<v Speaker 1>She said it finish it, didn't she jack?

0:21:10.359 --> 0:21:12.359
<v Speaker 2>She did I'd like to have a piece of this

0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:14.160
<v Speaker 2>brown crispy stuff left on the end.

0:21:14.160 --> 0:21:14.360
<v Speaker 5>Here.

0:21:15.320 --> 0:21:16.720
<v Speaker 7>I supposed to be all right to take this bone

0:21:16.720 --> 0:21:17.399
<v Speaker 7>home with my dog.

0:21:17.680 --> 0:21:19.520
<v Speaker 5>Gosh, she said you didn't want to see it again.

0:21:21.160 --> 0:21:23.960
<v Speaker 1>I also asked David about Doll's other most famous filmmaking

0:21:24.000 --> 0:21:28.000
<v Speaker 1>association after Hitchcock, and that, of course, is with Wes Anderson.

0:21:29.240 --> 0:21:32.000
<v Speaker 3>He found a kindred spirit again. It's sort of like

0:21:32.320 --> 0:21:36.840
<v Speaker 3>when a director or a writer finds somebody else that

0:21:37.119 --> 0:21:41.320
<v Speaker 3>speaks in a similar voice. It's just a marriage that works.

0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:46.000
<v Speaker 3>And so those four stories that Wes Anderson did for

0:21:46.240 --> 0:21:50.639
<v Speaker 3>Netflix I thought were wonderful and very complicated where you

0:21:50.680 --> 0:21:52.720
<v Speaker 3>wouldn't think you'd be able to lift them off the

0:21:52.760 --> 0:21:57.159
<v Speaker 3>page successfully because it was a narrator talking about a

0:21:57.200 --> 0:21:59.560
<v Speaker 3>story that then goes in it to another story, and

0:21:59.600 --> 0:22:02.199
<v Speaker 3>then that story there's somebody in there telling another story,

0:22:03.040 --> 0:22:07.960
<v Speaker 3>and then visually it's so amazing. I can't imagine Roald Dahl,

0:22:08.080 --> 0:22:11.720
<v Speaker 3>the spirit of Roald Dall, not being happy with those adaptations.

0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Anderson does have such a unique style. Do you think

0:22:14.880 --> 0:22:19.080
<v Speaker 1>that when he works on the Doll shorts and on

0:22:19.119 --> 0:22:22.840
<v Speaker 1>the future, does it become more Andersonian? Does it become

0:22:22.880 --> 0:22:25.280
<v Speaker 1>more Dollion. Is there a blending of the two.

0:22:25.600 --> 0:22:27.560
<v Speaker 3>Oh, it's a blend that that's the best way to

0:22:27.600 --> 0:22:30.359
<v Speaker 3>put it. Because one of the things that Roald Dahl

0:22:30.440 --> 0:22:34.560
<v Speaker 3>did for television that wasn't with Hitchcock was he hosted

0:22:34.600 --> 0:22:39.480
<v Speaker 3>his own anthology show in England and he introduced it himself,

0:22:39.720 --> 0:22:42.840
<v Speaker 3>acting like a sort of Alfred Hitchcock or a sort

0:22:43.000 --> 0:22:47.200
<v Speaker 3>of Rod Serling, and he would sit in his little

0:22:47.280 --> 0:22:49.840
<v Speaker 3>armchair the place where he actually did his writing and

0:22:50.200 --> 0:22:55.000
<v Speaker 3>film introductions to his stories. Well, Wes Anderson took that

0:22:55.320 --> 0:23:00.000
<v Speaker 3>and had ray Fin's play Roald Dahl introducing the story.

0:23:00.119 --> 0:23:04.640
<v Speaker 3>So he adopted one of Royal Doll's television shows as

0:23:04.800 --> 0:23:08.400
<v Speaker 3>himself as the host to play with that and enter

0:23:08.520 --> 0:23:13.399
<v Speaker 3>into a world which was less real than surreal. So

0:23:13.480 --> 0:23:16.960
<v Speaker 3>it was definitely a blending of the two, but very respectful.

0:23:20.080 --> 0:23:21.439
<v Speaker 1>I want to talk a little bit more about the

0:23:21.440 --> 0:23:24.480
<v Speaker 1>Wes Anderson connection. Doll's work has been adapted by so

0:23:24.520 --> 0:23:26.840
<v Speaker 1>many people, but almost all of them, even the ones

0:23:26.840 --> 0:23:29.600
<v Speaker 1>we most associate with Doll, like Tim Burton or Steven

0:23:29.640 --> 0:23:32.680
<v Speaker 1>Spielberg or Mel Stewart, only directed a single film based

0:23:32.720 --> 0:23:35.520
<v Speaker 1>on a Doll story. Hitchcock and Wes Anderson stand out

0:23:35.520 --> 0:23:38.520
<v Speaker 1>here because they worked on so many When Anderson and

0:23:38.560 --> 0:23:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Noah Bombach, one of my all time favorite screenwriters, were

0:23:41.359 --> 0:23:44.760
<v Speaker 1>writing the adaptation of The Fantastic Mister Fox, Anderson thought

0:23:44.760 --> 0:23:49.119
<v Speaker 1>they should really immerse themselves, so he contacted Doll's widow, Felicity,

0:23:49.320 --> 0:23:52.159
<v Speaker 1>about coming to Gypsy House, where Doll lived, and wrote,

0:23:52.920 --> 0:23:55.720
<v Speaker 1>here's Wes Anderson and Felicity talking about that to the

0:23:55.720 --> 0:23:56.560
<v Speaker 1>Associated Press.

0:23:57.160 --> 0:23:59.119
<v Speaker 11>And I thought it would be nice if Noah and

0:23:59.160 --> 0:24:02.320
<v Speaker 11>I could visit, and if he could meet Lissi and

0:24:02.880 --> 0:24:07.640
<v Speaker 11>see what it's like. And Lissi arranged at my request,

0:24:07.720 --> 0:24:10.360
<v Speaker 11>I suppose that we could work here and we set

0:24:10.440 --> 0:24:12.840
<v Speaker 11>up an office upstairs. So Lyssi set up an office

0:24:12.840 --> 0:24:16.359
<v Speaker 11>for us upstairs with our own dedicated telephone line and

0:24:16.440 --> 0:24:18.920
<v Speaker 11>a printer and a desk, and we worked here. And

0:24:19.320 --> 0:24:22.400
<v Speaker 11>I think while we were here, it sort of went

0:24:22.560 --> 0:24:26.520
<v Speaker 11>from being an adaptation of Fantastic Mister Fox to being

0:24:26.840 --> 0:24:31.159
<v Speaker 11>a combination adaptation of Fantastic Mister Fox slash. So I

0:24:31.160 --> 0:24:35.040
<v Speaker 11>mean it became about Doll, the character became about Doll,

0:24:35.119 --> 0:24:37.840
<v Speaker 11>and that the more time we spent here, the more

0:24:38.000 --> 0:24:40.840
<v Speaker 11>ideas from Gypsy House found their way into the story.

0:24:40.960 --> 0:24:43.600
<v Speaker 1>Yes, I think that's just personally. I really admired the

0:24:43.600 --> 0:24:47.160
<v Speaker 1>Wes Anderson adaptations. The man has his attractors, but it's

0:24:47.200 --> 0:24:49.600
<v Speaker 1>really hard not to be charmed by these films. I

0:24:49.680 --> 0:24:52.680
<v Speaker 1>just don't understand the venom that some critics reserve for Anderson.

0:24:53.040 --> 0:24:55.160
<v Speaker 1>What it feels like ninety percent of movies these days

0:24:55.200 --> 0:24:59.160
<v Speaker 1>are formulaic, ip driven sequels or comic books. Why would

0:24:59.200 --> 0:25:02.120
<v Speaker 1>anyone who loves movies get mad about a filmmaker expressing

0:25:02.160 --> 0:25:05.320
<v Speaker 1>a personal vision, even if that vision doesn't perfectly jibe

0:25:05.320 --> 0:25:08.560
<v Speaker 1>with yours. I think critics who say Wes Anderson's films

0:25:08.560 --> 0:25:10.720
<v Speaker 1>are all the same and demean them as the cinematic

0:25:10.800 --> 0:25:13.760
<v Speaker 1>equivalent of a corduroy suit are missing how much range

0:25:13.760 --> 0:25:16.639
<v Speaker 1>he actually has. The four Doll stories he made for

0:25:16.680 --> 0:25:19.920
<v Speaker 1>Netflix are a great example of this. The Wonderful Story

0:25:19.920 --> 0:25:23.080
<v Speaker 1>of Henry Sugar, for instance, is upbeat and vibrant and

0:25:23.160 --> 0:25:26.520
<v Speaker 1>basically a morality tale with a super happy ending. It

0:25:26.560 --> 0:25:28.680
<v Speaker 1>also has one of the all time great setups.

0:25:29.920 --> 0:25:33.560
<v Speaker 6>Gentlemen, I'm a man who can see without using his eyes.

0:25:35.000 --> 0:25:36.840
<v Speaker 11>He was a small man, about sixty, with a white

0:25:36.920 --> 0:25:38.320
<v Speaker 11>mustache and a curious matting of.

0:25:38.240 --> 0:25:40.200
<v Speaker 1>Black hair growing all over the outsides of his ears.

0:25:40.240 --> 0:25:42.520
<v Speaker 4>You may bandage my head with fifty bandages in any

0:25:42.560 --> 0:25:44.119
<v Speaker 4>way you wish, and I will still be able to

0:25:44.119 --> 0:25:44.800
<v Speaker 4>read you a book.

0:25:45.280 --> 0:25:48.680
<v Speaker 1>You seem perfectly serious. Dad's Anderson's first Netflix adaptation of

0:25:48.760 --> 0:25:52.320
<v Speaker 1>Doll his final one Poison, with basically the same cast,

0:25:52.680 --> 0:25:57.040
<v Speaker 1>is the opposite movie downbeat, dark, muted, with a very

0:25:57.119 --> 0:26:00.719
<v Speaker 1>unhappy ending, exposing the cruelty and bigotry of the main character.

0:26:01.160 --> 0:26:03.679
<v Speaker 1>And when you think about it, this wide range of

0:26:03.760 --> 0:26:06.600
<v Speaker 1>tone and plod and feeling is kind of perfect for

0:26:06.640 --> 0:26:10.120
<v Speaker 1>adapting the work of a problematic author like Doll. Role

0:26:10.200 --> 0:26:13.399
<v Speaker 1>Dahl could be sweet and caring and loving and did

0:26:13.440 --> 0:26:16.320
<v Speaker 1>a remarkable amount for charity and to make children's lives

0:26:16.359 --> 0:26:19.320
<v Speaker 1>better all over the world. But according to some of

0:26:19.359 --> 0:26:21.960
<v Speaker 1>those closest to him, he could also be mean spirited

0:26:22.200 --> 0:26:25.359
<v Speaker 1>and sometimes cruel, And of course we know about his prejudice.

0:26:26.040 --> 0:26:29.479
<v Speaker 1>So what does Anderson do? He gives us both. What

0:26:29.520 --> 0:26:32.439
<v Speaker 1>I like most about these adaptations is how Anderson remains

0:26:32.440 --> 0:26:35.960
<v Speaker 1>so faithful to Doll's writing while seamlessly incorporating his own

0:26:36.040 --> 0:26:40.080
<v Speaker 1>distinctive voice. Here's Anderson on a Zoom Roundtable for Netflix

0:26:40.320 --> 0:26:41.800
<v Speaker 1>on how he went about the adaptation.

0:26:42.359 --> 0:26:45.720
<v Speaker 7>I took the text and the entire text, and I

0:26:45.800 --> 0:26:48.639
<v Speaker 7>put it into my computer and started out an MS

0:26:48.640 --> 0:26:53.119
<v Speaker 7>word document and started just pulling what I thought I wanted,

0:26:53.160 --> 0:26:55.040
<v Speaker 7>And I realized that what I wanted was for him

0:26:55.040 --> 0:26:57.560
<v Speaker 7>to tell the story. For Dahl to tell the story.

0:26:57.359 --> 0:26:59.560
<v Speaker 1>It was great, I wonder. My favorite of the Anderson

0:26:59.600 --> 0:27:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Doll film is Henry Sugar. It stars Raife Finds as

0:27:03.119 --> 0:27:07.360
<v Speaker 1>Roll Dall alongside benett At Cumberbatch, Dev Patel and Ben Kingsley.

0:27:07.960 --> 0:27:10.160
<v Speaker 1>It tells the story of a wealthy gambler who learns

0:27:10.160 --> 0:27:13.119
<v Speaker 1>to be able to see through playing cards, literally to

0:27:13.119 --> 0:27:14.639
<v Speaker 1>look at the back of a card and see that

0:27:14.680 --> 0:27:17.159
<v Speaker 1>it's the use of spades or whatever. He does this

0:27:17.280 --> 0:27:21.199
<v Speaker 1>by practicing intense meditation for years. Sugar uses his new

0:27:21.240 --> 0:27:24.280
<v Speaker 1>power to win a fortune at casinos until he finds

0:27:24.320 --> 0:27:28.959
<v Speaker 1>the thrill empty and unfulfilling, so he devotes his winnings

0:27:28.960 --> 0:27:32.919
<v Speaker 1>to establishing orphanages and hospitals around the world. It's basically

0:27:32.960 --> 0:27:36.000
<v Speaker 1>a story about the power of meditation and unrelenting hard

0:27:36.040 --> 0:27:39.600
<v Speaker 1>work to make you a better, more generous person. The

0:27:39.680 --> 0:27:42.160
<v Speaker 1>inclusion of Doll is a character in the film. Works

0:27:42.240 --> 0:27:44.760
<v Speaker 1>especially well here because it feels like such a perfect

0:27:44.800 --> 0:27:49.240
<v Speaker 1>fulfillment of Doll's original intentions. In his book, Dahal deliberately

0:27:49.280 --> 0:27:52.320
<v Speaker 1>plays with our perception of the story as constructed artifice.

0:27:52.560 --> 0:27:55.760
<v Speaker 1>In other words, he breaks the fourth wall, reminding readers

0:27:55.840 --> 0:27:58.919
<v Speaker 1>that he's an author spinning a tale. Near the end

0:27:58.960 --> 0:28:01.720
<v Speaker 1>of Doll's story, the Doll figure cheicily steps out of

0:28:01.720 --> 0:28:04.720
<v Speaker 1>the narrative to speculate about what might happen if this

0:28:04.800 --> 0:28:08.080
<v Speaker 1>were a fictional story rather than a totally factual account

0:28:08.119 --> 0:28:11.800
<v Speaker 1>of real life, even though readers understand it's clearly fiction.

0:28:12.520 --> 0:28:15.280
<v Speaker 1>By casting an actor to play Doll and read some

0:28:15.320 --> 0:28:18.359
<v Speaker 1>of the actual prose from the book, Anderson mirrors this

0:28:18.480 --> 0:28:22.399
<v Speaker 1>metafictional playfulness that began in Dalls novella. I want to

0:28:22.440 --> 0:28:25.520
<v Speaker 1>briefly return to my conversation with Manuel Bettencourt and hear

0:28:25.560 --> 0:28:28.720
<v Speaker 1>his thoughts on the Roll Doll Wes Anderson connection, including

0:28:28.720 --> 0:28:31.000
<v Speaker 1>all the other interesting ways that Anderson finds to be

0:28:31.040 --> 0:28:32.399
<v Speaker 1>faithful to Doll's text.

0:28:32.840 --> 0:28:36.560
<v Speaker 9>It had seemed a better suited pair than I thought

0:28:36.560 --> 0:28:39.560
<v Speaker 9>they'd be, both because Wes Anderson is you know, we

0:28:39.680 --> 0:28:45.479
<v Speaker 9>know him for this exacting zymometrical, colorful diorama films and

0:28:45.520 --> 0:28:47.560
<v Speaker 9>what I think he does and he did so well

0:28:47.560 --> 0:28:49.560
<v Speaker 9>with Henry Sugar and these other short films that he

0:28:49.600 --> 0:28:52.080
<v Speaker 9>made for Netflix in twenty twenty three based on Doll

0:28:52.200 --> 0:28:57.040
<v Speaker 9>short stories was reveal artistry and craftsmanship, and how he

0:28:57.520 --> 0:29:01.360
<v Speaker 9>elevated Dall's prose. He's not using voiceover, he's having actually

0:29:01.400 --> 0:29:04.800
<v Speaker 9>these characters basically read out the story. So in a way,

0:29:04.800 --> 0:29:07.840
<v Speaker 9>they're almost like audiobooks that are coming to life in

0:29:07.840 --> 0:29:10.120
<v Speaker 9>this sort of I keep thinking of them as pop

0:29:10.200 --> 0:29:12.560
<v Speaker 9>up books because they have a kind of like handcrafted

0:29:12.680 --> 0:29:14.120
<v Speaker 9>sensibility to them.

0:29:14.160 --> 0:29:17.760
<v Speaker 1>Moving beyond Anderson, to me, the most interesting filmmaker who

0:29:17.800 --> 0:29:21.080
<v Speaker 1>decided to tackle Doll is Quentin Tarantino. Well, hear what

0:29:21.120 --> 0:29:24.080
<v Speaker 1>Manuel thinks about that collaboration. In a second. We already

0:29:24.120 --> 0:29:25.959
<v Speaker 1>heard what David ban Cooley thinks about it.

0:29:26.280 --> 0:29:28.800
<v Speaker 3>I think Quentin Tarantino is the biggest miss.

0:29:29.160 --> 0:29:32.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, that seems to be the consensus, which is really surprising.

0:29:32.800 --> 0:29:35.800
<v Speaker 1>Not only is Tarantino a first ballot Hall of Fame filmmaker,

0:29:35.960 --> 0:29:38.000
<v Speaker 1>but he made his adaptation of Dolls The Man from

0:29:38.040 --> 0:29:39.840
<v Speaker 1>the South right when he was at the peak of

0:29:39.840 --> 0:29:43.360
<v Speaker 1>his powers. He made it directly after pulp fiction, and

0:29:43.400 --> 0:29:46.040
<v Speaker 1>a first glance, Tarantino would seem to be as perfect

0:29:46.040 --> 0:29:49.760
<v Speaker 1>a compliment to Doll as Hitchcock is. Both Tarantino and

0:29:49.840 --> 0:29:53.760
<v Speaker 1>Dall write very stylized dialogue. Both love dark humor, both

0:29:53.880 --> 0:29:57.480
<v Speaker 1>revel and violent or grotesque story elements. Both make ample

0:29:57.560 --> 0:30:00.240
<v Speaker 1>use of unexpected violence like what befalls the Key Kids

0:30:00.280 --> 0:30:03.120
<v Speaker 1>and Doll's Chocolate Factory, or port Marvin in the Backseat

0:30:03.120 --> 0:30:06.200
<v Speaker 1>and pulp fiction. Both writers poke fun at genreck conventions,

0:30:06.480 --> 0:30:10.960
<v Speaker 1>and both really enjoy subverting audience expectations. But Tarantino's movie

0:30:11.120 --> 0:30:14.640
<v Speaker 1>just doesn't work. He's adapting the same story that Hitchcock shows,

0:30:14.880 --> 0:30:17.000
<v Speaker 1>the one about someone whose finger will be chopped off

0:30:17.080 --> 0:30:18.920
<v Speaker 1>if he can't get a cigarette lader to work ten

0:30:18.960 --> 0:30:20.880
<v Speaker 1>times in a row, and you can see why that

0:30:20.880 --> 0:30:23.120
<v Speaker 1>set up would appeal to a guy like Tarantino, who

0:30:23.200 --> 0:30:24.880
<v Speaker 1>made such a meal out of cutting off an ear

0:30:24.880 --> 0:30:28.480
<v Speaker 1>in his first film. I think Tarantino's movie doesn't quite

0:30:28.520 --> 0:30:30.840
<v Speaker 1>hold together because he's not interested in the thing that

0:30:30.920 --> 0:30:34.800
<v Speaker 1>makes Doll's story so great. Doll's version is lean focused

0:30:34.840 --> 0:30:38.000
<v Speaker 1>and builds tension through simplicity. Its power comes from the

0:30:38.120 --> 0:30:41.959
<v Speaker 1>escalating stakes and the psychological cat and mouse game. Tarantino,

0:30:42.320 --> 0:30:44.160
<v Speaker 1>maybe because he was so young and it was only

0:30:44.200 --> 0:30:47.480
<v Speaker 1>his third movie, gets bogged down in his own indulgences.

0:30:47.920 --> 0:30:50.200
<v Speaker 1>I really do love Tarantino. I think he may be

0:30:50.240 --> 0:30:53.040
<v Speaker 1>the most talented director working today. But in this case,

0:30:53.240 --> 0:30:55.840
<v Speaker 1>it feels like he turned Doll's story into a verbose,

0:30:56.040 --> 0:30:59.120
<v Speaker 1>self referential, wanna be thriller lacking suspense.

0:31:00.160 --> 0:31:03.000
<v Speaker 5>So, since you're going to be stuck remembering this for

0:31:03.040 --> 0:31:04.960
<v Speaker 5>the rest of your life, you have to decide what

0:31:05.200 --> 0:31:09.600
<v Speaker 5>that memory will be so ted you can remember for

0:31:09.640 --> 0:31:13.600
<v Speaker 5>the next forty years, give or take a decade, that

0:31:13.640 --> 0:31:16.200
<v Speaker 5>you refused a one thousand dollars for one seconds worth

0:31:16.240 --> 0:31:19.840
<v Speaker 5>of work, or that you made a thousand dollars for

0:31:19.960 --> 0:31:22.360
<v Speaker 5>one seconds.

0:31:21.280 --> 0:31:26.240
<v Speaker 1>Worth of work. Also, Tarantino's choice to change the setting

0:31:26.360 --> 0:31:29.240
<v Speaker 1>and make it about celebrities in Hollywood culture dilutes the

0:31:29.360 --> 0:31:33.320
<v Speaker 1>universal human drama that makes Dolls original so effective. Essentially,

0:31:33.360 --> 0:31:36.400
<v Speaker 1>Tarantino tried to make it a Tarantino film instead of

0:31:36.440 --> 0:31:39.920
<v Speaker 1>serving the story, which, as we've talked about, rarely works

0:31:39.920 --> 0:31:43.720
<v Speaker 1>with Doll. Wes Anderson and Alfred Hitchcock succeed because they

0:31:43.760 --> 0:31:46.640
<v Speaker 1>managed to put their egos aside and blend their distinctive

0:31:46.640 --> 0:31:50.120
<v Speaker 1>styles with dolls. Manuel made a similar point when I

0:31:50.160 --> 0:31:52.560
<v Speaker 1>asked him if there's anything he thinks the good adaptations

0:31:52.600 --> 0:31:54.560
<v Speaker 1>got right and the bad ones got wrong.

0:31:55.080 --> 0:31:58.480
<v Speaker 9>I think the best ones, or the ones that have

0:31:58.640 --> 0:32:02.560
<v Speaker 9>stood the test of time. I understand how language was

0:32:02.600 --> 0:32:05.960
<v Speaker 9>so key to his success. I think there's a world

0:32:06.120 --> 0:32:11.000
<v Speaker 9>in which adaptations that try to update him, or modernize him,

0:32:11.320 --> 0:32:15.360
<v Speaker 9>or stand down the like weird, quirky britishisms that are

0:32:15.440 --> 0:32:18.440
<v Speaker 9>so delectable in his work tend to fail because I

0:32:18.440 --> 0:32:21.280
<v Speaker 9>think that's where the magic lies, and the ones that

0:32:21.320 --> 0:32:24.120
<v Speaker 9>do it best are the ones that key into that

0:32:24.440 --> 0:32:26.920
<v Speaker 9>kind of sensibility. I also think that especially when it

0:32:26.920 --> 0:32:30.000
<v Speaker 9>comes to the children's books, any of those films that

0:32:30.320 --> 0:32:33.840
<v Speaker 9>don't just understand his work, but also his collaboration with

0:32:33.920 --> 0:32:36.880
<v Speaker 9>Quentin Blake and those kinds of illustrations and the kind

0:32:36.920 --> 0:32:39.360
<v Speaker 9>of tenor and tone of those you know, I'm thinking

0:32:39.400 --> 0:32:42.600
<v Speaker 9>of something like James the Giant Peach It visually, it's

0:32:42.600 --> 0:32:45.520
<v Speaker 9>sort of so in the world of Dull and Blake

0:32:45.960 --> 0:32:49.320
<v Speaker 9>that I think it hits the right spot. But when

0:32:49.480 --> 0:32:52.760
<v Speaker 9>you have filmmakers that are instead trying to use him

0:32:52.800 --> 0:32:56.040
<v Speaker 9>just as a jumping off point and sometimes lose probably

0:32:56.040 --> 0:32:59.600
<v Speaker 9>what made him so special on the page.

0:33:00.080 --> 0:33:02.880
<v Speaker 1>In our final episode, we'll talk more about exactly what

0:33:02.960 --> 0:33:05.920
<v Speaker 1>made Doll so special on the page, including my conversation

0:33:06.000 --> 0:33:08.160
<v Speaker 1>with an expert on the books who actually knew Doll

0:33:08.240 --> 0:33:10.320
<v Speaker 1>in life and can speak firsthand about the kind of

0:33:10.320 --> 0:33:15.640
<v Speaker 1>impression he made. We'll also talk about Doll's fascinating writing process,

0:33:15.760 --> 0:33:18.760
<v Speaker 1>which I'm pretty obsessed with. I'm really sad this journey

0:33:18.760 --> 0:33:21.400
<v Speaker 1>with Doll is almost over, but don't worry. We've saved

0:33:21.440 --> 0:33:23.719
<v Speaker 1>some of the best for last. Join me for our

0:33:23.720 --> 0:33:26.320
<v Speaker 1>final episode, where I promise we'll try to go out

0:33:26.320 --> 0:33:28.320
<v Speaker 1>with the kind of bang that Doll would have wanted.

0:33:28.880 --> 0:33:35.000
<v Speaker 1>See you there. The Secret World of Role Dall is

0:33:35.040 --> 0:33:38.720
<v Speaker 1>produced by Imagine Audio and Parallax Studios for iHeart Podcasts.

0:33:39.320 --> 0:33:43.960
<v Speaker 1>Created and written by Me Aaron Tracy, Produced by Matt Schrader,

0:33:44.440 --> 0:33:48.560
<v Speaker 1>post production by wind Hill Studios, with editing, scoring and

0:33:48.600 --> 0:33:52.920
<v Speaker 1>sound design by Mark Henry Phillips, editing by Ryan Seton,

0:33:53.560 --> 0:33:58.760
<v Speaker 1>music by a PM. Executive producers Nathan Kloke, Karl Welker,

0:33:59.200 --> 0:34:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, and Aaron Tracy. If you enjoyed

0:34:03.840 --> 0:34:06.680
<v Speaker 1>this episode. Be sure to rate and review The Secret

0:34:06.680 --> 0:34:09.719
<v Speaker 1>World of Role Dall on Apple Podcasts or wherever you

0:34:09.760 --> 0:34:15.520
<v Speaker 1>get your podcasts. Copyright twenty twenty six Imagine Entertainment, iHeartMedia

0:34:15.560 --> 0:34:16.319
<v Speaker 1>and Parallax