Why Director Paul King Chose To Make Wonka Instead Of Paddington 3
When Paul King's 2014 film "Paddington" came out, audiences had reason to be skeptical. The beloved title character, a talking Peruvian bear left alone at London's Paddington station, wasn't necessarily a good fit for a live-action take. Movies like 2002's "Scooby Doo" and 2007's "Alvin and the Chipmunks" were proof that audiences would show up for CGI versions of classic characters, but the movies could also be ugly and loud, the most cynical kind of children's movie. Nobody wanted that fate for Paddington Bear.
But the character flourished in the new medium. King's film received a great deal of critical praise, getting a 97% positive approval rate on RottenTomatoes. The movie was sparkling, playful, and gleefully imaginative, and rather than stop the movie dead, Paddington's (voiced by Ben Wheatley) wild antics set the stage for physical comedy in the vein of Charlie Chaplin. 2017's "Paddington 2" was even better, finding gold in the premise of the bear getting sent to prison and casually turning the tough inmates into marmalade-loving music men.
Part of the movies' success was the way the comedy could reach everybody at their level. Under the writing and direction of Paul King, the movies were the rare family comedies that hit all levels of the audience. Most kids' movies alternate between jokes exclusively for very young children and then jokes exclusively for their parents. But King rode the line between earnestness and cheekiness, and everybody in the audience got the joke. The movies even featured headier themes like colonialism and xenophobia.
However, King will not be returning for the upcoming "Paddington in Peru," which will continue to follow the titular bear on further adventures. Instead, he's setting his sights on another iconic character, Willy Wonka.
The bear and the candy man
Of course, Paddington could not be more different from Willy Wonka. Besides the two originally coming from British authors (Michael Bond for Paddington, Roald Dahl for Wonka), they represent vastly different personalities. Paddington is gentle and his gravest moments come from a simple, withering "hard stare" that he learned from his Aunt Lucy. Wonka, on the other hand, as introduced in the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," is something like an Old Testament deity, wreaking havoc on the lives of the spoiled children entering his domain.
Paddington was the star of many children's books and cartoons through the years, but prior to Paul King's film, had yet to lead a movie like Wonka had. 1971's "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" cast Gene Wilder as the titular candy maker, and the actor's hilarious, screechy performance was a vivid, unpredictable recreation of Dahl's character.
Paddington author Michael Bond was inspired to create the character after leaving work and spotting a lonely bear on the shelf of a toy store. According to the New York Times, he felt it looked "rather forlorn" and surprised his wife with it. From there, the story of Paddington became one symbolic of refugees and evacuees. A far cry from the tone you get out of Roald Dahl.
The real question is what Paul King, who had crafted such a delightful cinematic world in which Paddington's ineffable kindness and charm was the center, will make out of Dahl's strange mischief — and what led to his decision not to pursue further Paddington adventures.
Storybook worlds
Paul King knew that leaving the "Paddington" series in other hands "was the right thing to do," as he told The Hollywood Reporter. Having crafted two successful films with the bear and brought him into a funny, cartoony version of the modern world, King had decided to move on to a different character. Fortunately for King, this other character would still belong to a fantastical world — one that references our reality while also building out something completely different.
The "Paddington" movies had let King further explore the offbeat touches he'd brought most famously to the British show "The Mighty Boosh," starring the comedy troupe of the same name. Besides the existence of a talking bear (largely unquestioned by anybody who meets him), the world of those movies is itself a little odd. You see it in the gags, in the calypso band whose music accompanies Paddington, and especially in its villains.
As far as King was concerned, the world of "Wonka" was a logical next step. As surreal as both the 1971 film and the 2005 adaptation of "Charlie" get, neither goes as far as King intended for his "Wonka" film. As he told THR, the production design from Nathan Crowley was a perfect fit, "not a replica or something entirely realistic" but a bizarre, enchanting universe. Crowley's work led to King's "Wonka" film having "one foot in children's book illustration," which keeps it perfectly in line with the storybook feeling of the "Paddington" movies.
The production also took the art of chocolate-making seriously. All the chocolate you see in the movie is real.
The kind side of Wonka
With co-writer Simon Farnaby, "Wonka" director Paul King still had to find an angle on the character that would work. Because the movie was a story of the origin of Willy Wonka, he could be quite different from the character Gene Wilder portrayed, even though "Wonka" is technically a prequel to that film. For as much as the Wilder film plays up Wonka's cruel, judgmental, (possibly) murderous side, it also delivers a heartwarming ending as Wonka grants his factory to the downtrodden Charlie (Peter Ostrum). There's a line between sincerity and cynicism in that portrayal, and that sincerity became a keystone for King.
As King told THR, the difficulty with the character is that he's simultaneously a business magnate while also being "the antithesis of greed and [...] all about generosity." Because of that line, "Wonka" portrays the character as a young man (Timothee Chalamet) on the come-up — one who's capable of charming his antagonists with particularly delectable candies (not unlike Paddington Bear's way with marmalade sandwiches).
Still, abandoning Paddington was not an easy decision for the filmmaker, especially given the success the first two movies achieved. Having spent some eight years working on "Paddington" projects, King had developed some affection for the bear. As he told THR, "The design and the love that went into every single follicle was labor intensive and done with such heart."
If King wasn't ready to leave the character behind with his note-perfect second outing, when could he? Ultimately, leaving Paddington behind was, King said, like "sending your kid off to school." Bittersweet in some ways, but knowing you did the best job possible.