Depp Impact

Johnny Depp’s work of recent times has been lauded, due to his inexplicable ability to bring something unique to the characters he portrays. From the staid entrance in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape through to the unanimously applauded depiction of Keith Richards in Pirates of the Caribbean, people simply cannot get enough of his talents.

And it is sheer talent, and imagination that he possesses. Let’s face it. He’s changed the way I look at actors, as I was once of the impression that for an actor to be considered “good”, they must play a character that has some form of mental illness.

Forrest Gump, I Am Sam, Rainman, The Hours… need I say more?

He’s made acting into a craft; an artform – instead of merely reciting lines well enough to make it convincing. His ability simply surpasses the vague gestures of the characters played by Hanks, Penn, Hoffman and Kidman et al.

He shows that acting is as much a creative skill as painting, writing or composing political election speeches.

But his uniqueness has brought about a heightened amount of scrutiny it seems.

From the reviews I’ve read about the upcoming Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, his channelling of Michael Jackson has left some people with a… wait for it… bitter taste in the mouth.

Whether you take that line as a neat little play on the chocolate theme, or some other sordid line regarding the allegations of which Jackson was absolved, it’s up to you.

Some people are finding it difficult to fathom that Willy Wonka is some creepy fellow, instead of the chirpy little urchin that dances gaily about in the novel, or the eerily reserved visage from the first movie. But I guess that’s just the thing.

Too many people are comparing this to the first adaptation of the novel that starred Gene Wilder, which was incorrectly named and featured some bogus scene of Charlie and Grandpa Joe flying about, belching.

I don’t remember reading that part… the soda was mentioned briefly in the novel, from what I can remember, but they never participated in drinking the stuff. Either way…

But again, Depp has assumed a persona that he believes befits the character - a rather brash selection of a real person, I’ll admit - but one I believe that is fitting. The subsequent discourse of whether Depp’s portrayal of the confection hermit is befitting has only served to reinforce how great an actor Depp is.

Any piece of art that is revolutionary, forward-thinking, and memorable is often a piece of art that is controversial. Depp’s composition of Willy Wonka has definitely spoken volumes for his aptitude in his art.

Anyone who derides his performance in this movie must have erroneously formed a preconceived idea of what Wonka must be… which is stupid.

I wonder how the people reacted when Picasso first unveiled Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, cos I imagine people would’ve had some preconceived ideas of art in their heads before viewing.

Oh, and one last thing… and this is off on a tangent… but I’ve been meaning to say this for a while; Roald Dahl was a far better children’s author than JK Rowling… there, I said it.