A Story of Coincidence and Chance

'Mainstream' isn't constant. There are things we call mainstream today that would have been utterly shocking to followers of mainstream culture thirty years ago.

In particular, today's mainstream is definitely able to play with sexuality (especially orientation) in ways that it hasn't been able to before. I don't see why playing with gender itself can't be the next step. Someone in the mainstream will be the first one to do it.

From:

as far as i can tell, the notion that wonka is somehow "genderless" comes only and directly from the fact that he appears very fey and nelly. and of course a "real" (that is, cisgendered) man can't be such, so wonka's gender is theoretically nullified.

which i think is sexist, oppressive nonsense. so i reject it.

From:

I should add that in the book, there was nothing that revolutionary about the character. He's in the same (boiled-sweet) boat as all the other eccentric male characters whose gender and sexuality are all but irrelevant to the storyline (as a Doctor Who fan, I notice characters like that).

If we're talking about Depp's portrayal, I haven't seen it yet either, but there's nothing intrinsically genderless about the original character concept, as far as I can tell.

From:

rosefox

I think there are two parts to that speculation: 1) He's slender and pale and effeminate; 2) He has no spouse and needs to adopt a child in order to pass on his legacy. Wonka doesn't have any real family at all, of birth or of choice, and the no spouse or kids thing is an extension of that. He doesn't know how to connect to people at all. He's very... not of this world, a concept in human form. Does that mean he's genderless, or chocolate-gendered? Maybe, but only in the sense that he's more of a chocolate elemental than a person. And by adding in family history that wasn't in the book, Burton actually takes away from that aspect. So I don't think Burton particularly set out to play with gender, nor do I think he accidentally succeeds in doing so.

From:

Okay, I just read the article. (Dangit, quit making me think while I'm at work. I won't get anything done this way.)

Depp's Wonka, they claim, is a childlike mind in the body of a man. He has a childish attitude towards responsibility and other trappings of adulthood, and prefers to think about fun and candy and toys and wild rides.

First off, this is an established character type. The most infamous examples of this persona are Michael Jackson and that guy who thinks he's Peter Pan. I have to dig for some other fictional examples, but it's nothing new. I don't know why they're zeroing in on Wonka as a revolutionary type of character.

Second, one of the hallmarks of a childlike character (or an actual young child) is that he is not concerned with sex and does not behave in an adult sexual manner. But even young children have gender identity. I have no beef with a childlike adult being portrayed as though he has no sexual feelings, but where do they get off on claiming that 'childish' automatically means 'genderless'?

From:

..he's more of a chocolate elemental than a person.

*adds sixth arm to elemental diagram*

Air, fire, water, wood, metal, and chocolate. I knew there was something fundamental about it.

From:

the michael jackson analogy has been brought up a lot, with regard to depp's portrayal... and it's really unfortunate, since jackson is probably the leakiest case of flagrant/repressed gender dysphoria i've ever seen.

From:

See, that's the last thing that made the connection for me. The first thing was just the costume, especially the pasty white face and the pageboy hair. And then the similarities between the chocolate factory scenario and the Neverland sleepovers started to make themselves uncomfortably clear.

Sexuality and gender identity never came into it for me, because they're irrelevant with respect to Willy Wonka, as far as I'm concerned.

From:

king-tirian.livejournal.com

Off the top of my head, Bugs Bunny and Peewee Herman are fictional characters in the same mold of rejecting the maturity that comes along with grownuphood and not really showing off physical tokens of their manhood. (The book's Wonka has a pointy beard -- I don't know if you were referring earlier to physical androgyny or just general impishness when you wondered if he was genderless.)

Among the galaxy of characters who have tamped down Wonka's path of genderlessness are lots of cartoon and Muppet characters. I personally grew up not knowing the genders of Kermit, Tweety, or (yes, I know) Christopher Robin. Here again, we've got Bugs, who despite being fairly genderless will portray an exaggerated model of either masculinity or femininity as the situation warrants.

These reviews of Wonka are making me think that we need to use him to introduce a new generation to the word "fey", because that seems in every facet what Wonka is. He's curiously attractive and mysterious and fun, and there are many temptations to play with him, but at the end of the day you'll probably find that the price was too great. (I am reminded of a review of the TV cartoon show "The Winx Club" in which the reviewer lamented that we were teaching children that witches are evil and faeries are noble.)

From:

As co-author of the post BC is talking about, I have to say that those aren't my reasons. In fact, I would say that Johnny Depp was very fey and nelly in Pirates of the Caribbean, and I would never call him genderless in that role.

From:

Agreed.

From:

I'm interested in so much here; I hope some of this conversation leaks over to the Body Impolitic comments thread.

"Revolutionary" is a word that got brought in in this thread; not Laurie's and my word at all. We certainly never intended to claim that this was something new. Peter Pan is a wonderful comparison which I certainly hadn't thought of.

But I want to go back to your original post: i am finding myself surprised to feel some resistance to allow the film entry into the "Playing With Gender" camp.

This film certainly does not belong in the "Serious, Thought-Out, and Important Views on Gender" camp. What it's doing, in my view, is exactly "playing." And I wouldn't even want to say whether Burton was playing, or whether Depp (who is clearly interested in gender and gender presentation) is playing, or whether Depp just picked Michael Jackson instead of Keith Richards because he likes to follow someone famous. But all kinds of mainstream films "play" with gender, and it's my personal opinion that that play is certainly worth looking at.

From:

Beg pardon. I introduced the word before I'd actually read your article.

Apparently Depp claims he didn't intend a Michael Jackson comparison at all, and was very surprised when people started saying that. I'm not sure I believe him. ^^;

I'm still not sure on that point about gender play...

I tend to think of gender, sex, and sexuality as independent quantities. My main disagreement is probably that I see the character playing with sexuality (or lack thereof) as much as any fey or childlike or otherwise non-traditional male character does, but none of that is connected to whether or not he is male or thinks of himself as male.

From:

That's all really interesting, thanks! I completely take that point that there's nothing direct on whether he is male or thinks of himself as male. What's going on for me in significant part is that when I look at the character, I don't see male. The first thing I see is something on the order of "prissy lady librarian." Some of this, of course, is make-up and jewelry. On the other hand, I think there's something more than that going on, something Depp does with body language and gesture and presentation.

Your mileage may certainly vary, and if it does, I'm interested ...

From:

i notice that he is universally referred to... as "he".

From: