Synopsis: Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls start your engines. You’re about to take an incredible ride with one of the most wonderful family films of all time! Dick Van Dyke stars as eccentric inventor Caractacus Potts, who creates an extraordinary car called Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. It not only drives but also flies and floats as it leads him, his two children and his beautiful lady friend, Truly Scrumptious (Sally Ann Howes), into a magical world of pirates, castles and endless adventure.
***********************************************************************
eyelights: the production value. the set pieces. its infectious eccentricity.
eyesores: the grating musical numbers. the unmanageable amount of musical numbers.
“Come along, kiddie-winkies!”
‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ is a 1968 film based on a children’s book by James Bond author Ian Fleming (his only non-Bond book). Adapted by acclaimed children’s book author Roald Dahl, as well as director Ken Hughes, the screenplay was produced by long-time James Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli.
Interestingly, the James Bond connections don’t end there: Bond series scribe Richard Maibaum contributed dialogues to the screenplay and Bond series actors Gert Fröbe and Desmond Llewelyn have parts. Further association with Bond exists via Anna Quayle, who had a part in 1967’s ‘Casino Royale‘.
Ken Hughes is also one of the many directors charged with completing this stupendously inane version ‘Casino Royale’, in the unfortunate Berlin segment, the most grating part of the picture. It’s quite interesting that Broccoli hired cast and crew who worked on a competing production to his films.
And this is clearly his film. Watching ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’, one sees similarities between it and the lighter James Bond films, such as ‘Diamonds Are Forever‘ and ‘You Only Live Twice‘ (which, coincidentally, Dahl also wrote): the sets, the filmmaking, the general quality of the picture are vaguely familiar.
But it is a kid’s picture. And a musical at that.
It begins with the sight of a few roadster races at the turn of the 20th century. Filmed in a sped up fashion that is slightly reminiscent of archival footage from that era, it takes us to some sprawling set pieces at the Grand Prix in France, Germany and Great Britain. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is the star of these races.
When we are re-introduced to the magical car, years later, it is an old heap that two siblings, Jeremy and Jemima, are playing on in a local garage owner’s yard. Unfortunately for them, the garagist has been offered money from a junk dealer to take the ailing vehicle away to be scrapped and melted down.
The children, gutted by this turn of events, make a deal with the man to hold off the sale until they talk to their father about buying the car himself. He agrees. And thus they run home, introducing us to their eccentric tinkerer dad, Caractacus Potts, as he rides his back rocket on a ramp, and our leading lady, Truly Scrumptious.
Naturally, Potts, a dreamer and pleasant man, will want to help his children, who believe that there’s something special about the car – they even think that it’s alive. Unfortunately he’s broke. But he will try to sell some of his inventions, in this case some musical candy that he made by mistake, to Scrumptious’ father, a candy-maker.
Needless to say, despite many hurdles, they will eventually manage to buy the car (although it takes a third of the film’s substantial run-time to do so). And from that point on, after repairing the old clunker, the Potts and Ms. Scrumptious will go on a journey that will prove that there’s more to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang than just a silly name.
Truth be told, I was pleasantly surprised by ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’. It was resplendent with inventive and idiosyncratic touches that are the delight of children, something that only Dahl could have come up with (or Pee-Wee Herman, come to think of it), and that can also be found in his other works.
I don’t recall ever seeing this picture as a child, so there was no nostalgia to dull my senses; to me, this was an entirely new experience. Honestly, I was impressed with its overall quality and the scope of its set pieces: the races, the Potts’ house, the sweets factory, the town fair, the countryside tour and the Vulgarian castle and village.
It was all so much larger than life!
Then there is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang itself (so named by Mr. Potts because of the sound it makes), the magical car that has a life of its own. Unbeknownst to its new owners, it can transform into a hovercraft and also sprout wings and propellers whenever the occasion demands it. The kid in me found that a pure joy to watch.
But then there are the damned musical numbers, of which there is an overabundance. I may have watched a string of musicals in recent months, but I still haven’t acquired a taste for it – it has to be danged good. Sadly, ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ delivers run-of-the-mill musical numbers (for that era), and of average to slightly above-average quality.
I have to attest to enjoying some of them. The one that comes to mind primarily is the elaborate one in the sweets factory, which dozens of dancers, singers and musicians and quirkily choreographed numbers (it apparently took three weeks to shoot!). But, for each one of those there were three that irked me, such as the opening number in the Potts household.
Having said this, I was quite surprised with some of Dick Van Dyke’s ability in performing these numbers. While he wasn’t always spot on, there were some extremely demanding sequences, such as the one at the town fair, that showed just how fit and capable he was – which is especially impressive since he was battling alcoholism at the time!
The rest of the cast is appropriately enjoyable given the context, and I was slightly taken with the two kids, who were pretty good for child actors. Similarly, the humour was over-the-top, but contextually appropriate. The most overt attempts were in the form of two silly, slapsticky spies who are trying to snatch the car from the Potts.
So funny. Ahem.
Still, ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ was far more enjoyable that I would have anticipated. Had I known that it was neither a critical or commercial success at the time of its release (it has become a family favourite over the years), I would have been even more surprised. I definitely preferred the lighter, more inventive first half of the picture, however.
By the second half, I was sick to my stomach from all the musical numbers – so perhaps I’m not the best reference. After all, there’s a reason why it’s become a classic of sorts since: it has clearly connected with audiences, and not everyone is as averse to watching musicals as I am. I say let the child in you make that decision: give ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’ a spin.
You might be pleasantly surprised.
Date of viewing: August 27, 2014
thecriticaleye 