Roald Dahl wrote a book about a child essentially witnessing the creative execution of his peers in a candy fortress, and for some reason, we keep trying to turn it into a shiny, happy musical. When Charlie in the Chocolate Factory Broadway finally opened at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in 2017, the stakes were sky-high. You had Christian Borle—a literal titan of the stage—stepping into the purple frock coat. You had the team behind Hairspray (Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman) handling the tunes. It felt like a guaranteed slam dunk.
It wasn't.
Critics basically sharpened their knives before the first intermission. But if you talk to the fans who actually sat in those velvet seats, the story gets way more complicated. People loved it. People hated it. Some people just wanted to know why the Oompa Loompas looked like they stepped out of a fever dream. To understand why this show remains one of the most polarizing adaptations in recent theater history, you have to look at the weird friction between Dahl’s dark humor and the "Disney-fication" of modern Broadway.
The Problem With Translating Pure Imagination
The show arrived in New York after a massive run in London’s West End. But the Broadway version wasn't just a carbon copy; it was a total overhaul. Director Jack O'Brien took the reins, and suddenly, the massive, physical sets of the London production were replaced with LED screens and a "minimalist" vibe that felt, honestly, a little cheap to some audiences.
Broadway is expensive. When you pay $200 for a ticket to see a factory of wonders, you expect more than a digital projection of a chocolate waterfall. This was the first hurdle for Charlie in the Chocolate Factory Broadway. It asked the audience to use their imagination in a medium that usually prides itself on technical overkill.
Christian Borle’s Wonka was a massive departure from Gene Wilder or Johnny Depp. He played Wonka with a sort of manic, bored genius energy. He wasn't a father figure. He was a guy who had been alone in a building for decades and had clearly lost his social filters. Some found it jarring. Others thought it was the only thing that captured the "nasty" streak that Roald Dahl intended. Dahl wasn't writing bedtime stories for delicate souls; he was writing cautionary tales where bad kids got stretched like taffy.
💡 You might also like: Why Love Island Season 7 Episode 23 Still Feels Like a Fever Dream
The Music: A Tug-of-War Between Eras
One of the biggest critiques involved the score. The production was caught in a weird middle ground. It had to include the hits from the 1971 movie—"Pure Imagination" and "The Candy Man"—because if you don't play those, the audience might actually riot. But Shaiman and Wittman also had to write an entire original score to fill the gaps.
The result was a tonal whiplash.
You’d have a classic, sweeping ballad followed by a contemporary song about Veruca Salt being a "Russian Oligarch’s daughter" or Mike Teavee being a tech-addicted brat. It felt like two different shows fighting for dominance. One show wanted to be a nostalgic tribute to the Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley movie magic. The other wanted to be a biting, modern satire of 21st-century parenting.
Take the character of Mike Teavee. In the book, he's obsessed with Westerns. In the 1971 movie, it's television. In Charlie in the Chocolate Factory Broadway, he’s a hacker who’s basically a high-functioning sociopath. It’s a smart update, but it feels incredibly dark compared to the whimsical "Golden Ticket" songs.
The Oompa Loompa Controversy
We need to talk about the puppets.
📖 Related: When Was Kai Cenat Born? What You Didn't Know About His Early Life
In the London version, the Oompa Loompas were played by actors in elaborate costumes that made them look small. For Broadway, the production went with a puppetry style designed by Basil Twist. The actors’ heads were visible, but their bodies were hidden behind small, puppet torsos.
It was a "love it or leave it" creative choice. Some people found it hilarious and inventive—a nod to the Vaudeville roots of musical theater. Others found it incredibly distracting and a bit low-budget for a show of this scale. It’s these kinds of choices that define why the show didn't have the "universal acclaim" of something like Matilda the Musical. Matilda leaned into the darkness and stayed there. Charlie kept trying to blink back into the light.
Why the Fans Disagreed with the Critics
Despite the lukewarm reviews from the New York Times and other major outlets, the show ran for nine months and had a very successful national tour. Why? Because kids don't care about set design minimalism.
For a child, seeing Charlie Bucket find that ticket is a primal emotional beat. The Broadway production actually did a great job casting the Charlies—they used a rotating cast of three young actors who brought a genuine, heart-wrenching vulnerability to the role. When you have a kid that talented standing next to a powerhouse like Borle, the "magic" happens regardless of whether the waterfall is made of plastic or pixels.
Also, let’s be real: the "deaths" (or "industrial accidents," if we’re being legalistic) were staged with a lot of dark wit. Veruca Salt’s exit via the "bad nut" squirrels was a highlight for many, involving a giant squirrel puppet that was genuinely unsettling. It captured that specific Dahl brand of "kids-in-peril" humor that adults often forget they liked when they were young.
👉 See also: Anjelica Huston in The Addams Family: What You Didn't Know About Morticia
The Legacy of the Lunt-Fontanne Run
When the curtain finally came down on the Broadway run in January 2018, it left a weird hole in the theater landscape. It wasn't a failure—it grossed plenty of money and launched a massive life on the road—but it didn't become the "next Wicked."
The show proved that Roald Dahl’s work is notoriously difficult to adapt. If you go too dark, you scare the parents buying the tickets. If you go too sweet, you lose the "edge" that makes the story iconic. Charlie in the Chocolate Factory Broadway tried to do both at the same time, and while it didn't always stick the landing, it was never boring.
What You Should Know If You See the Licensed Version
Nowadays, the version of the show being performed by regional theaters and schools is often a hybrid. If you’re looking to produce it or go see a local production, keep these things in mind:
- The "Broadway version" is the script most often used now, which features the updated, modern versions of the four "bad" children.
- The tech requirements are surprisingly flexible. While Broadway used screens, the show works just as well with physical, "Steampunk" style sets.
- The role of Wonka is a beast. It requires a performer who can pivot from "genial host" to "terrifying recluse" in a single bar of music.
If you’re a theater nerd, the cast recording is worth a listen just to hear Christian Borle’s vocal choices. He’s doing things with phrasing in "It Must Be Believed to Be Seen" that are honestly masterclass-level musical theater acting. You can hear the character’s desperation to find an heir, which adds a layer of stakes the movie versions sometimes gloss over.
Actionable Takeaways for Theater Fans
If you're looking into the history of this production or planning to catch a future touring or regional version, here is the "insider" way to approach it:
- Don't compare it to the movie. Seriously. If you go in expecting a frame-for-frame remake of the Gene Wilder film, you will be disappointed. Treat it as a brand-new interpretation of the 1964 book.
- Listen to the West End vs. Broadway cast recordings. It’s a fascinating study in how a show changes for an American audience. The Broadway version is punchier, more cynical, and faster-paced.
- Watch the "making of" clips of the Oompa Loompas. If you’re a fan of stagecraft, seeing how Basil Twist designed the puppetry is a treat. It’s a clever solution to a difficult staging problem.
- Pay attention to the lyrics in the "bad kid" songs. The social commentary on modern parenting—helicopter moms, spoiled influencers, and tech-obsessed kids—is actually quite sharp and often funnier than the physical gags.
The Broadway run might be over, but the debate over how to stage "Pure Imagination" without a billion-dollar budget continues. It remains a weird, colorful, slightly jagged piece of theater history that refused to play it safe.