MovieChat Forums > Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) Discussion > The candy store clerk was a dick

The candy store clerk was a dick

posted 2 years ago by cruisin109 (2005)
39 replies | jump to latest

When Charlie went in and said he wanted a bar of chocolate the clerk just gave him candy. But Charlie never said he wanted to PURCHASE anything, he just said he wanted candy.

For the clerk to start saying "AHEM" and holding out his hand was rude. Charlie should have said "Hey I never actually said I wanted to buy anything, you just gave me this candy."

Charlie could have then walked out of the store and there wouldn't be a thing the clerk could legally do!

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Funnily enough he doesn't do that with the other kids, only Charlie.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Charlie was so poor he couldn't even afford the FREE candy the clerk was showering the other kids with. To be fair though, Charlie was rude first saying "AHEM" to get the clerks attention and he bought that Wonka bar with stolen money anyway so the ticket didn't even really belong to him.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

True.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

How much money did Charlie find in that sewer drain anyway? A pound? A shilling? A half a crown? How much real money did he find and what would be the equivalent in today’s USD? Seems the little bastard felt he was rich. Wouldn’t have been surprised if, had he not found the ticket in that second bar, he would’ve gone straight to the local brothel and blew the rest of the cash on hookers and cocaine.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

How much money did Charlie find in that sewer drain anyway?

Enough to buy two Wonka bars apparently.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Yes but what denomination of currency was it? I figured as a Brit you’d know.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Seeing as the movie is in a German town I would suspect it would possibly be Deutschmarks but tbh I don't know. But as I said it was enough to buy two Wonka bars.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

It was apparently enough to buy 2 wonka bars with loads left over. I imagine is was worth $10 and the wonka bars were 50 cents apiece.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

So enough left over for more bread and some tobacco for Grandpa Joe

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

No way was anyone gonna sell tobacco to a minor like Charlie, who was gonna get it for him?

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

A minor could buy tobacco back in the 70's because the majority (86%) of retailers were happy to sell to minors.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

But Charlie would still be breaking the law by buying tobacco as a minor and a cop could arrest him and sent him to jail.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

But, but , but....so what?
Do you think that would have stopped him? I don't.

Furthermore, the retailer, if anyone, would have been the one in trouble and fined or sent to jail or whatever.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Do you think Wonka would have given Charlie the factory knowing he was intending to break the law and illegally purchase tobacco?

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Yes. I think Wonka knew all about Charlie. But can I just say that it's you who is saying Charlie was intending to do this not the movie nor the book. It's like you come up with an idea, no matter how outrageous, and somehow it becomes fact to you.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Charlie was intending to illegally purchase the tabacco. Otherwise how was it gonna get to Grandpa Joe?

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Charlie was intending to illegally purchase the tabacco.

Where are you getting this from? Stop with the lying.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

How was GJ supposed to get the tobacco if Charliendodnt buy it?

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

How did he ever get it? It's never explained. But Charlie isn't the only able bodied person in the house. You just automatically went for Charlie. Furthermore, the 70's were a different time and the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to minors isn't something the law really pursued, rightly or wrongly.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Either Charlie buys it or his mother. Think it through WA…. do you think Charlie is gonna get his pay for Mr Jopek, give it to his mother and expect her to pick up the tobacco on the way home from pulling a triple shift at the laundry shack while hauling a heavy pot of underwear water to make soup? Think logically and stop being obtuse.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Guess you only read the part of my post you thought proved any point you tried and failed to make.

Here you go, the part you ignored.
Furthermore, the 70's were a different time and the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to minors isn't something the law really pursued, rightly or wrongly.

Now stop being obtuse.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

My point is Wonka don’t take kindly to people who break the rules. Charlie was gonna break the rule of law by buying tobacco.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 2 years ago

Except you haven't shown that he was about to break the law. It's just something you've made up.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

It was not stolen money. If you find change or a dollar bill on the ground, it’s fair game. Are you a thief for picking up loose pennies you find on the sidewalk?

[–] ur4196727 (110) 2 years ago

technically yes... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

Your link proves nothing.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Stealing is stealing. Imagine if Charlie had found a satchel with millions like in No Country for Old Men. Same difference.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

Seriously? No, it is not the same difference. A penny is not comparable to finding a suitcase full of $100 bills. You’re seriously arguing this? A dollar can be pinpointed to a single person who owns it?

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

So whether or not it’s stealing depends entirely on the amount of money? What’s the cutoff point? How much money exactly does it have to be before it’s considered stealing?

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

It’s loose change on the ground. It’s fair game. Why are you debating this?

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

So if Charlie had found a hundred silver coins in that drain would it have been stealing?

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

Why are you still talking?

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Charlie did not take reasonable steps to find out who was the owner of the silver coin. He went straight to the candy store to spend his ill gotten money. Can you imagine how the rightful owner of that silver coin must feel? Charlie should technically turn over the factory to the true owner of that coin.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound right now?

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

I seriously found $40 in cash last night… completely serious. I just snatched it up two $20 bills. I sort of feel like a criminal now and am going to take reasonable steps to find the true owner of the money. No spending spree in a candy store for me.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14799) 2 years ago

Actually, there was a custom back in the day (I'm guessing it was more common in England) where the store clerk would give you what you wanted, but then they would hold out their hand in expectation of pay. The "ahem" was a polite way of reminding the customer to pay up if they didn't do so immediately upon getting the product they asked for.

They didn't show it in the musical number "Candy Man," but I think the kids would have put their change on the counter to pay the same clerk for their candy as well. Also keep in mind, that before 2000, clerks were allowed to throw people out of their stores if the customer wasn't willing to pay, was causing trouble, or the clerk simply didn't like them; and even now, they can still call the police to report a shoplifter.

These days you go up to a register and hand over the money, but things were more old-fashioned back in the day, particularly before the era of electronic cash registers and PC.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

Wouldn’t the candyman have had a shotgun hidden under the bar in case of a robbery? Perhaps it would have been better for clerk to have pulled the gun on Charlie as a “polite” way of reminding him to pay for the Wonka bar. Can you imagine Charlie scarfing down the chocolate and then he hears “ahem!” He looks up and we see his POV of a shotgun barrel in his face.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14799) 2 years ago

They wouldn't do that in a kid's movie.

It wasn't that rough of a neighborhood. I mean, when most of your customers are middle-class kids and adults, and the crime rate is low, chances are, he either has no gun in the store, or it's a hidden pistol that hasn't seen the light of day outside of a drawer below the counter for years.

The problem is, people today are far too used to neighborhoods in downtown areas of cities where serious crime is rife due to gangs and extreme poverty. Many people don't remember what inter-city life was like, particularly in the nicer areas back in the 1970s.

[–] cruisin109 (2005) 2 years ago

It wasn't that rough of a neighborhood.

It seemed pretty rough... that woman seized Charlie and yanked him into the crowd of people which nearly killed him.