[Our thanks to Peter Galvin for contributing his review to the Twitch readership.]
I was afraid that I had forgotten what it was like to be a child, my own memories having faded and mixed with the archetypes of youth that pop-culture has drilled into me, but the opening scenes of Where the Wild Things Are feel more authentic than any muddled memory I can muster.
Before ever visiting the land of wild things, the young boy named Max spends an afternoon building an extravagant igloo, only to have his sister's friends--in a moment of recklessness--cave it in. His anger and rejection are wordlessly apparent as he destroys his sister's room in a fit of rage. Later that night, as Max relaxes beneath a table while his mother is on the telephone, he studies her face. Her conversation sounds like white noise but her expressions reveal emotions without drawing attention to them.
Moments like these bubble to the surface and endear themselves throughout Where the Wild Things Are, but when given the chance to let his imagination truly run free, why does Max, by proxy director Spike Jonze, invent such dreary friends for himself?
You might already know the story of Maurice Sendak's 1963 children's book, but as a recap--Max gets in an argument with his mother and retreats to an imagined world of strange creatures, where he rules as king. Sendak's story is not the most substantial piece of writing, totaling a mere nine sentences in all, and Spike Jonze has approached writer Dave Eggars to fashion a new story for the film that draws upon the themes and emotions from the acclaimed book. Eggars' take on the story trades the visual-reliant style for a lot more talkiness, giving human voices and personalities to his wild things, but it's a mystery why he chose to have the otherworldly characters spend most of their screen-time sulking and discussing the futility of life.
Here's an example: upon arriving in the magical forest of the wild things, Max announces himself as their leader and their first question is whether he will take away all the sadness. Such oppressive melancholy colors much of the second half of the film, and Eggars' attempts to riff on Max's loneliness and fears by having them physically invade his dream world never reach any narrative finality, making the thinness of the original conceit all the more apparent.
Yet, there's no denying the impressive look and feel of the film. Jonze's decision to use a hand-held camera affords a lot of maneuverability, allowing us to experience the world from the viewpoint of a child. Likewise, his determination to forgo the popular CGI route for the wild things, instead adorning the actors in rubber suits and digitally manipulating their expressions, is in keeping with the organic DIY feel of the film. Both Max Records as Max and Catherine Keener as his mother are perfectly cast, and even the actors playing the wild things turn in wonderfully-nuanced performances despite the cheerless subject matter.
As a children's story, I can't see many kids latching onto the heady themes of Jonze's film--their attention is more likely to focus on the impressive visuals and wonderful look of the wild things themselves--but, even eye-popping visuals can only compensate for so much gloom. Putting aside the question of its appeal to youngsters, I think adults too will tire of the exhaustive in-fighting and passive-aggressive nature of the creatures which mirror real-life people a bit too closely. The lack of a narrative that properly reflects the source material's simple exhilaration ultimately hurts a film with a lot of visual richness, leaving Where the Wild Things Are a terribly bittersweet experience.
Cross-published on Ornery-Cosby and The Evening Class.
Saw this coming. I'm curious as to why Jonze would want to make a movie about a book that's only a few pages long. Didn't anyone learn from the Dr Seuss movies and how terrible they were?!
I've been hearing reports that the film is probably too gloomy and depressing for its own good and I assume that the debates between Jonze and the studio who wanted changes made were because of this. Which is understandable from a studio perspective, they wanted a typical childrens film but instead got a rather dark and depressing story about being a child in a dysfunctional family.
thoroughly enjoyed Where the Wild Things Are. In fact if memory serves me correctly this is the first movie this year that I'll see twice in the theater.
My only issue is there could've been some tightening in terms of editing for overall length.
As gloomy or depressing as one may think this is my contention is children are far more intelligent and sophisticated than what tends to be targeted for them.
You all make some salient points, but truth be told you are missing the point, the monsters are the world. Adults..... society, glum. Max is King because he can see the trees from the forest. Watch it again I think you may agree in this exclamation: "Brilliantly raised"
I saw it tonight - it was just ok. Though it was visually satisfying, it was ultimately way too thin on plot. I understand that they were adapting from a book which is also thin on plot (and they probably did the best they could), but there just isn't enough meat here to justify a feature length film.
Jonze tried really hard, but it seems like without a Chalie Kaufman screenplay, he has no natural sense of pacing. This is the first time it's been obvious that he started out directing music videos.
You can read my review at:
http://cfilmc.com/where-the-wild-things-are/
Fair points to level against the movie. The gloomy/sulkiness at times would occasionally get my nerves as well. I'd have to take a step back and be "objective": the monsters are apart of Max but also carry additional characteristics of those who surround him in the real world. Plus, I must admit that I was quite an angry kid too. Hence, I give it a pass for its oppressive nature.
Also, I liked the fact that in this imagery world of Max's creation he still reached the point where he needed another escape (secret room with small doors). I don't know why...
Anyway, if this film does strike a chord with youth it will be something that can grow in meaning with them as they get older. That'd make it something even more special than a lot of the kid's films that are released today.