(from http://thefilmstage.com)I had to screen
Where the Wild Things Are twice to form an opinion... and I have a feeling it's the sort of film that one will want to see again and again to explore another emotion, another cinematic detail.
After two screenings though, there are only two definite things to say:
1. This movie is NOT for young children
2. The director deeply loves this story
If people are disappointed with the movie, I have a feeling it's because the film does not offer much for the attention spans of young children. I heard some restless feet, some inappropriate laughter, and some whispering during both screenings. Rather than taking a beloved childhood story and trivializing its potential, the way many children's literature adaptations to film seem to do, Spike Jonze breathes life into the reality of human emotion... of being trapped in an eight year old state of mind.
(from http://usm.maine.edu)Another complaint that you might hear is
What's the point? Does the little boy learn anything? What are they trying to say? People seem to forget that the actual picture book, written and illustrated by Maurice Sendak, received similar criticism. Maybe we've been passing by the book in the store too often, smiling at the big smiling monsters carrying a little boy in a wolf costume on their backs... the book and the movie, in terms of basic plot, are largely the same: A little boy misbehaves. He is rude to his mother. He is sent to his room without supper. He escapes into a world where he has a fantastic, boy-ish adventure. He makes his way home. Supper is waiting for him.
The movie invents a few details to flesh out the adventure... like most adaptations of children's stories, something needs to be added to justify a feature-length film. Spike Jonze's version of the Sendak tale presents Max, the main character, with some motivation for wanting to leave home. He sets up a situation that can be easily recognized: a broken home. Max has an older sister who is heard on the phone with her friends. She mentions she has to go to her dad's later. We never see the dad; only a globe the father had inscribed for Max. Mom is dating again, pulling her already strained time away from Max.
The mother and her son work together seamlessly. She is sympathetic and yet worn to the bone. All her cards are on the table. She loves and knows her son, but struggles with herself and the place to which she has arrived in her life. Catherine Keener portrays a woman who can be seen as every divorced mother you've ever known. Her performance is most moving towards the end, as she has clearly waited for a long time for her son to return home... she looks tired. Through sore eyes she gazes upon her son as if she's trying to make sure he's real... and then he is offered the same dinner you see on his bedroom table in the book. So touching.
The boy casted as Max (Max Records), is truly
brilliant. He has more range than most adult actors currently on screen. He demonstrates frustration, confusion, conscience, and the need to feel loved. There is very little dialogue. This little boy carries the feeling of an age, of a time in our lives that we have probably, necessarily, forgotten. That time when we're trapped between the innocence of kindergarten and the foreign language of jaded adolescence. If a child is ever going to win an Oscar for Best Leading Man, it better be this kid.
(from http://moviesmedia.ign.com)After an episode that reflects the book (Max yells, "I'LL EAT YOU UP!" to his mother), Max can't take it anymore. His mom can't play, his sister won't play or stick up for him when her friends break his snowball igloo, and the family has been broken up. Max runs. He runs and screams and expresses that irrational surge of hatred that only children don't mean...
He finds a boat and sails for days to a land inhabited by the Sendak beasts. The creatures are truly remarkable. Even if all you see is the trailer, you can see how real these monsters seem. They are huge, they have facial expressions unlimited by the typical hand-up-the-back puppet, they walk, run, cry, and howl. They are hairy and have the damp noses of your domestic beasts like you dog or cat. Not to mention, they are practically identical to the illustrations in the book. The filmmakers took each of the seven creatures from the Sendak tale and fleshed them out with personalities, hang ups, talents, etc.
Each monster seems to hold a piece of Max's personality (save one... I'll get to her). The bull on the cover of the picture book is the quiet, thoughtful, hopeful, brooding side. Judith, the horned-nose creature with an attitude problem, reflects the sad, mistaken, and exaggerated conclusive process children can have concerning their circumstances. Ira, Judith's boyfriend, exhibits Max's creative side, his most constructive imagination. Alexander the goat creature feels the childhood pain of being neglected, overlooked, and left out. Douglass is the voice of reason in the midst of the wildness similar to Max's conscience; the part of him that knows he is very wrong sometimes. And Carol, the most recognizable monster with cat stripes up top and a bird bottom, mirrors Max's unbridled, boy-ish anger, fear, and desperation to hold on to his family.
KW is the wanderer monster. I read several reviews that see her as the mother figure... and I distinctly disagree. She holds her head similarly to the Max's sister and abandons her monster family for new friends on the other side of the island. Carol is very cross about KW's habit to abandon the group... he wants so much for everyone to stay together. He makes weird assumptions about her when talking to Max... he clearly doesn't know her, or understand her, as much as he loves her. Though she has great affection for Max, I don't see her as the mother. She seems to me like Max's opportunity to understand his sister better...
...what seals the deal for me are KW's friends. They are owls that talk in squaks... or at least, that's what the audience hears. More importantly, that's what Max and Carol hear while KW and the other monsters understand their language. KW is in a different place in her life than Max and Carol, just as Max's sister has entered the world of teenaged exploration. Max won't speak this language for another several years.
The fort the monsters build is amazing. I don't know whose idea it was to make these nest-like houses, but they are gorgeous. Carol's model of the world he wishes he could build, where all his monster family would live and remain together, is equally beautiful. He and Max are driven by the same need for security when they agree to work with the other monsters to try and build this ideal Carol-world.
Things, of course, cannot work out the way Carol and Max imagine. They can't force people to agree, to want what they want, to need what they need... realizing this brings about the only obvious departure from the book, in my mind. In the book, he is playing a part and feels that the monsters don't love him as his mother does, so he goes back home to the smells of good food and that sense of security only Mom can offer. In the movie, he is playing a part in a fantasy world that won't bring him the happiness, the family, or the permanent attention that he thought it would. He sees value in the mother and misses her, but I think he also sees that this eight year old rumpus can't give him what he wants. I think he learns some acceptance, gets a reality check, and gains some humility. He doesn't have the answers, the method, and he's just going to have to hang in there.
(from http://genedeitch.awn.com)One of the most strikingly beautiful things about the movie is the boyhood wonder of it all... and how much of it lines up with the simple, handsome images from the picture book. The film opens with the boy in his wolf costume running down the stairs after the dog with a fork... just like in the book. In another perfect reflection from the text, Max makes a blanket fort in his room and calls to his mother standing on a pile of books. And don't forget the "wild rumpus" or the long, long boat ride to the island of the wild things! Whether or not this movie is for little kids, Spike Jonze clearly took each page and immortalized it in film. He respectfully includes pretty much each image... and for people who complain about films not being true to the book, he satisfies that expectation...
...you can tell he loves this story. Apart from honoring Sendak's simple story and memorable illustrations, he derives from it some human truth. He captures a universal trial in the lives of us all.
You want to know the point? I had to see it twice to get it, but I think the point is, when you're a child, even if you misbehave, act out of your frustration, and make others mad at you,
it's okay to be eight...This movie is beautiful. Don't take your three or ten year old, but it's beautiful. An honest and loving exploration of child psychology...
"I'll eat you up; I love you so..."
(from www.zap2it.com)