WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - movie review

[sharplittleteeth]

This movie? It's like the Sex Pistols being covered by Coldplay.

Spike Jonze has made a beautiful movie here, but it completely misses the point of Maurice Sendak's book. For some reason, he's turned the gleefully ferocious monsters of the title into whiny, neurotic wimps.

Seriously. In the book, the Wild Things make Max their king because he can stare into their eyes without blinking. In the movie, they make Max their king because he says he has a sadness shield that will keep the loneliness out.

Every time there's some action or whimsy or excitement, it's killed dead as the wild things stop to complain about how sad they are, or that the other monsters don't like them. It's like Woody Allen in a fursuit.

The Wild Things look fantastic, a mix of Creature Workshop puppetry and CGI faces. But it's wasted. The creature look exactly like the beasts from the book, but they have none of the savageness. You don't want to know me, one tells Max, I'm kind of a downer. And she's right. I don't.

I get that books and movies are different media, that adaptations require artistic licence, and that to make a feature-length film out of a ten sentence children's book requires some additions.

But surely, if you're adapting a book you want to capture the essence of it.

And that's why this movie failed for me. It just wasn't wild.


EDIT: Some background reading
Newsweek interview with Sendak, Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers.

Essay - Do Children Actually Like Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are?"

And from 2004: Bill Moyers interviews Maurice Sendak about the creation of Where the Wild Things Are. Fascinting.

Comments

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

In the project's early days, Sendak told Jonze "Make something dangerous." I haven't heard what he thinks now that the film's released. I'd be curious to know. (Haven't seen the fil yet.)

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

Maurice, what did you think when you first saw the movie?

Sendak: I thought it was never going to end. [Laughter] I say that to be funny. The truth of the matter is, I saw immediately a combination of things that I wanted and I loved. The courage of the child, the danger of the situation-- it could turn on a dime. They could have eaten him. All of that was apparent right from the start. The artistry was something they would have to take care of. I was happy right from the beginning. I didn't have to suffer like they did-- schlepping from this place to that place, dealing with the studio.


From a Newsweek interview with Sendak, Jonze and Eggers.

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I wonder if that's what he thought, or if that's a mix of statesmanly and contractually-obligated.

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

You know, you've just put my thoughts into words.

The monsters looked sensational. They acted annoying. The hand held camera made me queasy, but I get that's a style thing.

The movie was a whiny hour-and-a-bit of nothing. I did not like.

[damien-wise.livejournal.com]

I'm yet to see the film, but I think its principle stumbling-point is that it can't be completely open to interpretation like the book. It's been adapted, had 90 mins or so of talking bolted-on, an has a bunch of vague details tied-down. What we're seeing is Jonze's reading of it. The moment you pin-down details, flesh-out the back-story and explain things, the magic evaporates. Just ask George Lucas. :-P

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

No, the problem wasn't that Eggers and Jonze expanded on the book, it was the way they did so. The personalities they gave to the wild things were whiny and dull, when they should have been ferocious and exciting.

[redcountess]

It's like Woody Allen in a fursuit. - I am so adding this to my favourite quotes :)