WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE by Spike Jonze

The big screen adaptation of the beloved children's book WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE earned the number one spot at the box office during its opening weekend. Director Spike Jonze has made a name for himself by directing landmark music videos (Weezer's "Buddy Holly") and unconventional films (BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ADAPTATION), so it should be no surprise that his take on the popular storybook nothing like a traditional kid's film. Reactions to the film have been diverse, with some claiming that it is an instant classic -- a marvel for its emotional realism. Others feel that simply too dark, making it unsuitable for children.

Film Fresh writers Marina and Gerry toss around the issues.

Marina: I loved the movie. It wasn’t a perfect film by any means, but I would certainly defend it against most of the criticism it is receiving. First of all, it was visually stunning.  Director Spike Jonze did a fantastic job recreating the "cozy," textured and grainy aesthetic of the original children's book.  Although the film barely touched the surface of the complex issues in Max's life (like an absent father, his distress about the sun dying, and so on), I liked that those issues were left undiscussed, and were instead played out with the make-believe monsters on an island.  I also liked the fact that, although WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is by no means a kid’s movie, the story was delivered to us as a child's story, in a child's voice.

Gerry: I liked the film, but I found it very flawed and overall a mixed bag.  I would give it a cautious recommendation. The film was definitely beautifully made and I thought it did capture a child's emotions well. However, I found the narrative very disjointed and unsatisfying. I also didn’t like the fact that Max's motivations for leaving the island were revised drastically from those in the book. In the book, Max leaves the island because he misses his family, but in the film it seems as if -- after he's done meddling in the affairs of the monsters -- he returns home as a way of escaping his guilt.

These changes made Max come off as a jerk and made me identify with him less. And -- this may just be a personal thing -- but if I had run away from home after biting my mother, I would not be greeted with a loving hug and warm piece of chocolate cake upon my return.

Marina: I think it would have been too sentimental if Max had been a truly great king, if he had left them with all of their problems resolved.  The "wild things" will always be wild -- untamed, confused, arguing, disjointed creatures.  The creatures were only reflections -- fantastical elaborations of the real world.

In regards to the chocolate cake, I just thought that Keener, the mother, was so relieved to see him home and safe.  Actually, there was no eating in the entire film. (The monsters talked about eating but never actually got around to it). The cake was an image of Max's fulfillment, which came at the film's conclusion.

Gerry: Generally, I dislike it when critics take issue with a movie for not being like its source material.  And I didn't expect a direct adaptation, especially given that the original children’s book is so short.  But in this case, I feel that the changes made in Max's motivation and actions altered the spirit and meaning of the story completely, making the film less powerful than the book.

Marina: That’s an interesting point.  Although I didn't feel that Max left to escape his guilt. It seemed to me that Max finally admitted to himself that he couldn't be king of wild beasts, and that's why he returned home.  I thought of it as more of a self-realization, a willful return to reality.

Gerry: Did you think it was a film children should see?  If I was 6 years old, or younger, I think the film would have given me nightmares for weeks.  It fuses elements of fear, the supernatural and the real very effectively.   When the monsters are threatening to eat Max, the discussion reminded me of a kid trying to talk his way out of a beating from bullies on a playground.

Marina: I also got the sense that the monsters were reenacting a number of Max's memories. The first thing that comes to mind is the snowball fight at the start of the movie, which is later mimicked by the monsters throwing dirt balls at one another.

Gerry: I got that impression, too, and I felt that was the films greatest strength: incorporating reality into the fantastic, instead of making them separate entities.

Marina: Perhaps the way that the monsters felt was really beside the point, since they were first and foremost a part of Max's imagination.

Gerry: Nevertheless, I find myself in agreement with people that say that this isn't a kid’s movie.

Marina: Yes. I’ve been baffled by the number of scathing remarks by parents who took their 6-year-olds to see the film and were surprised to discover how "heavy" it was.  I thought the trailer did a pretty good job of marketing this movie as the sort of "hipster" film it was intended to be... aimed at audiences who are interested in childhood but aren't actually children.  I mean, there's an adult clothing line inspired by the film, for god's sake.

Gerry: That's a perfect way to sum up its intended audience. Also, a quick search on the film's reviews would reveal its dark, even existential, tone.  In that way, it’s a lot like Henry Selick's CORALINE, another great adaptation of a kid's book that deals with serious issues and doesn't resolve them neatly. The film is definitely layered, and those who are intrigued by the film will discover new things at each new viewing.  So, to summarize, I certainly think the film warrants a viewing, but, as you said, it should be viewed by those interested in childhood rather than children themselves. Still I found the film ultimately disappointing, both for its disjointed narrative and its drastic deviation from the book when it comes to Max's motivations.

Marina: I thought that the film was a beautiful way of exploring a lonely child's imagination.  It both simplifies and exaggerates the very real issues faced by a child with a bad temper confronted by divorce, the decline of the environment, and growing up in general.  But rather than address these issues directly, Spike Jonze created a dream-like absurdist poem.