Oct
18
2009
Where the Wild Things Are
Reviewed in World Magazine. An excerpt:
With dark humor and some phenomenal performances . . . [director Spike] Jonze takes the bare bones of [Maurice] Sendak’s story and fills in the empty space with shadows of melancholy. . . .
If the film fails, it is in its brilliant marketing campaign. What Jonze has created is a quiet but strangely moving film that viewers will ponder for hours and perhaps days after. Still, I couldn’t help feeling a little disappointed that I did not get the innocent adventure—the wild rumpus, if you will—promised in that spectacular trailer.
7 Comments
quote from one of my friend’s 6 year old after seeing it: “it was the horriblest movie ever”. I haven’t seen it so I can’t speak for myself.
I’m wondering if the innocent adventure is missing because the film was directed/produced by one who is far from an innocent adventurer? Just wondering.
I saw this movie with my wife and 2 kids on Saturday. It’s very well done from a purely cinematic perspective, but it leaves you with a very melancholy feeling, because while it vividly portrays the frustrations of a mixed up, disrespectful, angry kid, it never comes to any meaningful resolution. Incredibly hurtful and disrespectful things are said and done by Max and several of the other characters, but never are the wrongs acknowledged or confessed. Never is forgiveness sought and granted. The boy blows up at his mother, has this wild experience, comes home, and the mom just smiles at him and gives him cake. No apologies. No instruction. No discipline. No real reconciliation. What could have been a very meaningful lesson in how to resolve relational conflict and inner turmoil ended up being just a vividly painful portrayal of the untamed sin nature.
I believe the lack of resolution was intentional. One of the saddest parts of the movie comes when the Wild Things discover Max isn’t really a king and one of them declares, “There is no such thing as a king.” By that point in the film, I wanted to shout at the screen, “There is a King! He’s just not a little boy. Little kids don’t fix the problems of the world, but the King can!”
It is a commentary on postmodern atheism– we are here on our own and must do the best we can with what we have, because it’s all we’ve got. I believe the innocent rumpus we all loved as children was us projecting our innocence into the story; the most frustrating thing for me is that the movie was produced by the author, Maurice Sendak, which implies he approved of the dark interpretation of his work. This interview with Sendak explains a lot of that: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/arts/design/10sendak.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
This also proves that authorial intent is key to interpretation of any piece of literature– the innocence of the rumpus was only in the mind of the reader.
It was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
“Rumpus?” That’s the word my wife teaches our kids to use for one’s rear end.
if you look at the biography of the author… somethin tells you there is something weird about this book.
read this article as well..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/arts/design/10sendak.html?_r=1
“A gay artist in New York is not exactly uncommon, but Mr. Sendak said that the idea of a gay man writing children books would have hurt his career when he was in his 20s and 30s.”