Current Conditions
56°F - P/SUNNY
Unique film possesses adult sensibility
Sunday News
Oct 18, 2009 00:16 EST
By MICHAEL LONG, Entertainment Editor

Media Center

Related Topics

Related Stories

Bookmark and Share
"Where the Wild Things Are," director Spike Jonze's big-screen reimagining of Maurice Sendak's classic children's tale, doesn't fit neatly into a genre.

It's certainly not a coming-of-age story, because the young protagonist, Max, grows in neither years nor stature, and only marginally increases his understanding of the world around him during his adventures with the lumbering, gnarly beasties who populate his brain.

If anything, "Wild Things" is a "becoming an age" story. Jonze, with the help of hep new auteur Dave Eggers, slips inside the nappy old wolf suit of a willful 9-year-old boy — played here with superb sensitivity and genuine child ardor by Max Records — and preserves that moment in a boy's life when, armed only with budding aggression and an indomitably playful spirit, he launches an attack on the expectations of a fast-approaching adolescence.

There's nothing in this film that a scabby-kneed third-grader won't understand on a guttural level, yet the filmmakers set the prevailing vibe at an adult frequency. Eggers, in describing the writing process for "Wild Things," has repeatedly referred to his job as "refanging" the book, and there's plenty of bite in the story.

Max lives in a broken home. He shares a strong love connection with his hardworking mother (a serious, stellar Catherine Keener) but wants for male guidance and companionship. Dad lives elsewhere, and mom's boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo) is not a welcome addition. When Max's frustrations inevitably boil over, he bolts out of his house, into the streets, through a hole in a backyard fence, into some scrubby woods and, magically, into the land of the Wild Things.

The unruly cast of Jim Henson Creature Shop characters he meets there, named with the comic efficiency of a child, includes Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini), Alexander (Paul Dano), Judith (Catherine O'Hara), Ira (Forest Whitaker), the Bull (Michael Berry Jr.), Douglas (Chris Cooper) and KW (Lauren Ambrose).

During Max's famously wild rumpus with this hairy band of overgrown monster children, he gradually recognizes in his companions the emotions and behaviors that complicate his own life. Carol, the self-appointed leader of the bunch, closely mimics Max in his desire to create a world where "only the things we want to happen, happen." (The sensitive, brash Carol represents a well-executed break from type for Gandolfini, though it's hard to think of the voice of a gargantuan Muppet as a breakout role.)

Carol dubs Max king of the Wild Things, and in short order the crown weighs heavily upon his brow. Charged with maintaining the happiness of his new companions, Max, who in life wants no less than to feel loved and content, learns how difficult it can be to execute that mandate in a family, even an imaginary one.

Max carries that lesson with him as he makes the journey across worlds, back through the hole in the fence, up his street, through the front door and into the kitchen, where a worried mother has been keeping his dinner warm.

In the spectrum of Spike Jonze films ("Being John Malkovich," "Adaptation"), "Where the Wild Things Are," which opened for press types Tuesday at the Ritz East in Philadelphia and hit theaters nationwide Friday, falls on the more approachable end, but like the others, it bears the director's unmistakable mark: a sense of uncertainty about life and where it could take us.

That's a lot to read into a children's book, but Sendak handpicked Jonze to do it, and the author appears to be pleased with his choice. In a Warner Bros. interview he said: "What flows through the whole thing is such a strange feeling. I've never seen a movie that looked or felt like this. ... The film has an entire emotional, spiritual, visual life which is as valid as the book."

Agreed.

 



Michael Long welcomes e-mail at mlong@lnpnews.com.

 


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 9 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
It's not "dark" in the sense that it is terribly violent, but it is psychologically complex and nuanced (more so than your typical kids film). Plus, it's a kid film without a single fart joke or someone being hit in the nards.

I don't think today's children can handle it.
Fizz
QUOTE (Fizz @ Oct 19 2009, 03:43 PM)
It's not "dark" in the sense that it is terribly violent, but it is psychologically complex and nuanced (more so than your typical kids film). Plus, it's a kid film without a single fart joke or someone being hit in the nards.

I don't think today's children can handle it.

I guess thats why i'm confused. Because the book was the same way, or at least thats how i remember it. It didn't have me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. It was just a very good book. Not all great kids books were puppies and kittens and soft little characters. I guess parents today are just sheltering there kids too much?
Heck i remember growing up and watching the first Transformers Movie(animated). They killed off the main character. I mean talk about a shock, and I survived.
LancNewbie
QUOTE (LancNewbie @ Oct 19 2009, 02:46 PM)
I guess thats why i'm confused. Because the book was the same way, or at least thats how i remember it. It didn't have me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. It was just a very good book. Not all great kids books were puppies and kittens and soft little characters. I guess parents today are just sheltering there kids too much?
Heck i remember growing up and watching the first Transformers Movie(animated). They killed off the main character. I mean talk about a shock, and I survived.


I'm thinking along these lines, too. I mean, the reviews I read said that h*ll, d*mn, and another "milder" curse word were used once a piece. There is some violence, but no blood and gore. Compare this to some of the Star Wars or Indiana Jones films that were originally rated PG and this film is tame. I might agree it's not appropriate for a 3-year old, but then again, shouldn't they pretty much only be seeing G-rated films at that age?
BeingReal
it is one thing when the violence is tom and jerry or spongebob; a cartoon, clearly make-believe, where there are no consequences. but when the monsters are in a real world situation with real human vocabularies and movements and sand comes pouring out of the wound where a bird has his wing ripped out (it is then later replaced with a bent stick) and a dirt clod fight leads to nothing more than gashes and hurt feelings, it is more unsettleing.

while the original book was 'dark' in comparrison to other children's books it was just that, a book. in that situation, a child can create his/her own version of reality in their mind based on their comfort level. in a film, that reality is thrust upon the child. and if even a 12-year old calls it disturbing, then you know something is up. by all means, see the film as an adult. as i said, it is cinematically brilliant. but children...forget it.

i remember pleanty of books as a child that were not all daisies and moonbeams, (the great ezra jack keats comes to mind) but a parent's job is to slowly allow the realities of the world to enter their childrens' lives in a way that can be controlled, discussed, and understood. im not insinuating that a five year old seeing this film will be scarred emotionally, but there are few worse feelings a parent has than realizing that they put something into their child's brain that they were clearly unprepared for.

but don't take my word for it. maybe parents should go see the film first and decide if its right for their kids. if you take in both of them as matinees and sneak in snacks its not so bad on the wallet.
CoolJohnny
QUOTE (CoolJohnny @ Oct 19 2009, 07:21 PM)
it is one thing when the violence is tom and jerry or spongebob; a cartoon, clearly make-believe, where there are no consequences. but when the monsters are in a real world situation with real human vocabularies and movements and sand comes pouring out of the wound where a bird has his wing ripped out (it is then later replaced with a bent stick) and a dirt clod fight leads to nothing more than gashes and hurt feelings, it is more unsettleing.

while the original book was 'dark' in comparrison to other children's books it was just that, a book. in that situation, a child can create his/her own version of reality in their mind based on their comfort level. in a film, that reality is thrust upon the child. and if even a 12-year old calls it disturbing, then you know something is up. by all means, see the film as an adult. as i said, it is cinematically brilliant. but children...forget it.

i remember pleanty of books as a child that were not all daisies and moonbeams, (the great ezra jack keats comes to mind) but a parent's job is to slowly allow the realities of the world to enter their childrens' lives in a way that can be controlled, discussed, and understood. im not insinuating that a five year old seeing this film will be scarred emotionally, but there are few worse feelings a parent has than realizing that they put something into their child's brain that they were clearly unprepared for.

but don't take my word for it. maybe parents should go see the film first and decide if its right for their kids. if you take in both of them as matinees and sneak in snacks its not so bad on the wallet.


Every dirt clod and snowball fight I ever had as a kid usually ended up like this...

Being a kid sucks. The film did a good job of getting that across. It's not a movie for very young children. I'd say any kid under 6 or 7 will be bored.
Fizz
Top Ads