October 17, 2009 12:28 PM
Where the Wild Things Are - a big disappointment
I saw Where the Wild Things Are last night with 4 of my kids 16-24 - Matt, Zach, Sophia (home from college this weekend - yay!), Jonny, Maddy and Maddy's friend who just returned home from two years in China (yay!)
You all know I am a big fan of Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are
While I couldn't imagine stretching that message - 48 pages, 338 words and great pictures - into a full-length movie, I was anticipating some pleasant surprises. And my kids were eager to see it, so I tagged along with them last night - opening night.
I'm afraid we were very disappointed. For a movie with such glorious production values, I found much of the movie tedious and dull. Parts were pretentious, straining at Jungian symbolism and just too heavy handed in driving home the message of the wild things being part of Max's psyche.
While much has been made of Spike Jonze innovative directing style, I just felt like he didn't have enough respect for his audience - as though if he didn't beat us over the head with the symbolism we might miss it.
Jungian? Symbolism? You may be wondering what is going on since we are discussing a movie many assume is aimed at children.
It is not. Parents need to be very clear about this - this is movie aimed at bringing adults back to an understanding of the difficulties of childhood. There are parts that are way too scary and traumatic - in my opinion - for children under 8.
The effects are awesome, the acting - Max and his mother - poignant and real, and the soundtrack exquisite. Still, Matt (24) and I looked at each other as the move was winding down and I saw he felt the same way as I did, leading me to remark that it was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen.
While WTWTA has been getting glowing reviews in the elite media, it left me cold and bored. I just don't think it's worth the price of admission.
I realize I'm going against the flow here - though it's only 69% at Rotten Tomatoes. And I think everyone really wanted to like it.
Very disappointing.
Posted in Books, Movies | Permalink
Comments
Thanks for the review momma. I was looking forward to see it with my boys, but I think I'm going to wait. I trust your review more than anyone else's. Maybe I'll watch it by myself when it comes out on DVD.
Posted by: LadyLovas | October 17, 2009 5:08 PM
I think I have to disagree, but 5 minutes after the movie, I was in definite agreement with you. As I was walking out of the theater, I thought to myself "there has to be more to this movie than it seemed." I think the movie incorporated a lot of symbolism, and particular aspects throughout the movie made me appreciate the movie more.
The biggest question that audiences may have is, "did he really go to the island or was he imagining it?" If you trace back to the beginning 5 minutes or so in the movie, you see that Max created a twig-figure dome shaped capsule where 2 lego guys were just sitting in, and the round replica planet that said "to the owner of the world" or something around that nature. The island was "his world" and it is evident that there were too many parallel references with his life in the island which suggests he was imagining the whole ordeal.
Of course some of you may say that it was obvious that he was imagining everything. However, it's worth noting that there were prevalent references to circles (ie. the globe, the igloo with the hole in it, Ira punching holes into trees for no apparent reason, the round huts...etc). The round references refer to escaping reality. And the dirtball fight is highly reminiscent to the snowball fight early on in the movie. The characters negligently use this "war" to escape from the sadness inhabiting their worlds, and to vent. Well, just as the goat was hurt by this escape, Max was hurt too early on in the movie. The key thing to notice at this point when Max and the Goat talk is that the Goat represents Max's feelings when his sister wouldn't listen to him or show him any attention. Another thing to notice is Max's realization of understanding how "escaping" hurts others (running away from home). Spike Jonez brought out this point rather creatively at this juncture of the movie.
There are a lot of symbolism used throughout the movie, but the last and most notable use of symbolism was when the Wild Things were comprehending the sqawking owls. Remember that KW referred to them as being all wise, and very smart. Well, the owls represented "reason." Carol and Max (and notice that Carol=Max in the movie) couldn't comprehend what the owls were saying, and that's because they were the only 2 characters that didn't use reasoning to solve their internal and external conflicts.
After accounting for the symbolism used by Jonez, the movie is rather magnificent. However, viewing this movie without approaching the experience outside of the box makes this movie very dry. Any inputs?
[David, I appreciate your making the connections. I saw them, but still think the movie strained too hard to make them - talking down to the audience and really losing the sense of childlike wonder I would rather have seen.
But film is a very subjective experience and I respect other points of view. this is just mine.]
Posted by: David | October 17, 2009 11:12 PM
i totally got the symbolism,
but still was so disappointed - i, too, posted about it on my site.
love your blog here, btw!
Posted by: pedaling | October 18, 2009 12:19 AM
Too bad Hollywood can't just make a children's movie, with a children's story or characters, just for the sake of making one. Go ahead and tell us that it is intended for children or adults. I am reluctant and cautious about seeing movies in the theater with my children because of this.
Posted by: A Mac and a Mug o 'Joe | October 18, 2009 12:49 PM
Barbara,
I'm eleven years old and, from my perspective, you seemed to have misunderstood the movie. While, I do agree that it's not for kids under the age of 8, the movie is rated PG which means it requires parental guidance. And I think with the right guidance there is a lot for children to learn about their emotions and the emotions of people around them, as well as family relationships. As for the movie being disappointing and boring, I found it to be just the opposite. I thought it was moving and interesting, especially the symbolism. Days after seeing the film, I was still realizing different aspects of the symbolism. It is the sort of movie/story that if you keep thinking about it and going deeper more symbolism and life lessons seem to emerge. Which seems like a really great thing for parents to be able to discuss with their children. These sort of movies are scarce. I wish there were more. I think our society could really use them. I highly recommend the movie.
-Isabella
PS There were quite a lot of happy parts on the
Posted by: Isabella Cibelli | October 21, 2009 4:25 PM
http://marcogennuso.blogspot.com/2009/10/study-of-wild-things.html
The link above is a very well written review on this film, and I am going to have to disagree with entirely in saying that Where The Wild Things Are was a disappointment. This movie was EXCELLENT, it had substance, it provoked thought and emotion, and as opposed to most of the rubbish Hollywood pushes our way. This film is one a younger generation will look back on one day and say, "oh!" We will all have to watch this movie more than once in order to appreciate all of the symbolism and messages it has to offer. As a viewer I did not feel "unappreciated" to the point where the director beat me over the head with his message, on the other hand, I was impressed with how many different ways reoccurring themes came back into the story, many of which were far more subtle than you indicated. I can understand that certain young children may find certain scenes frightening, however it is after all a movie about monsters; physical and figurative. We all knew that going into it. Many children on the other hand, I would even dare say most could at the very least connect/ relate to Max, but most of what I would like to say is written in the link above. I am very sorry that you were disappointed by this film!
[The review is, indeed, excellent and thorough. Art is a subjective thing and WTWTA definitely has some strong fans. If you are one of them, you will really enjoy the review "Holden Caulfield" (Catcher in the Rye) recommends]
Posted by: Holden Caulfield | October 31, 2009 3:58 AM
I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you. I'm 16 and my older sister is 26. We went to see this movie because of our lack of anything else to do on a Saturday night, and found ourselves reaching out for each other's hands in the dark, sniffling as quiet as we could. It may just be because we've had not-so-great childhoods, and this movie paralleled that, or because we too have each ran away from home out of frustration and irrational anger, but when the end credits rolled up, and the lights faded back on, we turned to each other immediately and said we needed to own this movie as soon as it came out.
We talked for at least two hours about how all the wild things represented the various emotions Max, and every other child in the world, goes through. Throughout the movie, I would relate certain scenes to my own life. The scene where Max yells at his mother, saying it's not his fault he's out of control and when he runs outside to begin the adventure, it reminded me of all the times my own mom would tell me I was acting unacceptable and, seeing how I was still a child, I couldn't put into words exactly how I was feeling; I couldn't tell her how unhappy I was with her and how she was being unacceptable, so I would kick and scream and yell the worst thing I could so she could be hurt like me.
Also, when Judith tells Max that he shouldn't be allowed to get upset right back at her when she's upset brought me to tears again. Isn't that what every kid thinks? Hey,Mom, I'm feeling anxious and frustrated, and I can't express my feelings in the most appropriate way, but you should be able to because you hold a higher power than me. And that if "I decide to eat you up, you'd better let me," because you're supposed to make things better, that's why you're here, right?
It made me think about my childhood, and my future kid's lives, and how no one really understands how hard it is to be little.
I agree, it's not a kids movie, but it never blatantly said it was. It was you who assumed that, because it's based on a kids book, it would be a movie created for a young audience. A small child might be able to sit through it because of the pure imagination it involves, but just because it's rated PG doesn't mean its automatically kid friendly.
Posted by: Melissa | November 7, 2009 11:47 PM
Melissa,
I totally agree with you. Did you read my comment?
Isabella
Posted by: Isabella Cibelli | December 6, 2009 12:08 AM
My friend and I are 14 when we went to see this and I didn't see any symbolism what so ever but I am going to buy this movie for one reason, it was SO funny, I was crying from laughing so hard. It was almost so dumb it was funny like when that one creature hit the owls and she was like "they like it when I do that".
Posted by: Merritt | June 3, 2010 5:09 PM
