Where the Wild Things Are

Director Spike Jonze and writer Dave Eggers’ adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are is a treasure of thoughtful, moving, and lovely filmmaking. It is exactly the kind of movie so many of us seek out so desperately at the cineplex: personal, emotionally resonant, and aesthetically daring and dazzling.

I wanted to get that out there up front, because much of the conversation about Where the Wild Things Are this week is not going to be about the film’s artistic wonders, but about things like “Is it true to the spirit of Maurice Sendak’s beloved classic?” and “Is it too much of a shoe-gazingly self-indulgent mope made for never-grown-up college hipsters and wayward adults?” and most pressingly, “Is it even appropriate for or interesting to children?”

No, this is not Sendak’s book brought to the screen with surface faithfulness. Instead it’s Jonze’s touching, introspective, personal interpretation of the book. He and Eggers (the talented and sometimes annoyingly earnest author of the memoir A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius) have remained absolutely faithful to and honest about what Where the Wild Things Are means to them. What we have on screen is a powerful meditation on childhood and especially a childhood haunted by loss—in this case an implied divorce and absent father. All the chaotic joy and wild imaginative abandon of Sendak’s book is here, but so is melancholy and the same sort of existential sadness that Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman explored in Being John Malkovich and Adaptation.

(In the past, I’ve held similar takes on both Jonze and Eggers: I admire their vision and graceful talents, appreciate how they can conjure moments of aching beauty out of profound existential sadness, and yet also feel both sometimes get lost gazing into their own navels.)

Right away, the “wildness” of Max (young newcomer Max Records) is not the playful shenanigans of Sendak’s rambunctious kid, but something more complex, anchored in loneliness and loss, driven by anger into desperately loud pleas for attention. Pensive and sensitive one minute, tyrannical and destructive the next, Max is not sent to his room for being too wild—he runs away after verbally and physically assaulting his mother (the always perfect Jonze collaborator Catherine Keener).

When Max arrives via tempest-tossed sea at the island of the Wild Things, he finds beasties that are frightening, to be sure, but they are also worried, angst-ridden, and echo Max’s need to lash out and destroy in order to vent those feelings and get attention. These creatures are big, hulking, and physically intimidating like adults; but like kids they are full of emotions they cannot understand or control.

Among the fine Wild Thing voice cast, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, and Forest Whitaker all do excellent work, but the standouts include Catherine O’Hara as Judith, who cracks wise with some of the film’s funniest lines, but also often transmutes her bitter pessimism into menace. Lauren Ambrose (Six Feet Under) is K.W., the maternal figure and source of soft caring and love. And James Gandolfini voices Carol, the erstwhile leader of the creatures and the one most wracked by petulant jealousy and mood swings born of self-doubt and self-pity. (While Carol and Judith exchange some note-perfect bickering, Carol’s nervous discussion with Max about the fate of the sun is one of my favorite moments in the film.) There’s no doubt Gandolfini’s Carol shares some unsettling traits with his Tony Soprano—both want to be loved and happy and yet also feared and respected, and both can turn on a moment’s notice from friendly to fearsome, betrayed into anger by their own insecurities. These are monsters with some very heavy interpersonal issues.

It’s also easy to take Max Records’ performance for granted—the young boy is so natural, so authentic that you forget you’re watching an actor. You might compare his achievement to that of Henry Thomas 27 years ago in E.T., but what Jonze has coaxed out of Records feels so much more pure, stripped of any Hollywood “showiness” or the preening self-awareness you see in many child actors.

By playing with such grown-up themes, Spike Jonze’s take is not going to please everyone. Yes, this is an art film (or “artsy fartsy” as we’d say back in Iowa) that speaks to adults’ feelings about childhood and growing up, about the life learned and left behind on the playgrounds of memory. Is it for kids? I can’t say for certain. I know my four-year-old nephew would love the first half of the film, when Max’s adventure is filled with action and gleeful destruction. Are the Wild Things who Max encounters too scary for youngsters? I doubt it. The film comes at childhood and children’s play from all angles, including the joyful celebration of a Wild Rumpus and the unintended physical and emotional consequences of a dirt-clod war. Still, there’s little in Jonze’s film that’s any more frightening than what kids are seeing all the time in more mainstream Pixar and Dreamworks' animated movies and other CGI confections.

The difference is that Jonze chose to go naturalistic. Shot in a sun-dappled Australia full of trees, leaves, rocks, dirt, and sand, this is a rough and rugged-looking film, jangling along to the guitar of the Yeah Yeah Yeah’s Karen O. As you’ve no doubt heard, the Wild Things are not intangible CGI creations, but real, large, heavy, shaggy puppets (with CGI faces and expressions added later). When they dance and run and jump and pile on Max they’re really there. That’s one of the more important creative decisions Jonze made—it makes the creatures feel true and present, and their relationship to small, human Max is given more heft. We feel it more deeply when they comfort him—and when they occasionally threaten to eat him. (Their threats are born more out of pique, frustration, and fear than malevolence. Still, there are human bones on the island...)

On the other hand, while Jonze’s characterizations of the Wild Things make Where the Wild Things Are an emotionally and dramatically effective film, in the second half—when those jealousies and bickerings come to dominate the narrative—it’s possible some younger kids will simply get bored. Children have always understood more than adults give them credit for, and I think a lot of this Where the Wild Things Are will resonate with young viewers on levels they might not even be aware of. But it will be interesting to see how young kids hang in there during the scenes that lean more toward group therapy.

At one point Judith says “Happiness isn’t always the best way to be happy,” and Where the Wild Things Are takes that to heart. Jonze and Eggers believe that to be truly happy one must embrace the reality of living and learn to alchemize sadness, loss, and loneliness into something vital and alive and thus somehow joyful on a larger scale. And that’s the journey they give their Max, who learns that despite his King of the Wild Things title, he cannot fix everything and everyone, cannot keep them all together. If that feels like a lot to ask of a “kids'” book and too much to put into a “kids'” film, then so be it; maybe this isn't a kids' film, but simply a great film.

I sympathize with parents struggling to determine if Jonze’s film is right for their young ones, but ultimately you have to take and appreciate Where the Wild Things Are on its own terms. It may not be the adaptation everyone expected or wanted, but in its rich idiosyncrasies and honest creative choices, this movie is to be applauded and embraced as a very successful personal statement and honest—sometimes heart-breaking—exploration.

It’s a miracle and a marvel that Jonze’s film even exists in theaters, let alone that it's so cinematically beautiful and emotionally effective. Where the Wild Things Are didn’t change my life, it isn’t the greatest film of the year, but it is something maybe more lasting and true—a film that, like the book it honors, I think many of us will be cherishing for a very long time.

Comments

[peter, minneapolis]

The best review of this movie I've read yet.

WTWTA does feel like a personal interpretation of the story by somebody who really loves the original, but nothing about the movie feels forced. And even knowing the faces were CG, I am still amazed at how seamless & alive the creatures looked.

My gut tells me that kids will be scared by the creatures at first, but after the initial shock, they're actually pretty similar in size/scariness to Sweetums (from the Muppet Show) -- albeit with bigger teeth.

Again, good review, good movie, great mix of live action & CGI -- worth the ten bucks (or whatever it costs where you are)!

[Tory Brecht]

Nice job Locke.

One thing I would note, however, is that I'm not so certain Sendak's book doesn't also have a tinge of melancholy and sadness in it.

It may not be spelled out in words, but definitely in the illustrations.

[Locke Peterseim]

Thanks, Tory and Peter!

Peter, I love your observation about "nothing about the movie feels forced." I didn't get much into Jonze's actual directorial style, but this is a masterfully directed film in how it conveys so much without, as you note, ever seeming like its trying too hard.

And yes, Tory, I agree -- in fact, there was a line to that effect in my first draft of this review and I simply lopped it out for length. And yes, Jonze certainly takes some of Sendak's underlying melancholy and pulls it up front and center.

[Isaac]

Good look and feel to the movie. I really enjoyed watching it..... However....
I felt that the movie was a bit pretentious. To much metaphorical mombo jumbo. It was almost like an Indie movie with a huge budget. Yes i know its hard to take a book you can read in less than 5 mins and turn it into a 90 mins feature but come on. Save it for Sundance so all the scarf wearing, chai drinking, horned rimmed glasses wearing snobs would have a great time.
Just my opinion.... but go watch it and make your own

[Trish Chun]

My kids and I have been excited to see this since we glimpsed the frist trailer many months ago, so I read with dismay other reviews that suggested the movie was "not for kids". Thanks for spelling out so clearly why that is. Sounds like it's worth the risk.

[Nick]

I'm glad they decided to go with costumes over complete CGI.

[Melissa Dessert]

I personally really enjoyed the movie. I do however regret taking my 6yr. old daughter. I think the movie was a bit scary and deep. Several times she started to cry and wanted to leave. I think the 9 and up is a little more appropriate.

[Lauren]

My husband & I took our 8-year old daughter who was begging to see this movie. Since going, all my friends are asking if they should take their children and I say absolutely yes. My daughter loved it & she totally got it (although she is a mature 8-yr. old). She felt every emotion & did cry several times throughout the movie but...so did my husband. I wasn't sure about this film when it started (I wanted to strangle that kid) and I kept thinking what the heck is going on here, but somewhere along the way, I caught on and loved it. Great, great movie, and I would love to see it again.

[Shannon]

I took my 6yr old daughter to see this for her birthday this weekend. She had been looking forward to it since she saw the previews (she told me about the movie before I knew it was coming out). She was so excited about it. I do believe the movie was a little deep for her. She enjoyed the characters but she was a little bored with the movie.she cant stop talking about the bird....lol. She seemed to lose interest somewhat. I do have to say that i really enjoyed the movie though. I do think this is really geared toward the older children and adults who grew up with the book. Luckily she still loves the book though.

[Mom2Ky]

I was bored and thought it was too melancholy for kids. I'm glad I didn't take my 7-year old to it. Too much violence and anger. I'll stick with Disney.

[Maribel Grayson]

My husband and I took our 3 year old daughter and 5 year old son. Neither one was scared and my son loved the fighting scene very much. He laughed and laughed and said that was his favorite part of the movie. It was a good movie but a little too dark for my taste. Although we all enjoyed it, this is not a movie that we can hardly wait to see again.

[sheryl]

I was actually VERY disappointed in the movie. I took four of my children and the only one that liked it was my 10 year old. I thought it was very slow moving and didn't keep my other kids' attention, let alone mine. I would not recommend to anyone.

[Annette Wood]

I look my 4-yr old grandson for his birthday and he loved the movie. I was bored and scared, too loud!! I think my grandson was eeking out a tear when Max was leaving the Island of Wild Things but he denied it. He certainly asked a lot of questions during the movie. I can't believe how desensitized kids are to "fear" and that underlying sense that Max could be eaten at any time is scary and should invoke some fear but 4 year olds probably miss that like my grandson did.
I'm going for the book!

[Samantha K]

if i had watched WTWTA as a child, i would have either been bored out of my mind or disturbed; either way, I'm baffled as to why they would disguise this movie as something that would appeal to children

[Livia]

LOL, I'm waiting for rent-I'm not wasting the money if it's boring and a questioning movie. It looks a little stupid to me but once again you gotta see the movie before you judge the film.

OMG, I saw many of previews\reviews of this movie but it seems like at least a decent movie. Hoping\crossing my fingers that Redbox gets this movie and then I will rent it for a dollar plus tax and that's way better than spending the money at the theatre. I will be seeing it soon.