by Sam Juliano
While I have never warmed to the cinema of Spike Jonze, whose mind puzzles have developed more than a cult following over the years, I must say this latest failure was somewhat of a surprise, since the source material here is perhaps the most beloved Caldecott Medal winner in history. Maurice Sendak’s expressionistic story centering around the fantasies of an eight-year-old boy named Max, who has a disinterested sister, an occupied mother, and an often-MIA father. The book is comprised of 37 pages and nine sentences, and would immediately provide a huge challenge for any filmmaker hoping to go further than the cinematic ‘tone poem’ that this film at least in some measure tries to achieve.
Sendak’s story, which spurs the dark recesses of the imagination like few picture books have makes equally creative use of the English language and alliteration. Max’s anger in fact makes him believe he is all-powerful and can rule the world, until reality sets in and he realizes he’s in a faraway place, where he can never earn th etrue love he left behind. Dressed up in a ubiquitous wolf-suit, Max chases the dog with a fork and growls at his Mom, who irate herself calls him a “Wild Thing” to which Max shouts back “I’ll eat you up!” a statement that wins him supperless banishment to his room. There Max fantasizes that his bedroom turns into a magical setting with a wild forest and a little boat in the ocean.
Jonze and his co-screenwriter the novelist Dave Eggers have changed that opening around a bit, intimating at first that his parents are in the midst of a divorce, exaserbating the boy’s own emotional issues. He attempts to have his sister engage in a snowball fight with her friends, but they instead detroy the igloo he built. The boy breaks down, and it’s an affecting sequence that hits home with the audience. The young actor Max Records delivers an arresting performance throughout the film, successfully conveying wide-eyed innocence and earthiness with dazzling charisma. Shortly after this Max runs out the front door after his mother brings home her latest date, and he embarks on the wonderous journey, which comprises the entire duration of Sendak’s landmark picture book. Max crests on a distant island, which is home of the ‘Wild Things’ a band of peculiar, rather hideous creatures, whose leader’s name is “Carol.” (voiced by James Gandolfini) Carol cannot accept that one member is leaving the pack, and he later decides to promote the young boy Max to king after hearing the wild stories the boy tells about being ‘king of the vikings.’ Before this change of heart the creatures were planning to eat Max. Almost typically and inevitably, the arsenal of monsters, all embodying to one degree or another ‘human’ characteristics, contain one that seeks attention, one who never says anything, another who always plays devil’s advocate, another who is calm and rational, and yet another who always thinks the worst. Some distingusihed voices are supplied here by Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Catherine O’Hara, Michael Berry Jr. and Paul Dano.
From a visual standpoint the film scores some points, especially with Lance Acord’s cinematography. Acord, a Jonze alumni, who worked with the director on Being John Malkovich and Adaptation takes full advantage of Australian locations, creating other-worldly locations from the striking seashore and sand dune settings, and the visual tapestry is enhanced greatly by Jim Henson’s Creatures Shop, which succeeds in replicating the simultaneously menacing and witty illustrations of Sendak, who purportedly supervised the page-to-screen transciption in large measure. I rather liked the pop/rock score by Karen and Carter Burwell, especially the engaging use of the children’s chorus who make one infectious number come to life twice during the film’s duration.
But with a marked dearth of any mission to propel the story narratively and a mundane, repetitive screenplay, Where the Wild Things Are falls far short of establishing itself as a memorable Caldecott picture book transference to screen, much less a children’s film to rank with the best in this genre. It’s not without some impressive components, but it’s clearly a case where the whole isn’t nearly as successful as some of the parts.
Final Rating: ** 1/2 (of five)
Note: I saw ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ weeks ago, but until now was unable to complete the brief review on display here due to a number of circumstances. Lucille thought the film was OK, but of the five kids, only seven-year-old Jeremy seemed to enjoy it. We watched the film twice over successive days at the brand new multiplex in Secaucus, New Jersey, where admission for the first week was free.
Way to state your case Sam! I wonder how many bloggers will remember this ‘film of the week’ kind of thing at the end of the year? Just goes to show you again that without a successful screenplay it’s hard to warm up to a film regardless of how it may look. Great review.
Well Joe, I would venture to speculate the obvious, which Daniel elaborates on later down this thread. Those who were really captivated won’t easily for get the film, and it is sure to make at least a few ten-best list at the end of next month. Those who feel the way I do won’t consider it remotely.
I’m on your side. This is a one-note movies that wears thin after the boy arrives at the island. I liked the early segments when the boy was at home, but once the creatures start talking it’s all downhill. But I do like Jonze’s prior work.
Thanks Fred, and nice to see you here again. I guess this is a case where we are looking at a film with similar perspective.
Boy, talk about disheartening. If there was one film I was looking forward to seeing this year… My logic should. Have told me this would fail ultimately. The bar that Sendak raised with that magical book decades ago is pretty high. The risks a filmmaker, any filmmaker, runs adapting a piece that is this beloved must be immense. I’ve loved Sendak’s book since I was a child and I know that I have personally passed its magic on to my youngest brother (13 years my junior) and two inquisitive nephews. Sometimes things should be left well enough alone and, after your wonderful essay, it seems that WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is just such a book. Shame.
Many thanks Dennis. The best children’s film this year is Pixar’s UP, which like the Jonze film is also aimed at adults.
Excellent review, Sam. I continue to contend that this is a movie that is in many ways impossible to either defend or criticize, primarily because it as an adaptation of so many people’s childhood imaginations (as much if not more so than the actual book). Some people can truthfully say this is a turgid and bleak film and not at all what they remember about the book and their experience with it, and others can truthfully say that this is the greatest adaptation of any children’s book, and it’s a brilliant work of art that brings new life to a well-worn story. I’ve heard both opinions, and both are right – for those people.
Personally I, like Sam, remember this to have been a little more light-hearted. But that was MY experience growing up, and obviously not Jonze’s or others.
So essentially everybody has to agree to disagree, right?
Fantastic response here Daniel, and yes there is a valid argument for both points of view. I remember you had said at LIC that you thought this one managed a ground rule double, rather than a homer, which is a perfect point of comparison. I agree that the picture book was infinitely more “light-hearted.”
Ha, I forgot about that analogy, Sam. I should take it back to use for my write-up on Wild Things, whenever that happens.
It was a swing for the fences but missed on an emotional level. The ground rule double was scored because the visuals are really spectacular – that can hardly be argued, and it’s the one point you concede here.
Indeed Daniel, it missed emotionally but granted from a visual standpoint it was striking. I look forward to an essay here from you.
BTW Dan, as I know you are the documentary guy on the net, I wanted to report to you that last night at the Film Forum I saw what for me is the best documentary of the year, Peter Greenaway’s REMBRANDT’S J’ACCUSE. This deserves a full review. A real stunner.
I just looked up the Greenaway film, Sam – thanks for the heads up. It sounds fascinating for art history enthusiasts and educationally engaging for the rest of us. I’ll keep an eye out for it for sure.
Thanks for the reminder about the Greenaway film. I need to try and find that here. I also need to watch his recent (similarly themed) ‘Nightwatching’ now that it’s received proper dvd release.
Thanks again Dan for the response. I forced myself to attend the 10:00 P.M. show last night (even though it was Election Day here in NJ and the results just started coming in) as it was the final screening on the final day of the film’s run at the Film Forum. It is unclear if it will move to another location at this point. Perhaps it will surface in Minny, where art cinema always seems to flourish.
Jamie: This documentary is actually about NIGHTWATCHING!
Excellent review Sam. Glad to see you back writing reviews. I know you were down on this one and I expected this dismissal, especially what you think of Jonze.
Go Yanks.
Thanks Frank. I hope to get up a concert reviews and perhaps reviews on ANTI CHRIST and the Peter Greenaway documentary before the weekend is up.
I do hope the Yanks can end it tonight and avoid a game 7.
A few days ago someone said that the site is back to normal with the Monday Morning Diary. Nope, after all the hassle and traumas Sam’s gone through only now, with a return to review writing, are things back to normal. I haven’t seen the film and reports aren’t marvellous, but at least he’s come back with a bang.
Just as well, I’ve been hit with a stomach and head bug and spent much of the afternoon in bed, and people kepp telling me it’s Swine Flu. Well, if you’re after a swine…present.
You’ll be OK Allan,, just rest up. No swine flu reports have yet come out of the UK methinks. Thanks for the compliments, much appreciated.
……..It seems like your final judgement is harsher than what you say about the film peacemeal. You liked the main actor, you though it looked great and had a fine score, and used locations well. It failed on the story, right?………
Precisely Frank, the storytelling doomed it.
Maybe I’m reading incorrectly, but I didn’t really like the line in your review that states:
“Shortly after this Max runs out the front door after his mother brings home her latest date”
This some how assumes that the mother has had various dates, and therefore unjustly ignores her children. Although a main message in the movie is about how children should realize how difficult it is to be a parent, I think this scene wasn’t very fair to the mother character. She probably deserved that alone time, if anything.
Other than that, I agree with your review. I found the script tedious and odd – just weak in general. The dialogue was cloying at times, especially from the wild thing characters. After reading You Shall Know Our Velocity by Dave Eggars and being disappointed, seeing this film is just bringing my dislike for his work up another notch.
Well, one of the site’s “Four” Davids has again contributed an excellent response (David Van Popper, David Noack, Dave Hicks and David Schleicher make that name the most prolific at the site! Thank you fine gentlemen!) Perhaps I was too tough on her, and this is what happens when you are too cynical about motives in a film you have issues with. But your domino effect scenario makes sense David.
I haven’t read the Eggars book, but I hear you loud and clear, and what can I say except that I completely agree with you, and as always appreciate your visists here which are a treat.
It’s David Van Poppel who wrote that excellent response (smiles), and thanks a lot Sam! I love your site.
As I wrote two weeks ago Sam, Sue and I were of the same opinion when we wrote this on your Monday Morning Diary:
Sam, Sue and I saw “Where the Wild Things Are” on Sunday in Paramus (I didn’t know there was a free deal down at that new theatre!) and we completely agree with you. This was a dull, even trite and overlong film that didn’t even begin to convey the magic of Sendak’s book. Yes, the kid was fine, but the dialogue was forgettable. The film was narratively a dead-end street.
My position is unchanged.