Directed by Spike Jonze.
Where the Wild Things Are is a film for all ages, but not in the same way as something like Toy Story. It’s an emotional film that more adults may identify with than kids.
Max (Max Records) is a young boy who runs away after having a fight with his mother (Catherine Keener). Through his imagination, he ends up on an island and meets the giant creatures known as the wild things. They decide to make him king because he convinces them he has special powers and can make everything perfect. After a while, it becomes apparent that Max doesn’t have special powers and the wild things return to their unhappy state. Max tries to make amends and “travels” back home.
There are no adults in Max’s imagination. The wild things act how Max would act, which is the true genius of the film. Everyone wants to be true friends and do everything together. They run around. They destroy things. They build a fortress. And they have dirt clod fights. The strained relationship between Carol (James Gandolfini) and KW (Lauren Ambrose) is possibly reflective of Max’s parents divorce, but in a much less mature way. I also suspect “downer” wild thing Judith (Catherine O’Hara) in some way represents Max’s older sister.
I was thrilled to see the Jim Henson Creature Shop do the costumes. I’ve always been a fan of Jim Henson, and think the creatures really capture the spirit of his work. It’s too bad the heads were CGI, but logistically it seems there was nothing else that could be done.
Speaking of Henson, in many ways Where the Wild Things Are is similar to Labyrinth. There is a recurring theme of friendship and betrayal. And instead of songs by David Bowie, we get songs by Karen O (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs). But there is no clear cut divide between good and evil in WTWTA. Is it possible that Max is both the protagonist and the antagonist?
Spike Jonze does a great job capturing the emotions and imagination of a child (and Max Records is great as Max). In some ways it brings me back to my own childhood. My mother used to type up my stories as I told them to her. I once had a huge meltdown after someone called me names. And I ran out of the house and went for a long walk before coming back. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thought of their childhood while watching this movie. I’m thinking that Where the Wild Things Are will become one of my favorites to be added to classics like Princess Bride and Labyrinth that I will enjoy watching for years to come.
Agreed on all of the above except that I think the CGI faces worked extremely well. I only really noticed them (and was therefore reminded of it) once or twice.
I do think the movie is weak in the area of story though. I know some folks have already excused that by saying it’s a beautiful tone poem or some such shit, but there’s a reason the original book is like six pages long with only nine sentences or something. Max’s lesson is a simple one. The movie has to keep hitting us over the head with just how darn difficult it is to be a family… over and over again… just to justify a feature film length.
But that last shot of Max and his mother at the table is beautiful.
I was thinking about this more over lunch and found I have more to say (I knew that writing the review – but it took several hours to write as much as I had).
I really think the point about all the characters acting like kids is worth reiterating. Think about something like Toy Story where the toys are more adult-like. They sometimes make jokes that only adults understand, roll their eyes, etc.
The wild things are much more child-like, dispite their stature. Everything they do is childish, such as their temper tantrums, and saying things like “I don’t want to play anymore”. It’s hard for me to think of another kid’s film that is truly through the eyes of a child.
Ebert made a comment in his review that because each of the wild things were unique, he wondered how they “reproduce their species”. I think he’s missing the point. When Max is imagining the wild things, he doesn’t think of the details. The characters don’t really have a back story, or even a future.
Think about Max’s vampire story from the beginning. His imagination of the wild things is not that much different. It’s short, and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but it’s just a story. You’re not supposed to ask questions about the how and why because it’s just all a passing moment in Max’s mind.
Rob – the only reason I’m disappointed that it had to be CGI is because I’m pretending to be a bit of a purist as a Henson fan. I think the CGI was actually well done and hardly noticed it at all.
I read the book at lunch today. I was more of a fan of Velveteen Rabbit growing up so I wasn’t as familiar with the WTWTA book. So I don’t really know what fans of the book really thought. There obviously isn’t much to the book except the major plot points.
I think the movie does a good job of exploring the aimlessness of Max’s imagination. Maybe it’s a little slow, but if you sat down and daydreamed for a couple of hours like Max, you may not end up with a perfect story.
I didn’t think the movie had story problems. Sure, if you want to look at every scene as “hitting us over the head with just how darn difficult it is to be a family,” then you’re going to get impatient. But I saw those scenes as Max struggling to deal with aspects of his personality that he recognizes but can’t really control, and probably is even afraid of. I thought a few scenes were really heartbreaking, because he’s only starting to realize how his actions affect those around him, and he’s not very happy with the knowledge that brings him.
I would never call it a “tone poem” – anyone who says that is probably a pompous clown – but a family drama. Only unlike most family dramas, and even most family dramas that involve kids, it’s told through the point of view of a child. It’s one of the rare movies that doesn’t condescend to its child characters or use them as human shields in its exploration of family dynamics, and I loved it for that.
I’m going to see it again in theaters if I get the chance. I think it’s one of the best big-studio films in years.
I can’t really argue with either of you on your points above as I pretty much agree with most of them, and yet… I think there’s an absolutely brilliant 30 minutes film in there but it just doesn’t work at it’s current length. And I say that even though I also think the movie is really quite good, beautiful from start to finish, and brilliantly crafted. It’s a difficult one for me to dissect for some reason.
And the guy who called it a “tone poem” is a pompous clown.
The charms of this film eluded me–I give it a sideways thumb. The first twenty minutes or so are brilliant, but once he gets to the wild things I got the fidgets, checking my watch every five minutes. It’s only about ninety minutes but seems twice as long.
I don’t have any particular reverance for the book–I don’t remember reading it as a kid, though I did read it to my nephews once, but it seems to me the book is about the wonders (and dangers) of the imagination, and this one is a long parable about the fracture of the modern American family, and I did feel it hit me on the head. I really don’t want to see a movie about fantastical creatures who are nothing more than representations of psychological dysfunctions. What a dreary group!
I also wonder about the most fundamental change in the plot–in the book, Max is sent to his room, and it’s there than he imagines the wild things. By sending him off into the woods he externalizes the fantasy (what is he doing in the woods while this episode is going on?), making his mother worry and behaving more like a kid who needs a heavy dose of meds than Sendak’s Max.
Random rant–I have always wondered about using famous actors as voices in animated films (though this one isn’t animated, it sort of is). Up until the late eighties/early nineties, voice actors were mostly anonymous (can anyone but a Disney enthusiast tell me who was the voice of Snow White?) Why this changed interests me, because for an animated film that is geared toward children, what is the purpose of using voice actors that they probably haven’t heard of? The tots seeing Where the Wild Things Are have no idea who James Gandolfini is. The adults do, but are they seeing the film because his voice is in it? I would imagine he has a bigger price tag than an unknown actor, so I’m curious why this is done, over and over (Kung Fu Panda has a huge cast of high-price talent). Maybe they do it for less money, but still, what’s the point?
I’ve been wondering that also, Slim, quite a bit.
As you say, kids aren’t going to care who the actor is, and adults will just be picturing gandolfini the entire time, so…
Most likely just used from a marketing stand-point for overseas sales…
Yeah, I’ve wondered about that as well. Disney did occasionally use well-known actors in their 1960s-1980s films, but it was the exception rather than the rule.
I think the success of Robin Williams in ‘Aladdin’ was a big turning point because iirc, he was so heavily promoted with the film that the film’s success was in part because of his association with it.
It doesn’t really make sense on any level… and would seem unnecessarily costly to add all these celebrities in.
You’re dead inside.
Anyway, I’ve been beating the drum against celebrity voices for years. Billy Crystal was always my big gripe with Monsters, Inc., for example.