'WhereTheWildThingsAre' makes some kids cover eyes/ears; just a creepier version of 'TheNeverEndingStory'?
Taylor
DAVID GERMAIN | 10/12/09 02:54 PM |
Read More: Film, Spike Jonze, Where The Wild Things Are, Entertainment
News
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/110887/thumbs/s-WILD-THINGS-large.jpg
image: Max Records
LOS ANGELES — Spike Jonze recalls how Maurice Sendak urged him to make
the movie version of "Where the Wild Things Are" as dangerous as the
book was when the children's classic came out in 1963.
The question now is whether Jonze made it too dangerous.
The film arrives in theaters Friday, a year later than originally
planned by distributor Warner Bros. The studio was queasy over the
dark, menacing tinges Jonze brought to the story about a boy who sails
off to an island where resident monsters proclaim him their king.
"It wasn't what they were expecting," Jonze said in an interview. "We
just ran into the sort of quagmire of like, `That's not what we
thought it was going to be.'"
Instead of a cozy children's movie, Jonze crafted a tale about
childhood, with a lot of the messy issues adults pay a fortune to
exorcise through psychoanalysis. It touches on divorce and feelings of
abandonment. It presents a child acting out in ugly, even violent
ways, engaging in a shrill shouting match with his mother and running
away from home in a red rage. Its monsters resemble the beloved images
of Sendak's picture book, but their moodiness and occasional ferocity
may prove more unsettling than endearing to viewers.
At a test screening of an early cut, some children found the wild
things creepy and scary.
Rather than snatching the $80 million project away from Jonze, Warner
decided to give him more time. Jonze reshot some scenes, and he spent
the past year applying computer animation to create the facial
expressions on his wild things, which were shot live on set using
actors inside giant monster suits.
The result certainly is more challenging, and potentially more
rewarding, than many family films.
Story continues below
In keeping with the sparse few hundred words of Sendak's text, the
story is slim, Jonze providing a snapshot of a broken family before
sending his young protagonist, Max, to the realm of the wild things.
The film plays out in an impressionistic manner akin to Sendak's book,
Max having some wild rumpus adventures among his new friends, whose
erratic behavior veers from loving to threatening.
When first published, the book found some harsh critics who thought
its images were too frightening for children and that Max's
disobedience set a bad example.
Sendak, who told Jonze at the start to make the story his own, said he
was pleased with the results and that he and the filmmaker have become
close friends.
"As you do these things, you relive them – and that's not always a
pleasant experience," Sendak said. "Spike was reliving his business
and giving Max his Spikean drama, which is what it was all supposed to
be. I was not supposed to sit there and tell them, `Make it this way,
make it that way.' If anybody had done that to me while I was making
the book, I would have had a fit."
Sendak and Jonze had talked for years about adapting the book to film.
Jonze had been reticent, uncertain what he could bring to the story
and not wanting to fabricate some contrived plot line to expand it to
movie length.
He finally found his way into the story as he mused about not where
the wild things are, but who they are.
"The idea that I came up with is if the wild things are wild emotions.
As a kid, one of the things that can feel scary or out of control is
wild emotions, out-of-control emotions, either in yourself or the
people around you," Jonze said. "Having a tantrum, that's scary as a
kid, because you just see red. ... Trying to make a movie that feels
like what it feels to be 9 years old at times, that was the idea."
With a screenplay co-written by Jonze and author Dave Eggers, the
movie is a visual marvel, no surprise from the director who turned
identity and perception on its head with his first two films, "Being
John Malkovich" and "Adaptation."
And voiced by James Gandolfini, Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose, Chris
Cooper, Catherine O'Hara and Paul Dano, Jonze's monsters have true
soul, their dialogue punctuated with whoops of joy or authentically
weary sighs that make their emotional swings feel very human.
Cast members said the story offers valuable lessons in human behavior
for young audiences.
"This is a fantasy environment for kids to be able to address their
own fears so they can try to figure out what's going on inside of
them, and see an example of themselves," Whitaker said. "You start to
understand why he's throwing these tantrums, but then you start to see
that maybe those tantrums aren't so healthy, aren't so cool."
Even if the film enlightens, though, it still might intimidate some.
Max Records – the 12-year-old actor who stars as Sendak's Max – said
reaction was mixed among students at his school in Portland, Ore.,
where the film was screened recently.
"There were some kids who absolutely loved it and just thought it was
really amazing," Records said. But at certain moments, some younger
children "were just like, `I don't want to listen to this.' They just
like, covered their ears or their eyes."
Any kid fears about the movie being too intense actually could be
parents' fears, said "Being John Malkovich" co-star Catherine Keener,
who plays Max's mother.
"I totally think the parents are more afraid. They're projecting a lot
of stuff," Keener said. "I really hope that parents can just roll with
this."
Warner Bros. certainly is rolling with it, debuting "Where the Wild
Things Are" in 3,500 theaters with a big marketing blitz, hoping to
score a commercial success before the barrage of holiday-season films
begin to arrive in early November.
However audiences respond, Jonze is glad he got to adapt the story his
way – and that Sendak approves.
"I knew we'd always make our movie, ultimately. I was never going to
compromise. To care about something, to work on something this long, I
was never going to let it become something it shouldn't," Jonze said.
"I was worried that when it came down to them marketing it, that they
would try and sell it as something it wasn't. Try and sell it as this
safe children's movie. But I think they've done a good job at being
honest about it. ... They've not only accepted the movie, but they've
embraced it in the marketing of it."
___
AP Entertainment Writer Jake Coyle contributed to this story. Journal
Of Duh (tinyurl.com/journalofduh)
Taylor
> 'Where The Wild Things Are' Makes Some Kids Cover Eyes, Ears
>
> DAVID GERMAIN | 10/12/09 02:54 PM |
>
> Read More: Film, Spike Jonze, Where The Wild Things Are, Entertainment
> News
>
Sorry about the cross-post, guys. IE auto-fill feature.
Taylor
>
> DAVID GERMAIN | 10/12/09 02:54 PM |
>
> Read More: Film, Spike Jonze, Where The Wild Things Are, Entertainment
> News
>
‘Wild Things’ tame, lame
By James Verniere
Friday, October 16, 2009 - Updated 35m ago
WHERE THE WILD TIHNGS ARE: C+
Wild Things,” you so don’t move me.
Can you make a 102-minute feature film out of a notably dark, 338-word
child’s picture book classic? Not really, in the case of Spike Jonze’s
troubled production of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 book “Where the Wild
Things Are.”
The film, which will appeal less to children than childlike adults and
features an annoying excess of shaky-cam visuals, tells the story of
Max (Max Records), a lonely, angry boy in a nondescript snowy American
suburb. After trashing his older sister’s bedroom and in a scene
fraught with Oedipal tension, biting his attractive single mother
(Catherine Keener, stalwart as ever), Max runs away in a wolf costume
complete with pointy ears and whiskers, steals a sailboat, gets caught
in a terrible storm and finds himself marooned “Gilligan”-style on an
isle with a colorful array of the eponymous Wild Things.
The forest-dwelling Things are very big and resemble a cross between
Muppets and gargoyles drawn by Mad magazine’s Will Elder (the film
combines costumes with facial expressions controlled by computer-
generated imagery).
The de facto leader is Carol (James Gandolfini), a Humpty-Dumpty-like
furry creature with a striped torso, sharp claws and, yes, a terrible
temper. Carol’s best friend is the giant-chickenlike Douglas (Chris
Cooper). Carol also appears to have once had a relationship with
standoffish KW (Lauren Ambrose).
The troublemaker of the group is Judith (Catherine O’Hara), a
dyspeptic creature with a horn sticking out of his nose.
Co-written by music-video whiz Jonze (“Adaptation”) and Dave Eggers,
whose recent foray into film writing “Away We Go” was grueling, “Wild
Things” is in essence another American independent film about a
dysfunctional family. But in this case it’s an indie dysfunctional
family film that cost $90 million to make and was reportedly
“retooled” after test showings suggested it was “too weird” and “too
scary.”
The problem, beyond the whimsical, wearisome musical stylings of Karen
O and bland, semihuman characterization of the creatures, is Max
himself, who has little charisma.
Come back, Dorothy, or Coraline, for that matter.
If the wild-thing world is a manifestation of Max’s imagination, it’s
a rather uneventful and unremarkable one, except for a magnificent,
nestlike fort built by Carol and a momentary, unforgettable “Star
Wars” evocation.
The more psychological touches - the Wild Things as a mirror image of
human families - don’t resonate. Carol comes across as Tony Soprano in
a fur coat, punching holes in walls and baying at the moon. Who cares
if your hairy Uncle Milt, your mean Aunt Tilly and that goatboy cousin
don’t get along?
Where are the mystery and magic of Hans Christian Andersen, the
Brothers Grimm? Hey, Wild Things, can I have more Lewis Carroll and
less Uncle Phil and dirt-clod fights, please?
Rated PG. At AMC Loews Boston Common, Regal Fenway Stadium, Jordan’s
IMAX and suburban theaters.
(“Where the Wild Things Are” may require several doses of Dramamine
and contains frightening elements.)
{{{kjih-tv media video goes here}}}