|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
|
|
|
Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted 10-17-2009 11:32 AM
That is too bad, Monte. I agree that the children's book was excellent. According to an article I read today in the paper, though, the actual book was criticized for the same things the movie is being criticized for by the critics: Too scary for kids and too grim.
Apparently, Jonze actually had to go back and refilm a lot of it with less "darkness," which has delayed the film's release an entire year.
I'll probably go see it, but I have a feeling I will be just as disappointed as you.
It really is too bad, because those Jim Henson monster outfits look amazing.
As for the shakey-cam, even without dollying or locking down shots, steadicam has been around a quarter century now, so even "shooting on a tight schedule" or
"treacherous terrain" can't be used as excuses for this anymore.
The latest "Bourne" movie is a low-point in camera shakiness for me though. Hopefully that will never be topped.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 10-18-2009 05:12 PM
I have to totally disagree with everyone's review on this one. I think its the best fantasy film since PAN'S LABYRINTH.
First, let's go back to the book. The book has no story, character or plot. There are just a few word's and some wonderful pictures of Max with the Wild Things. When reading the book to a child, it lends itself to all sorts of side stories and wild fantasies, much as Max tells his mom the story about the vampire with the broken teeth early in the film.
The movie takes the story off on a fantasy, spending some more time with the Wild Things and actually bringing each of them some character, BUT (and this is very important) they are characters as related by a child storyteller, not an adult. If you listen closely to the dialog in this film, it is the language that children use when they are playing with others. It isn't what adults THINK children say, it is exactly how they say it. The WILD THINGS are of the stereotypes children themselves create: scary bullies (who actually are nice if you get to know them), shy ones, small ones who are always ignored , etc. Any schoolyard is filled with kids just like this. I have never seen a film so accurately capture the world of the child.
I thought the jerky camera added to the story. It's a fantasy, and fantasies don't always go in straight lines. They sometimes jerk around. Same for the shifts between the desert and the forest. To a child, these changes are perfectly natural. The episodes and characters in the story echo Max's true life.
My only criticism of this film is that it is a bit slow. Not by much, but just a bit.
It is SO nice to see a film aimed at children that doesn't use the "committee" approach. You know, let's but a joke in here, and then something for the grown-ups so they won't leave, then how about an '80's song to pep things up. No, this film is pure and simple childlike fantasy, something we don't see enough of today.
I give this one an A-. OK, folks, have at me here. I'm guessing I hold the minority view on this one. Anyone for a wild rumpus?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 12-12-2009 06:44 PM
The potential problem with Spike Jonze's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's timeless and narratively sparse fable was always that huge doses of artistic licence would be required to fill out the feature films run time. And the inherent danger of this is that the extra inevitable content will detract from Sendak's simple story. Such fears were entirely justified, as it turned out, as the resulting film expands Sendak's vision where it ought not and doesn't expand it where it ought.
Part of the beauty of Sendak's story is the duality of the narrative: children see it as a straight forward, slightly scary adventure story whereas adults identify with it's affectionate sub narrative on the insecurities, narcissism and inherent emotional chaos of childhood. In order to pad out its run time, Jonze's resolutely adult film brings the latter to the fore and the result is akin to being preached at for an hour and a half with what was quite apparent in the first five minutes. Where the central theme of Sendak's book was an exercise in subtlety, elegance and simplicity, the vastly expanded movie is thematically verbose to the point of being blindingly obvious, plugging it's one simple theme with such broken-record repetition that all such subtlety is lost. The film is a longwinded means of making a point that the book made in a few words and some very fine pictures and as such an expansion on the thematic elements of the story would have been most welcome.
By contrast, Jonze does expand the book in several key areas but in ways which weaken the intended message of the story, so these departures are a little puzzling.
For instance, Jonze gives the "wild things" personalities and names and this serves only to distract us from the focus of the story which is Max. Jonze misinterprets the monsters as characters when they are actually entities - they are manifested euphemisms for Max's rage. Imbuing the monsters with characterisation seems contrary to the intention of the story because it makes them appear less "wild" and thus robs the film of impact when Max adopts the authoritarian role (i.e. that of his mother) and "tames" them. This is, of course, the whole point of the story!
Max is also older in the film, playing a 10 year old rather than a 5 year old as depicted in the book. This decision has implications for our empathy with the character as Max's misbehaviour and his struggle to come to terms with his own emotions is much more acceptable (and understandable) in a 5 year old than it is in a 10.
There is also a puzzling departure in the means by which Max enters his imagination and, by proxy, the land of the wild things. The bedroom transforming into the wild forest, as depicted in the book, provided an infinitely more elegant transition into Max's imagination than the running-away-from-home sequence shown here, although this is perhaps consistent with Max's increased age in the film. There is also a real passage of time occurring here which is not present in the book, which serves only dilute the power of Max's imagination.
Successfully adapting Sendak's book was a tall order for Jonze but he's an interesting, capable director so the project showed promise. Ultimately, though, Jonze's style has gotten in the way of the central tenets of Sendak's story and the result is an opportunity sorely missed.
5 out of 10.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
only for the Wild Things being suits and not all CGI
Printer-friendly view of this topic