[Gurdur]

Struggling my way through not really all that much snow, on this last Saturday I managed to catch the very last screening at my local town cinema of the movie, Where The Wild Things Are. I know Fizzle has already made an OP on this film, but this OP of mine is my review of it. I also disagree quite markedly with the opinions given on it by Fizzle and Atheist of Peace.

It is in my opinion a very good movie indeed. The plot of the movie Where The Wild Things Are revolves around a young child named Max, who lives with his divorced mother and his sister. His mother is desperately trying to financially make ends meet, and having problems getting her work accepted by bosses and clients. Max' sister, being older than Max, has little time nor understanding for him. Max feels greatly lonely and very angry as a result.

Max throws a temper tantrum as the result of being not looked after well by his sister's friends. He storms off and has a fight with his mother, and bites her on the shoulder; he then runs away outside in the evening. He makes his way through what becomes a dreamscape down to a river or seabank, taking a convenient small sailing dinghy; he is eventually cast ashore. He meets various "wild things" ashore, and learns from them, though their own behaviour and in his coping with it, just what is wrong with his own behaviour. He learns to be a bit less self-centered and that he does not have a right to destroy others' property just because he feels so angry, and likewise he learns he has no right to physically attack others just because he is angry. In other words, he sees what is wrong in his own behaviour by trying to help the "wild things" get through their own problems and their "acting out" behaviour.

After his experiences there, he sails back to where he started from, then runs through the countryside and streets back to his home, where late in the evening he meets his extremely anxious mother who is greatly relieved to see him safe home.

The whole story can be seen as a mixture of realism and dreamscape, as though Max, having run away from his home, had a long extended dream in a field for a couple of hours and then returned home, or it can be seen as being in the school of magical realism. Either way, it doesn't matter, in my opinion the film works very well indeed, especially for its target audience of young children.

The movie is a filming of the original book, Where The Wild Things Are, by the author Maurice Sendak, first published in 1963. Ironically, the "wild things" of the book were originally planned by Sendak to be horses, but when his publisher discovered Sendak could not draw horses for the illustrations, he had Sendak make them "wild things" instead on the basis that Sendak could at least draw those. In an orgy of long-delayed revenge, Sendak based his illustrations, the personalities and the original names of the "wild things" on caricatures of several of his own relatives.

The book has been described by Francis Spufford as, "one of the very few picture books to make an entirely deliberate, and beautiful, use of the psychoanalytic story of anger". That description by Spufford is very accurate; the book and the film of the book function extremely well as cognitive therapy for children experiencing powerlessness and anger, showing how to manage anger and how to work through it and resolve it effectively and well.

In my opinion, the film works extremely well for children up to the age of around ten, and for most of those who love the book. I cannot compare the film with the original book since I have never read the book; but the film works well on its own, and is excellent on its own merits.

I really have to say I cannot understand the negative reactions of Fizzle or atheist of peace, but I dare say perhaps Fizzle has a completely different imagined vision of the book, and the clash is disturbing to him.

There is one more note that I want to make about the film; its artwork is very reminiscent of the art installations of Andy Goldsworthy. When you compare certain art installations of Goldsworthy's, there seems to be more than a coincidental relationship with the artwork of the film of Where The Wild Things Are.


Compare the wild things' spherical houses made of twigs in the movie to the nature art creations from Goldsworthy below:





or this (ditto):





or this (ditto):





In any case, you can always get a book of Andy Goldsworthy's work if you are interested.




.

[Fizzle]

For what it's worth, I didn't get AoP's reaction either. Mine can be summed up with something like this:

<-----------------------
(my head)

-------------------------->
(point)

I saw that it was well done, and I think I saw what Jonze was getting at (the anger bit you quoted), but it failed to make an impression nonetheless. As I think I said, I probably was expecting too much of something different.

I do disagree about it being successful for its target audience, but since I'm not a child, I really wouldn't know. It just seemed too dark. However, this point of mine could be due to an unreasonable judgment of children, namely that they cannot handle "dark" which is a belief that seems quite popular this side of the pond.

A friend of mine saw it and she said she didn't like it as well, but, and its a big but, she's of the bubbly happy clappy sort. This might be supportive of my above paragraph, or it might just be odd.


ETA: I forget the name of the main wild thing, but his reaction when Max leaves, and that whole scene actually, was memorable.

[PSeeley]

ETA: I forget the name of the main wild thing, but his reaction when Max leaves, and that whole scene actually, was memorable.

Karol?

[Fizzle]

Originally Posted by PSeeley

Karol?

Yes, that's him. The Soprano .

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Fizzle

.... I do disagree about it being successful for its target audience, but since I'm not a child, I really wouldn't know. It just seemed too dark. However, this point of mine could be due to an unreasonable judgment of children, namely that they cannot handle "dark" which is a belief that seems quite popular this side of the pond. ....

The film seems quite a hit with children. As for dark stories, children under 11 are enormously sanguine about blood and violence in stories; for example, read the very original, unexpurgated, unrevised Tales from the Brothers Grimm; we're talking torture, violence, death, etc.

This is a point Terry Prachett also made, that children under 11 really don't mind blood and gore in a story. Children will even demand ghastly ends for baddies in stories. For a story to be truly worthwhile, which is a very different matter, it must have a plot and an ending that children can relate to. And Where The Wild Things Are does very well on both; if you look closely at the plot, you will see how such a story for children 10 and under differs massively from any story for those aged over 10. For example, apart from the possibility of being eaten, Max is never in real risk; he never gets hurt in the wild things clod-throwing scenes of the film, and never even is careful not to get hurt, something which underlines the dreamscape nature of the tale.

The film goes through a successful, happy conclusion, and is good training for children; there are several points made in the film of importance to them. And such lessons that take one with underlying truth and not made-up flimflammery through a dark time to a happy conclusion, and teach children how they can be brave, courageous, and successful at facing fears and difficult situations, and then also teach empathy and why the ego must be limited, are enormously important for children and their development.

[Fizzle]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

The film seems quite a hit with children. As for dark stories, children under 11 are enormously sanguine about blood and violence in stories; for example, read the very original, unexpurgated, unrevised Tales from the Brothers Grimm; we're talking torture, violence, death, etc.

This is a point Terry Prachett also made, that children under 11 really don't mind blood and gore in a story. Children will even demand ghastly ends for baddies in stories. For a story to be truly worthwhile, which is a very different matter, it must have a plot and an ending that children can relate to. And Where The Wild Things Are does very well on both; if you look closely at the plot, you will see how such a story for children 10 and under differs massively from any story for those aged over 10. For example, apart from the possibility of being eaten, Max is never in real risk; he never gets hurt in the wild things clod-throwing scenes of the film, and never even is careful not to get hurt, something which underlines the dreamscape nature of the tale.

The film goes through a successful, happy conclusion, and is good training for children; there are several points made in the film of importance to them. And such lessons that take one with underlying truth and not made-up flimflammery through a dark time to a happy conclusion, and teach children how they can be brave, courageous, and successful at facing fears and difficult situations, and then also teach empathy and why the ego must be limited, are enormously important for children and their development.

Good points, all. I think I'll watch it again, but with this in mind.