REVIEW: Where The Wild Things Are

2009_09_wtwta.jpg Maurice Sendak first picked Spike Jonze to direct Where The Wild Things Are after seeing Being John Malkovich, a movie Jonze directed a decade ago. Needless to say, the process it’s taken to transform Sendak’s beloved childrens book into a live action feature film has been long and tiring. And that’s just for the fans. We’ve threatened to eat our parents because of it. But, the wait will soon be over, and for Chicagoist, it already is.

We were fortunate enough to see an early screening last night of Where The Wild Things Are at The Music Box on Southport that benefited host 826 Chicago and featured Q&A with Max Records, co-writer Dave Eggers, Catherine Keener, and director/writer Spike Jonze. The event had a good, positive vibe. However, we must discuss the movie.

The main sentiment heard when one brings up Jonze’s adaptation of Wild Things is he better not screw it up! While we feel this way about essentially every film adaptation that ever came from a book, with Sendak’s story, the feeling is deeper. Every boy felt as if Where The Wild Things Are was his book. Every girl felt the story was about her and her childhood. Damned be the man who tarnishes such a jewel of our childhood.

However, the real obstacle with adapting this book to film is that it’s less than ten sentences long. While we usually complain about omissions in film adaptations, it’s what’s been added that matters. The question is: did Eggers and Jonze meaningfully develop such a simple story, or does it float off into some other galaxy, barely representing what the book is all about? Settle those nerves, it’s the former.

2009_09_30_wildthing.jpg Eggers and Jonze have written a story that fully fleshes out the themes and undertones of Sendak’s book and gives it context within today’s culture. The film, like all the rumors have said, is often dark. It is also sometimes very fun and playful. However, these are the things that make up a childhood and Eggers and Jonze did not minimize the feelings every 9-year-old boy has. The film has a very clear message that is not over-the-top, preachy, or forced. It all feels very natural and genuine. There are several moments where we felt deeply connected to the characters. These moments nearly brought on tears. We’re not joking.

The emotionality of Jonze’s adaptation is the driving force of the film, and a huge part of that was his choice against CGI for the Wild Things (except for the facial expressions). CGI would have destroyed this film. The fact that the Wild Things look and seem real in both their appearance and movement is the chief reason we connected with them.

In the book, the Wild Things have no names or developed character. In the film, they are, and this is perhaps the most gratifying part. Jonze developed all the Wild Things to have sincere character traits, ones that are arguably manifestations of Max’s psyche (he is the one dreaming all of this). The highlight here is Carol, voiced by James Gandolfini. Gandolfini does an incredible job bringing this character to life and it is easily the most compelling part of Where The Wild Things Are. There are parts where Gandolfini had us so uneasy and legitimately worried for Max and the other Wild Things that it was difficult to watch, yet we couldn’t take our eyes off the screen. We’d be surprised if Gandolfini doesn’t take any hardware home for his performance.

The choice to shoot in Australia was another great one by Jonze and his team. It is a beautiful place that allows for the fantasy element to be brought in without being overdone. These places are real, after all. Long, wide shots of Max and Carol trekking the desert are beautiful and understated. “All this used to be rock,” Carol tells Max, “then it turned to sand, then it will turn to dust. I’m not sure what comes after dust.” It’s dark, indeed, but poignant nonetheless. It is moments like this that give much appreciated scope to Sendak’s story.

There’s not much to complain about with Where The Wild Things Are. Perhaps it’s too dark. Perhaps it doesn’t really offer a solution. Perhaps it’s too cryptic. But that’s how life is sometimes, and Jonze captures it wonderfully.

For our arbitrary rating, we give it 3.34 Hancock Towers out of 4.

Here’s some parts of the Q&A that we were able to get down:

Q: What were the challenges directing the Wild Things?

Jonze: If [the Wild Things] don’t like the direction, they eat you [laughter]. It was weird framing the shots due to the size of the Wild Things compared to Max. We also wanted to feel spontaneous and alone while shooting.

Q: How did you deal with the pressure of so many people looking to you to make it great?

Jonze: It was scary. I grew up with the book. Maurice’s work is special because it made me feel it was mine and that’s how everyone feels about it. But they gave me the flexibility to make it my own.

Q: How was it working with Dave Eggers?

Jonze: With what he’s done with 826 and for so many others, he has so much time and energy to give to other people. His attitude was that he loved the book and wanted to help me. I rented an apartment in San Francisco and he would come over every day, help write, leave to go work at 826, come back and write some more, maybe go back to 826 to tutor a class, then go home and write all night. He was very helpful.

Q: Who gets the costumes?

Jonze: They’re in my bed right now [laughter]. They made so many of the wolf suits that they gave away a lot of them. There were a lot of kids on the set and we gave them all wolf suits. On the last shot we heard noises and looked over and saw all the kids in the wolf suits, smashing up the set.

Q: What was the process for developing the character?

Jonze: Dave Eggers and I sat in a room for eight hours a day, maybe wrote for 20 minutes and talked about how we would do the movie for the rest. Somehow in that equation of eight hours with 20 minutes of writing we were able to develop the characters.

Email This Entry


Comments (20) [rss]

I saw the trailer a while ago and didn't like it at all.
Does EVERYTHING have to be made into a movie? The book was so special, so magically sparse, so perfect. I happen to love Maurice Sendak's illustrations...the Little Bear books I learned to read on...you can't duplicate that. You just can't.
I don't like that it was made into a movie, I loved the book too much.

To answer your question, yes. Stories get adapted. It doesn't kill the original, the book is still there and still wonderful. Sendak was involved in this production and approved it thoroughly, and that's a fine thing.

A friend of mine was at the preview and she liked it, with some reservations. One being that they wild things didn't "gnash their terrible teeth and roll their terrible eyes" as much as she would have liked. Also adding the sister and max running away rather than dreaming the vines and boat in his room. Little stuff, but when you have the book pretty much memorized from reading it as a kid (and in my friend's case, to her kids) it sticks out.

Think of it this way, at worst, Maurice Sendak is going to sell a metric ton of books because of this.

With the exception of Gone With The Wind, in my opinion, there has never been a movie that was even a tenth as good as the book.
I love movies, but I have always been disappointed whenever I see a movie after reading the book.

"With the exception of Gone With The Wind, in my opinion, there has never been a movie that was even a tenth as good as the book"

Lonesome Dove.

I am fiercely against movie adaptations of my favorite books, especially childrens' books. I hated everything about The Polar Express movie. What I hated most about it was that a movie even existed.

But what is interesting about Wild Things is that it is not so much a movie based on a book, but a movie inspired by a book. Inspired is a huge word here. What Eggers and Jonez tried to do is translate the themes and emotions running through that very simple story onto the screen. I think they succeeded.

Oh God, that Polar Express movie was awful.
I feel the same way about Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs as well...the book was adorable. I must have read it to my son a million times..but the trailer
looked dreadful. But I guess it did quite well, but I'll stick with the book.
The one thing I did like about the Wild Things trailer was what I heard of the soundtrack. I will give it that...but I just don't have any desire to see the movie.

user-pic

At the San Diego Comicon, Max Records preceeded the preview clips with a message from Maurice Sendak that he had wrote on his hand:

"I love this film very much, and I hope you like it too. If not, then you can go straight to hell."

Oh, Mr. Sendak!

I was there too, there was lots of laughter during the Q&A's and the actor who played Max (Max) was equally funny also. This is from memory, but one went:
Q: Are you going to continue acting?
Max: Well... if the right project comes along... [roaring laughter]

This kid has a future!
He was also standing about three feet from me as the movie ended.

What was your take on the film? Similar to Jake's?

Mostly yes, but I think the highlight wasn't Carol but one of the other Wild Things personally. It was wonderful to watch, and the emotions displayed on the things really did bring me to the brink of tears also. Spike really did a great job.

I enjoyed it, as well, and agree w/the review. Extra treat to have Catherine Keener present for the Q&A. I believe the Goat was my favorite Wild Thing ... Alex?

I didn't talk too much about the performances, but I'd also like to add that Max Records (who plays Max) did a great job. If he plans on continuing acting, I'd love to see him in some more roles.

I'm also not a fan of films being made into beloved kid's books, but I almost cried just watching the trailer to this. I doubt it will disappoint me as much as Ferdinand or the awful Secret of NIMH.

*from* ... from belowed kid's books.

It is one thing to adapt a book–a novel, a piece of literature. There are many, many more miserable wastes of time than inspired works. It is quite another to dare to adapt an illustrated children's book. While Polar Express is only the most recent overblown piece of shit, it ain't as criminally awful as Grinch and Cat in the Hat. (Actually, it is, its just that Dr. Seuss' work is more iconic and has a richer history, so the crime is compounded by the sheer gall and balls on the part of the perpetrators)

I hope WTWTA works. It sounds promising, but those drawings are the book. The mood, the characters, everything is communicated through those drawings.

another thing.. i may not give 2 shits about any of this if i didn't have kids. Goddamn it, they're reading the Harry Potter books at the same time the movies come out. It's a race to keep up. I've read enough of the books to appreciate them and hate the films. I hate them because they exist.

I agree with you, but for some reason the Harry Potter movies didn't bother me. I think it's because I just didn't have that feeling that the books were precious and beloved.
Some of the movies were better than others, there is no way to get everything in one movie, the books were just so jam packed.
The latest HP movie, however, sucked. When I left the theatre, it felt like I hadn't even been to see a movie...it was just void of everything that makes a good movie.

And yeah...the Grinch and Cat in the Hat movies were just abysmal. We never went to see those, just rented them and I fell asleep half way through both.

I guess i wouldn't mind the Harry Potters as films independent of the source, but each time we see one (and we have to see them--just try to ignore that train), it diminishes the book--the reading experience that parents are supposed to encourage. Christ, these things are about a 1000 pages, a significant investment of time and imagination. Wham, theres the movie. Book, movie. Book, movie.

Gripe, gripe, gripe... at least the classics have had some time to breath.

I have a 4 year old son who loves this book. For those who have seen it, is it too scary for younger kids?

This movie was so great and it just grows on you more and more after watching it and some of the themes sink in.

I think kids will appreciate it, I know I loved these types of flicks as a kid (Dark Crystal etc...) because they sort of took effort to figure it out and the whole fantasy world integration with real life makes you feel like a kid again.

I really felt Egger's work with kids came through in the dialog- that was a huge boost for the movies feel- wow, just a damn good movie.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Chicagoist

Chicagoist is a website about Chicago. More

Editor: Marcus Gilmer
Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

The stench of City Hall. No, it is not corrupt politicians or unwashed Aldermen. Piss Poor Plumbin
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Chicagoist.

All Our RSS