"Where the Wild Things Are" (omnibus thread about the new movie) [edited title]

Cafe Society
41

Hey, fellow Gen X or whatever we are who grew up in the 70s, you remember this book?

I have actually managed somehow never to see a Spike Jonze movie before; and I think most live-action movie versions of an animated source (Grinch, Scooby Doo, Cat In The Hat) have REALLY sucked.

But this movie came out today, and the trailers had looked so good, I couldn’t wait to see it. It was beautiful and intense and moving, and I cried a bunch. It was awesome and inspiring and triumphant.

It was maybe something that the littlest members of your family won’t really get; but I loved it! And I think in several ways it is the perfect movie for Dopers, because it addresses issues that many of us in particular struggle with every day.

The music was exceptional too.

That is all.

RAAAAAAAAWWWWRRRRRR!!!
*
{mod note: I moved this thread from MPSIMS and merged it into the existing “WTWTA” thread.}*

42

Added space so alt text is spoiler-free

Thread title basically sums it up. “Where the Wild Things Are,” as interpreted by Spike Jonze, is not a kid’s movie in the same sense that “Calvin and Hobbes” isn’t exactly a kid’s comic strip. I think children can enjoy both, although C&H’s audience will be broader since it’s not usually as scary as “Where the Wild Things Are” is at some points. But both comic and movie really “get” what it’s like to be a little boy, full of rage and love and bruises and excitement and confusion and joy - and above all else, imagination. Neither sugarcoats the kaleidoscope of emotion that is childhood, nor condescends to the audience by going for obvious jokes or cheap sentimentality. They’re both portraits of childhood by adults, and to a certain extent exist to remind us older folk what being a kid was really like.

In many ways, Max and Calvin are the same character. Anyone who has spent hours leafing through a Watterson collection will, I think, immediately find “Where the Wild Things Are” familiar. There’s no direct character analogue to Hobbes, but the Wild Things as a group fulfill that role - KW is Hobbes as confidant and protector, Carol is Hobbes as playmate (the only person who as excited by Calvin/ Max’s fantasies as Calvin/ Max himself) and sometime-enemy, Alex and Judith are Hobbes as the cynic, and Douglas is Hobbes as truth-seer.

There is one important thematic difference between the two: C&H was about being a child, first and foremost - Calvin is six years old for a reason. “Where the Wild Things Are,” on the other hand, is about being that same child at the cusp of growing up. Max starts and ends the movie running as wild as any wild thing, growling and screaming to the air, but it’s tempered the second time around by a burgeoning maturity. For Max, the Wild Things were more than just a Hobbesian friend/companion/enemy - they were in a very literal, and just occasionally heavy-handed, way, Max himself. He’s forced to confront his own behavior over the course of the movie, and while he never rejects it (Jonze steadfastly refuses to moralize), he begins to understand that his actions have consequences for others, and why his mother looks so weary at the end of each day.

So they’re not identical - maybe the thread title should read, “Where the Wild Things Are” is the spiritual sequel to “Calvin and Hobbes,” heh. But I feel like Watterson and Jonze were drawing from the same well. Reading “Calvin and Hobbes” in elementary and junior high school, it seemed like Watterson understood me, personally. Not a unique phenomenon, I know! Like any little boy, I came up with my own crazy games because the “normal” ones were too restrictive and boring. I invented grand worlds for my friends and I to inhabit, and built them out of couches and blankets and paper. I lost my temper when my parents had better things to do than pay attention to me, and I felt happy and peaceful when they did (and both extremes could be felt within the space of about five minutes). The world was exciting and strange, and the worst thing would be to give in to the mundanity of the lives of adults.

“Where the Wild Things Are” made me feel the same way.

43

Heh - guess my thread got merged too. Sorry, mods. :slight_smile:

44

Not a problem! Fascinating post – let’s make sure everyone who’s interested in the film reads it!

45

FWIW, I took a page from another teacher and read the book to my students yesterday, reasoning it was my last opportunity to read it to a classroom full of kids who hadn’t seen the movie. The book gets better every time I read it: it’s like a perfect poem about a certain aspect of childhood. If you haven’t read it recently, I recommend picking it up.

46

Saw it last night. Tanbarkle’s assessment is spot on, thematically speaking, IMHO.

I found it easy to appreciate (gorgeous cinematography, 3D flawed characters worth analyzing), but less easy to enjoy. Frankly, the neurotic nature of all the Wild Things left me wanting to walk out of their group therapy, not delve further into their insecurities. Not how I would have imagined them (or preferred them) from the book, but an interesting take nonetheless. Of all of them, I thought Carol’s (Gandolfini’s) destructive nature had a compelling-enough psyche to get into. And Max. I can certainly identify from my own childhood.

For the love of God, CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME WHO PLAYED THE SAD-SACK GOAT, the one who wallows in his own pity because nobody listens to him? I can’t find it in any credits or on the WTWTA website! Was that by design?

47

I haven’t seen the movie, but from looking on the Web it seems like that character is named Alexander and his voice was Paul Dano. His only previous role I recognize is that of the teen brother in Little Miss Sunshine, but he didn’t talk much in that so I doubt I’d easily be able to place his voice either.

48

Was the Goat’s name Alexander? If it was, it’s this guy: Paul Dano. (Eli form* There Will Be Blood.* Great actor.)

So sayeth Yahoo Answers too.

ETA: DOH! Simulpost.

49

Gotcha. I was watching one of the trailers and it showed a non-horned entity trying to lift a tree while being identified as Alexander (“I hate this tree!”), but they were actually identifying the goat ramming into it in the background, which is Dano, who played the creepy preacher in “There Will Be Blood.”

I’m clear. I can sleep at night now. :slight_smile:

50

I just got back from seeing it, expected to really enjoy it, but it just didn’t connect with me.

I like the world Jonze set up, love his style of filmmaking, but it felt stretched too thin, and I think it failed in stretching the very short premise of the book across a feature length film. It would’ve worked much better as a short film I think (but then, why bother?). In general, there was some creativity and pathos in there, but most of it was just, well, boring overall.

If anything, I was more interested about Max and his family in the real world. I might check it out again when it comes out on DVD, maybe it’ll grow on me, but for now, ehhh…

51

cmyk, shouldn’t you be practicing your guitar, young man and/or lady? :slight_smile:

I just saw it, and liked it a great deal, although my SO came away “meh”.

I’d listened to the NPR interview with Jonze beforehand, and was intrigued when he described his idea that the Wild Things might represent Max’s own emotions. After seeing the film, I’m still trying to sort that out:

Certainly Carol represented Max’s anger, that much was easily driven home; I actually got a bit teary at Max’s relationship with Carol and its ins and outs; this was certainly the driving relationship. Carol was the the kid in me who was the last kid picked for softball, the kid who got told “maybe next time”, the kid who didn’t understand why the world worked the way it did, and really goddammit wasn’t going to listen to why. Angry! But he was also the kid who built forts and felt better inside them. Max leaving Carol a little valentine in his ‘fort’ was an echo of the broken valentine Max had destroyed in his sister’s room, and seemed to represent Max’s attempt to heal a relationship this time around.

When she was unhappy and bitter that some of Max the King’s subjects might be more important than others, perhaps Judith represented Max’s jealousness toward others (his sister with her friends, his mother with her boyfriend and/or job).

I’m still unsure how the other WTs fit in and what emotions or relationships they might represent. For example KW was certainly also an important figure, but I’m not sure what she was representing, beyond that she was a healing (or “Mom”) figure.

Other random reactions:

Max Records did a really, truly good job as Max. (Lucas, please take note. :p)

The WTs themselves looked and seemed to fit together well. The puppeteering + CG faces worked nicely, and it wasn’t that hard to forget about the visuals and think about the WTs as performers.

The Giant Fort was visually awesome. It really looked like the filmmakers built a giant spherical stick fort out on that beach (and perhaps they did, no clue). That its design obviously echoed the WT ‘houses’ that Carol was busy destroying when Max first met the WTs was cool, but it was cool just by itself.

“You’re our first King we didn’t eat!” Sweet.

52

I took my son to see it this weekend. He enjoyed it as he does most movies, but I think most of the deeper stuff went right past him (he’s 7). I found it very intense and moving. I liked the fact that I had no idea what had happened between all the Wild Things before Max came on the scene, and that they referred to things and we had no idea what they were. I think that’s probably how kids float through life most of the time, knowing there’s a lot of stuff on the periphery that they don’t understand.

As for what the other Wild Things represent, I think it’s important that Alexander says several times, “Nobody ever listens to me.” For the rest, I’m not sure yet.

And the fort was in-freakin’-credible. Loved it.

(I hope this doesn’t need a spoiler box. I don’t know how.)

I cried for Carol. I guess because I’ve had that feeling of knowing I’d screwed up something good but had no idea how to fix it. I was really just heartbroken for him. I loved it when Max said (looking at the crown in a pile of bones) “Are those the other kings?” And Carol says, “Huh? Wha? I don’t even know where those came from.” Or something like that. But later KW says, “You’re the only king we didn’t eat.”

53

I saw this Friday night and I loved it!

54

It was one of the best movies I’ve seen in quite some time. The comparison to Calivn and Hobbes explains why I felt immediately connected to the characters. Reading the description makes perfect sense for me.

What I am tired of, though, is all the parents complaining “why is it so sad, my kids didn’t enjoy it at all?!” Are you out of your mind? Other than the title, what on earth made you think it was a kids’ movie? Absolutely none of the trailers made me think this was for kids and in fact, made me realize it wasn’t. Do you REALLY go to a movie based on the name; do you REALLY never know a thing about a movie before you go into it.

That’s either extremely brave or idiotic.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen the movie; GO!

Also, my favorite thing about the movie…

I didn’t rip your arm off, I was just holding it and you pulled away. Made me crack up! I loved the character Carol.

55

I can’t get past the fact that they made Max so old. I’m also bored/annoyed by the back story.

56

I saw it, and really really wanted to like it, but it just left me feeling…depressed. As others have said, the wild things were really neurotic and it was honestly uncomfortable watching them bicker and whine. The visuals were awesome and I was really impressed how well the wild things made Max’s vision come to life in the Wicker DeathStar :smiley: (particularly the ‘tree’ he added).

But watching it kind of reminded me of what it would be like to be stuck with ten manifestations of all the negative aspects of myself. You’ve got Carol, probably the biggest trainwreck of them all. Then there’s Judy who is obsessed with drama and treats her boyfriend like shit. Then the boyfriend, Ira, not as bad but pretty pussy-whipped and unable to stand up for himself. Douglas and the bird guy were big brown-nosers and desperately wanted to belong. And the bison dude was like the Eeyore of the bunch.

Parts that made my brain cramp up

-The bison guy just standing there getting pelted by dirt clods

-Throwing the racoon around; later it turns out it lives in KW’s stomach?!

-Max telling Carol the sun will die. WTF dude? The guy’s already freaked out enough that the island will become a desert. Why throw gasoline on that fire?

-The two owls. I was really hoping the two ‘friends’ KW mentioned were imaginary. I can’t help but imagine that what they were really squaking was ‘help us!’ and ‘call the police!’

Parts I did like

-“That was my favorite arm!”

-Carol’s incredible tiny city made of sticks. For a huge monster with fearsome claws, the dude sure has some dexterity!

-I really liked KW and Ira. The look on his face when Max decided Ira would be in charge of the tunnel network was priceless “I make the holes”

-Carol telling Max the whole island is his…except the holes, they’re Ira’s. And those rocks, and that little stick, and this, and that, etc :slight_smile:

57

I saw this and rather liked it, though it’s not something I’ll likely pick up on disc later.

To me, the wild things did a great job at representing the “outside” world to a kid. Children are very self-absorbed by nature, and learning to process external things is a difficult, scary thing. The movie did a great job at showing how kids have to deal with only part of the story and a lack of experience and how difficult that can make it to react appropriately to things.

The voice acting was beautiful and probably what sold the movie more than anything. The subtle emotions reflected in the voices did a lot to elevate the story to something truly interesting, in my mind. So many hidden stories were hinted at, it really gave the whole production a great lushness.

My SO and I were both sad Jim Henson didn’t live long enough to see it, because I think he would have loved the movie. Both for its technical artistry and perfect blend of CGI and puppetry as well as its treatment of childhood.

58

I’d avoided this thread until I saw the film myself, and find myself surprised that so many more speculated about the movie than actually saw it (or at least chose to comment on it).

So I saw it last night and loved it. I thought it was visually beautiful and kinetic, didn’t apologize for its pacing (sometimes slow, sometimes unhinged), and that while the WTs had adult voices, their issues and neuroses were decidedly childish, if also sometimes spot-on in their comments or observations.

I also like the fact that it would’ve been a movie nobody else could’ve made. Telling a tale like this, infused with a rare sort of subtle faith in the story’s magic, requires a vision and total commitment in something that would’ve easily been seen by many as unattainable or obscure.

But I think it nails the emotions and vital, complex imaginations of kids, without condescending, “explaining”, or oversimplifying things. Definitely a YMMV film, and one I can understand people not connecting with. But it did with me (and the production design and character execution is truly dazzling), making it easily one of the best and most original films of the year.

59

It’s been a month since I’ve seen it & I finally got around to commenting-

I can appreciate what they wanted to do. They did it well. I just didn’t care for it. It was just too down.

I never could like Max. The kid is a bit old to spazzing like that. Ritalin time, perhaps? Catherine Keener did a good job as the overworked, very patient, very loving mother.

Was it the bird or the goat who’s arm was replaced by a stick? Now, I know the message was that sometimes, someone you love will hurt you in a way that can never be fully restored, so you have the choice to forgive & deal with it. But DAYUM, that’s pretty damn heavy, even for grown adults, much less kids.

KW (Lauren Ambrose) and her two owl friends- yes, I’m going for the cheap crude joke. Nice hooters, KW!

60

I found it to be a tedious, joyless movie with some pretty scenes.