Director: Spike Jonze
Writer: Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers
Runtime: 101 min
In almost every review for this film, critics point out the concept that this is indeed NOT a children's movie. Drawn from one of the most memorable children's books of all time, there was an expectation that it would be a fun-filled romp that parents would love as much as their kids. Actually, it ended up being a movie made entirely for ADULTS, which just happened to be based on a children's book.
I was impressed with the movie, I really was. I had enormous expectations for it, and while it didn't necessarily surpass any of them, I think it was a really touching film with a story everyone can relate to, even if it strayed thematically from the story's basis. It didn't hit every high point I think it wanted to hit, and it certainly wasn't as well-structured as previous Jonze efforts Adaptation and Being John Malkovich (but you can argue his screenwriter for those films was simply superior). What it ended up being was a powerful display of imagination, terrific costume and CGI design, and an emotionally driven story that simplifies to the struggle of being an individual.
As far as things that were hands-down fantastic, I think it's worthwhile to right off the bat applaud the animatronic and computer-generated work of the Wild Things themselves. I think they were as close to being drawn from the collective childhood imagination as possible--not just for Max himself in the movie, but for all of us in the audience who grew up on this book and certainly crafted our own images of the creatures long ago. They were part human and part alien, playful yet emotional, and just smart enough to be useful characters without blurring the line of, "How does a child imagine such sophisticated creatures?" (Which would have been a big problem for me, since I know they're supposed to be within Max's imagination.) And the voice cast for the Wild Things was stellar--James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Paul Dano, Chris Cooper. I doubt anyone could really take issue with the execution of the creatures, which is why this version might hold up as a all-time great children's movie. I also think the soundtrack, which was recorded by Karen O (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) and Carter Burwell (frequent Jonze and Coen Brothers collaborator), was awesome. It was just art house enough to capture the attention of twentysomethings and the Village set, but poppy and lighthearted enough to hold favor with parents and their children. And last, I want to tip my cap to the cinematography by Lance Acord (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation., and Lost In Translation). The visual flow was not at all in the vein of typical PG films, with far too many hand-held shots, closeups and muted colors, but as an adult I thought the photography was exquisite. Lots of producers these days have jumped onto the concept of hand-held cameras (see The Office and Slumdog Millionaire) for the implied level of realism it brings to the screen. Fixed cameras and wide angles would have made it feel like a soap opera or an episode of Barney, but getting up close to Max's face and trailing close behind him on point of view shots helps to bring the viewer into Max's world, and it helps to push the level of character identification that already existed.
From a story perspective, Where the Wild Things Are was not at all intended for children. Even the obvious nods to youth, like dirt clod wars and toy villages with figurine citizens, seemed to be crafted from the viewpoint of an adult looking back, rather than a boy looking forward. And the common throughline of familial tension is clearly intended for adults, since we can see Max's pain and feel it ourselves, whereas kids might be able to recognize the emotions, but not really understand why they're important to be shown in a movie. I think in a lot of ways, this film was Jonze's ode to the loss of childhood, it just happened to be framed in the story of Sendak's children's classic. I don't really find fault with this, I just think it's very likely that some viewers will go to the theater intending on seeing a retelling of their favorite childhood story, but will instead be treated to an almost painful journey of the sadness in isolation (and sad, sad giant monster eyes).
After the movie, I remarked that although I have never read any of Dave Eggers's work, I could see a lot of similarities in tone between Wild Things and Away We Go, though, when asked to explain why, I didn't have much of an answer. I suppose I wouldn't be a very worthwhile movie reviewer if I couldn't explain that kind of thing, so I thought about it, and the one phrase that kept bouncing around in my head was this: "the burden of being". I think both films are very existential in their reflection, and both revolve highly around family. The characters seem to be grasping at this idea of happiness as if it were an attainable possession, as if it were a gift they could treat themselves to forever if they could only harness it in the right way. For the Wild Things in this film, their happiness is represented by their king--in this case, Max--who promises to make everything okay and to keep out the sadness. Of course, Max is just a projection of their own inner flaws (though Jonze does tend to beat us over the head a little by revealing their flaws, often) and it takes them the course of the film to realize what all the audience realized from minute one--that their happiness is their unity, and sticking together is the only way to combat the sadness. This is quite similar, I feel, to Away We Go, when Burt and Verona undertook this journey to find a home (the Wild Things undertake a mission of BUILDING a home!) as a blanket desire to induce happiness, security, and comfort, when everything they needed was right under their noses the whole time. Maybe I'm being too general here, but at least these comparisons sort of support my claim about the movies being similarly themed. And both movies actually vacillated pretty quickly between high points and low points--this may not necessarily be Eggers's fault, but it was something I noticed that applied to both. The (surprisingly rare) moments of pure "fun" in Where the Wild Things Are often immediately disintegrated into tension, with the characters ending up crying, pouting, or walking away in disgust. Which is why I feel like I keep tracing back to the concept of "burden of being"--despite the fact that all everyone wants is to pursue these moments of unadulterated joy, I think what the filmmakers are trying to express is that we don't really NEED that joy. It's an outlet, a vice, it's not "real", and what we REALLY need is that safety net of family and loved ones to catch us when we come down off those highs. It's a pretty simple concept, but as far as film "messages" go, I don't think it's an awful one.
Overall, I'd say hit up this movie--even though I don't think my opinion is going to sway you, since it's a pretty notable movie and I'm sure most people have made up their minds on whether they want to see it. But I liked it, even though it was a pretty sad movie and overall kind of left me feeling glum. I just think that's sort of the intention of the filmmakers. So, well played, Spike. Well played.
No comments:
Post a Comment