This week we take a look at the highly anticipated adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where the Wild Things Are (PG). Acclaimed writer Dave Eggars worked on the screenplay, while indie-film darling Spike Jonze directs. The story is of a boy, Max, who runs off from home and ends up in an imaginary land where he is the king of a small band of monsters. Catherine Keener and Max Records star in the film, with voice talent being lent by an ensemble headed by James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, and Catherine O’Hara.
Ryan: Most of the time when literature is adapted for the big screen the story gets streamlined to fit the standard running time of most feature films. But when the text of a given work is only ten sentences then what one has is the rare case of a work needing expanded to fit the length of a feature film. That's the case with Where the Wild Things Are. Overall Spike Jonze has delivered a faithful adaptation of Sendak's book, while at the same time expanding the universe and themes of the narrative. But with that said I don't see the movie reaching the same classic status of the children's book.
Andy: Turning a short children’s book into a feature-length film can be bad news for lovers of the book (The Cat in the Hat, The Polar Express), but the team assembled for Where the Wild Things Are is just quirky enough to capture the spirit of the book. There are a few big changes (Max runs off instead of being sent to his room), but most of the difference are surprisingly subtle expansions of what happens after Max sails through the days, month, and year. Make no mistake, there is a lot added that was not in the book, but most of it is ambiguous and atmospheric, adding to the overall mood more than the story.
Ryan: Jonze's fleshing out of the story works to make the book into a successful movie but in doing so it also prevents it from being as iconic as the book. I never thought I would say that a ninety-four minute-long movie is too long but that's exactly what I'm going to say. Where the Wild Things Are, the movie, would have been much more of a stronger film if it was around ten to fifteen minutes shorter. Unfortunately the movie gets ever so slightly bogged down at times and it undermines the imaginative spontaneity of the narrative.
Andy: I’ll agree that the movie was a little longer than it needed to be. The middle portion of the movie drags just a bit, which is definitely funny to say about a movie so short. But there’s nothing wrong with a runtime of 88 minutes or so, especially when your source material is children’s literature. The other major complaint that some may have about the movie is its lack of a clear plot. While this didn’t really bother me, as it seemed to keep with the spirit of the book, I can see how it would be troublesome for many people.
Ryan: Although I didn't find Where the Wild Things Are quite as solid as it could have been it's still a better film than most of the movies that are currently playing. Jones has created a fanciful world that looks incredible on screen. His eye for bringing this film alive is commendable. Also hats off to Max Records for bringing the character of Max alive as well. Making the performance of Max work was no easy task as the character itself, under the wrong hands, could have failed to resonate with moveigoers.
Andy: This movie has grown on me in the few days since I first watched it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. When Max begins to interact with the different monsters, the implication seems to be that these different personas are intended to represent his interpretations of people in his life, or perhaps of his own psyche. This makes the movie a bit of a riddle – the type of riddle that gets better the more you think about it.
Where the Wild Things Are may not be for everybody, but its ominous mood and captivating visuals keep with the spirit of the book enough to earn it a B+.
No comments:
Post a Comment