Surprisingly, I have never read the Maurice Sendak book. No one read it to me as a kid and I hadn't taken an interest in reading to look at it myself. And being an adult (actually having a love for books) I just never sought it out. But, that doesn't mean I'm not unfamiliar.
I knew it had a boy dressed in animal pajamas, and I knew it had huge, benign monsters - and that they are all jollily crazy. WILD. I knew it had a distinct look (as a kid it wasn't my taste). And - even though I didn't know why - I knew the book itself was a popular piece of literature, at the very top of the list, I would think, of the most renowned and lovable children's books ever written.
But, I still didn't know what to expect of the first feature film adaptation of "Where The Wild Things Are," directed by Spike Jonze and produced by Warner Bros, Tom Hanks and Sendak himself. I figured it had to be good. I liked "Adaptation," one of Jonze's only features before "Wild Things," and though I expected his style so unique to that film would have a different twist on the material, I still thought something special would come out of it, mostly because Mendak gave his blessing, actually had hand-picked, for Jonze to direct the film. And Tom Hanks' Playtone label has produced some good adaptations of famous children's books; Robert Zemeckis' "The Polar Express" from Chris Van Allsburg's book, and last years young adult novel "City of Ember," being a view. Not to mention having old and young (and hopefully younger) fans of the book riding on the shoulder's of the prestige of the filmmakers like their conscious, saying, "Don't screw this up! We grew up with this book. Do it right."
But, "Where The Wild Things Are," didn't seem like the parable film that it was expected to be. Why? For one, and I say this a lot, and I think I've said it a number of times in my reviews this year, is that was there really a lot of story to begin with? Enough "plot" to hold for a feature film of more than ninety minutes? Naturally, no. I don't think the book was written to keep interest for more than ten minutes. It only had a few pictures to dictate action and fewer lines of description and dialogue. Of course it would. It's a kid's book. But, Hollywood being the power that it is wanted to bank on it. Now, I'm not saying the book, or any other, couldn't be made into a feature. You just expand the story, create more. More characters, more plot, more conflict. And "Wild Things" definitely is expanded, and expanded well. Dave Eggers (co-writer of the ferociously witty "Away We Go") and Jonze himself wrote the script, and they did a good job. They gave the Wild Things personalities, gave Max more room to breath, and gave more interactions between them all. It's a smart script, and really delves into Max and what being a kid is really like, especially, in Max's case, a overly rambunctious one. And the thing I liked best about the movie is how all the Wild Things personalities reflect a part of Max, and his struggle to deal with all of that emotion. So, the script is smart with emotion, but, weirdly enough, isn't very emotional.
You'd think a kid's book film version would have emotion. Most of all kid's films, and books, have emotional underpinnings and are better story devises, and kids respond to them better than humor and action set pieces. Why didn't "Wild Things" have any emotional subtext. It had a lot of conflict of Max and the Wild Things, but where was the emotion? The sadness? The anger? The joy? All this is crucial to everything that happens in the story, and though it is written well and filmed well, written with emotion, it is never interpreted as such. This is the film's biggest problem. Though I never read the book I would think the story needed an emotional arc. All stories do, and all main characters do. When Max finally leaves the Wild Things and heads for home, why don't we see his sadness at leaving his new friends? And his revelation? Or his joy at hugging his mom on returning home? His regret? I'm not asking for a Disney production. I'm not asking for big emotional moments a la Steven Spielberg. I'm not asking for swelling strings or lots of tears. I'm asking to feel something. Anything. That's all.
I might be being a bit harsh. I'm sure Jonze directed the movie with the intent. The actors certainly gave good performances; two of the only live actors in here, Max Records as Max and Catherine Keener as his mom. The movie's voice actors, which include an all-star cast, have a blast with the roles of the Wild Things, too. Especially James Gandolfini as Carol. A very good voice job. The actors play the emotion. No doubt. You see that. The movie, and Jonze, just can't express it.
Though Jonze's production for the film is intriguing. He didn't produce "Wild Things" with a big budget, lavish sets, flashy camera work, or special effects and, more impressively, didn't go full CGI for the Wild Things. Only their faces are animated, while the rest was all puppetry. This works. The Wild Things are real, in a real world. They're tangible. I liked this approach. Jonze created realism. It's Max's imagination, but it's real to us. And it's real to Max.
But, one other thing I didn't like about Jonze's directing approach was his camera work. The shot's were uninteresting, and though the photography, I imagine, was meant to convey the exact realism, it wasn't too impressive, either. And the shaky camera. I would think that was meant to show Max as the wild child that he is by always keeping the camera moving and bouncing around. It seemed like the right aesthetic choice, but it didn't work here.
All in all, "Where the Wild Things Are" doesn't covey the emotion of the story, though it's written to be that way, and the actors do it that way, but the movie never interprets it that way. If I were a fan of the book I'd say it is a disappointment. Other than that, some great writing, some great acting, and Jonze overall told a good story. His approach was just halfway through the threshold. He just needed to step completely over.
No comments:
Post a Comment