Blogs and Stories
Love It or Hate It
Matt Nettheim / Warner Bros.
Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are is causing a wild rumpus of reactions among critics and moviegoers, making it the most divisive movie of the year.
To say that Where the Wild Things Are came to the box office with issues is putting it mildly. There were disgruntled devotees of Maurice Sendak’s beloved children’s book, who couldn’t fathom the idea of their masterpiece being turned into a movie by a hipster director best known for idiosyncratic, cultish films (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation). There were reports of feuds between Warner Bros. and that director, Spike Jonze. Tales of disastrous screenings that terrified children; massive re-shoots; and a whopping, $80 million budget.
But that was just the film’s baggage. Now that it’s been released, everyone else’s is spilling out, stirring up a debate that is making Where the Wild Things Are—which over the weekend beat the odds and grossed an impressive $32 million—the most divisive film of the year.
People’s reactions “come down to how much therapy they’ve had,” said Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly’s film critic.
Audiences—and critics—either love or hate, and no one is doing either one quietly, perhaps because no one seems to be able to just see the movie. Instead, it’s become a sort of Rorschach Test that tells us who we are—damaged from childhood? A snide Gen Xer? A self-hating Baby Boomer? A good parent? A Dave Eggers refusenik?
The answers to all of the above lie, somehow, in a film in which big, furry monsters bang around a forest, build forts, and howl.
Not since the Lost in Translation debate—and, before that, Magnolia—has a film inspired so much fuming and fawning, and not just in hoodie havens like Williamsburg and Silver Lake.
On Metacritic.com, which scores films based on critics’ reviews, Where the Wild Things Are averaged an OK score of 71. But the reviews themselves show a polarizing spread. Six reviews—from major publications, such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Rolling Stone—gave the film a perfect 100. But the film’s low grades (40-60 range) were equally pedigreed: The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Variety, Slate.com.
The divide is epitomized in a video chat posted on the Entertainment Weekly Web site. Film critic Lisa Schwarzbaum begins by launching into a love letter to the film (she gave the film an “A” in her written review, calling it “a breathtaking act of artistic transubstantiation” and “one of the year’s best”). Sitting across from her, critic Owen Gleiberman listens politely until she finishes gushing, then says bluntly: “Well, I think we saw two different movies.”
As Gleiberman revs up his assault—basically, he thinks things go downhill once Max gets to the island and joins up with the wild things, which he calls “squabbling hippies…trying to indoctrinate Max into some avant-garde theater company led by Julie Taymor”—Schwarzbaum holds it together. But underneath her taut smile, she looks ready to blow.
When I talked to Schwarzbaum, she said the response she’s gotten from readers has been equally at odds—“People loved it and they wept, or they said it was terrible”—and acknowledged that where the wildest passions came from, was in reading the film’s subtext.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Crash of the Stalker Press
Nicole LaPorte is a West Coast reporter for The Daily Beast. A former film reporter for Variety, she has also written for The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Magazine, The New York Times, The New York Observer, and W.
New Moon Countdown
Nicole LaPorte is a West Coast reporter for The Daily Beast. A former film reporter for Variety, she has also written for The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Magazine, The New York Times, The New York Observer, and W.
I Was a Twilight Virgin
Nicole LaPorte is a West Coast reporter for The Daily Beast. A former film reporter for Variety, she has also written for The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Magazine, The New York Times, The New York Observer, and W.
After I read the review in the NYT I decided not to take my son to see the film. Why? Because I found out that Eggers-- and I feel confident it was Eggers-- added an evil older sister. I say this not because of my (or my son's) fidelity to Sendak, but because I am so tired of women and girls being made to into evil incarnate in children's fare--from Coraline to the ubiquitous mean older sisters in Nickelodean's daily line up. I say this as a great admirer of Eggers' first book and Jonze's other films. However, I was worried enough about yet another lone male hero-- then an evil sister foil? Enough.
As a former evil older sister...it's true. We are evil. We intend on making the lives of our younger siblings hell.
Why? They tell on us, they take our clothes, they are annoying, we are blamed for the things they do wrong, they never listen, hormones...
Honestly, would it be so wrong for younger kids to see that while yes, my older sister is horrible just as much as "enter character here"'s does...maybe I too can triumph over it. Would it have made a difference if Eggers created an evil brother?
That is the dynamic of siblings and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to save your kid from eventually learning that mean people are real nor will it teach him that all women are bad. Older sisters/brothers/cousins suck and then we get over it.
Agreed!
New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Rolling Stone-gave the film a perfect 100.
The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Variety, Slate.com. scored in the 40-60 range?
Does that not make anyone else chuckle? The literary material of the educated, wealthy, and creative gives a higher score than the others?
That being said Cam. Evil older sister isn't really the accurate term. In fact I made no such judgment of the character being a cynic AND female. There is no reason we could not teach our children that either.
If the NYT did characterize the character of Max's sister as evil, it was a gross exaggeration. The fact is, the character was minor, and what little actions she took were fairly typical of any older sibling, gender notwithstanding. Go see the film. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
If you want to feel better about the intelligent female's superiority over the bumbling male baffoon, just watch---
Any TV Commercial.
Evil definitely isn't the correct word for her. In fact, I think the situation between Max and his older sister is one that would be very relateable for younger siblings--it's about that point when the older sibling starts to break away and have their own lives and the younger sibling is trying to keep up but just can't do it and becomes frustrated and upset as a result. I thought it was actually very beautiful the way they developed their relationship and then foiled it with the monsters.
whoa, hold on cambridge1 - i saw the movie opening night and there is no "evil" sister. max pelts some of her male teenage friends with snow balls and they return fire and end up flattening max's igloo; more in rambunctious fun then out of meaness. but, hey, that's childhood. you start a "fight" with an older kid and your likely to have your lunch handed to you. (or, more likely, taken away from you.)
Let's be clear...the sister isn't evil she's a teenager (though the two can be easily mistaken at times). In the film she does nothing more malicious then choose her older, cooler friends over 9-year old Max But I know its so easy to prejudge things rather than check them out for yourself. I suggest you go see the movie before you condemn it.
I personally loved the film and so did my kids (ages 6 and 8).
cambridge1, I am an older sister. and although there are times where i am evil to my little brother, he always retaliates with equal evil-ness. And sometimes, he is the one that starts it in the first place (as is the case with this movie). There is absolutely nothing abnormal about the relationship between Max and his sister in this movie, and I recommend you go see it. It was wonderful. If anything, it shows his love for his sister and his longing for her attention. Also, this is not a case of a lone-man hero, Max is not made out to be a hero in this movie, he is merely a character in the book, telling his story.
This movie is Lovely.
Please see it before you let someone else's judgment influence your own.
For those of you who haven't seen the film, go see it. I took my 9 year old daughter and frankly, we left the theatre without a strong opinion of the film. There was a lot to absorb . But, the film stays with you and for us, started to resonate over the next few days. So, now reflecting back, I liked it a lot. So did my daughter. I think the director and screenwriter had an uphill challenge to translate a very short children's story into a feature length movie. And, I'm glad it wasn't a sappy and predictable like every other kids film I have taken my daughter to see over the years...
No, don't. It was horribly downbeat and boring. We took our 7-year-old son, and, despite all being terribly excited for it, we were all praying for it to end.
Our son is very intelligent and emotionally mature, and we have no axe to grind with Jonze or anyone else involved in the fild (in fact, I was previously a very huge fan of Jonze's video and film work.) But none of us were prepared for the mopey, whiney, anything-but-fun tone of the second half of the film. It didn't seem to have anything to do with children, but much more to do with adults working out problems they had as children.
As best, this movie seems aimed at exploring the issues of a 14-something goth. Oh woe is me, why are things so said, I'm so alone in this world; etc. Certainly not the experience of any seven year old I know, and definitely not the subject matter of an entertaining file -- "childrens' movie" or otherwise.
You just didn't get the movie, that's all. There were deeper meanings to this movie than you may or may not have taking into regard. As a child sometimes you are pushed away by your older sister. She has friends her age and you're just her little brother. Obviously we see that he is also feeling jealous about his mother giving her boyfriend attention when he wants it for himself, which is also a typical childhood feeling or emotion, not one of a goth.
If you can't see that these are things that children go through everyday, maybe you should talk to your very intelligent and emotionally mature son about childhood emotions next time, since you can't seem to remember yourself.
Lucky for the movie there is this polemic. Otherwise most people, as I, would never have heard about it.
It is a good movie.. Eggers is great, as usual..
as we were leaving, there were two women talking about how it was inappropriate for children.. I could not for the life of me understand what was inappropriate about it.. except possibly the message that families are not perfect, and in order for things to be ok, we must realize that things don't need to be perfect... if that is something you don't want your children exposed to, then I guess it is inappropriate. Other than that is a story about a boy and his imagination running around doing boy stuff.
Seriously? If Dana Stevens even thought of bringing his 3 year old to see this film (Maurice Sendak is SCARY, even in print, did you not read In the Night Kitchen?) then perhaps DSS needs to come knock on his door...
It was a great movie.
Don't read further if you don't want to know about the movie.
All of the characters on the island represent a different part of Max's personality. When Max becomes king and rules the island... He sees how difficult it is to make everyone happy all the time. Then Max has his epiphany and now understands his mother position is so difficult and grows a greater appreciation fo her... That is when he goes home.
I personally think this is a better movie for adults then it is for kids. I don't think at their age they will really get it...
It is an intense and well thought out movie.
I have had hell deciding whether or not this movie was about each character representing a piece of Max's personality, or if it was about - as one reviewer stated - divorce. I really think that the divorce interpretation is a bit more simplistic and has holes in it (i.e. who do all of the characters represent in this scenario).
After some thought - BTW, its pretty weird to give 'Where the Wild Things Are' so much thought! - I agree that each character represents a different piece of Max's personality. The goat is the most heartbreaking character as we all went through times in our childhood - and adulthood - where we felt like the weak individual, who really doesn't know how to stand up for ourselves and instead run away.
I, like one other poster, did not form a strong opinion about the movie after leaving it....I just know that I want to see it again, understanding this time that it is paced very slowly and looking at it in a different light.
Childhood is scary. World literatures are full of its horrors. All Sendak offers is a child's solution to these realities.
My wife and I took our three kids (14, 9, 8) and we all loved it tremendously. Not only that but we've been talking about it for the past few days; what certain parts meant, why Max or Carol did this or that at certain points, which figures on the island represented who in Max's life, etc. I strongly suggest seeing it. We found nothing objectionable in the movie except we felt the ending was a bit abrupt.
First off, LaPorte might have mentioned why we have to talk about Eggers. Did he write it? What the hell? I know I could look on imdb.com, but why should I have to?
Personally, I can not stand Spike Jonze movies. I think they are pretentious and utterly awful. Perfect for my smug, glib, and snide Gen-X brethren who I never understood why they thought they were so cool. And don't even get me started on Wes Anderson.
I absolutely loved and cherished the book when I was little, I remember it vividly. I was very troubled to find out hipster douchebag Jonze was making this movie. As time has gone by, I have softened slightly and am so curious I am not sure I will be able to avoid seeing it. I hope it is as nice and dreamy as it should be, but I will be ready to be livid.
My 10 year old daughter and I saw the movie Sunday night (after being advised that it was "really good" by my 18 year old son), and we really enjoyed it. As a single mother myself, I really related to the mother character trying so hard to hold on to her job, take good care of her kids, and even try to have a littlr fun with her male friend. My daughter, with two older sibs, related to Max's clumsyy attempts to hang out with his older sister and her friends and the anger he felt at his whole situation. Rachel (my daughter), said that she felt that they had just moved to that neighborhood and that was why Max didn't have his own friends (for some reason, she seemed to think things are easier for teenagers. she'll learn.) Anyway, I agree with the poster who said that in attempting to rule the island and all the wild things, he was learning how hard his mom's jobs-working, trying to keep everyone organised and happy-were. I think the filmmakers did a great job with a book that is only 10 sentences long (I'm a children's librarian-I checked).
The Wild Things Carol and KW are, I believe, intending to parallel the relationship between Max and his sister. Neither KW nor the sister are presented as anything worse than thoughtless in their attempts to find a place for themselves beyond their established family pecking orders. Certainly no character in the film approaches the definition of "evil".
Where The Wild Things Are has been one of my all time favorite books. This movie will not only pull at your heart, it will literally make you rethink your childhood. It is a visual masterpiece. I honestly think they did an spectacular job on it. I don't mind that it was slow at times, or somewhat depressing, because, I'm sorry people, LIFE isn't always as exciting or happy as we want it to be. Especially when we're kids. Max has an explosive temper and an incredible imagination. Just like most kids. I saw this movie opening night with a handful of friends, and I took my 5 year old brother to see it the next day. Both times were enjoyable and my brother loved it as well. Please take your family to see this film, you won't regret it.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.