Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I perfectly understand your criticism, and given a different mood I would agree with you even. History paints perception though, and Max's reaction reminded me very much of my sister's own(even though instead of biting she put thumbtacks in my mum's bed). That causes me to feel that anything less on Max's fault would make the journey less deserving. The wild things being aspects of his personality. That seems to be another important thing to remember. Carol can only be that terrible if Max is. Maybe a better example of what I mean if Judith's reply to the Ha fight. That may be the strongest hint to Max what he had been doing to his own mother, but if he hadn't been as bad the scene would've felt like hyperbole, to me at the least.
-
karmajuice
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:02 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I saw this yesterday and it made an already fantastic day exceptional. I have a lot to say about it but my reaction was largely emotional and I don't feel like I can speak about it clearly yet. In most films, there is some moment of down time in the film where I tend to step back and think of it as a film, and think about what I think about it. For the most part I'm engaged, but for a moment or two I become self-aware. This is the first film in a long time where this didn't happen. Even after the film had finished, I was lost in it. That alone is a sort of praise, I think.
So I'll hold off on talking about the film. For the sake of clarifying my position, I loved the film. I have some doubts and criticisms and questions, which I might get to later, but those in no way detract from the impact it had on me. Incredible film. It left me in a strange and wonderful mood that lasted the entire day (I saw it at 4pm), and that's a rare thing. Hell, traces of it are still clinging to me even now.
So, coming from that position, I have to disagree with Phil. My disagreements actually have very little to do with the film itself, though. I only let you know that I liked it so that personal bias can be accounted for.
Phil had difficulty sympathizing with Max, which made the film as a whole problematic for him. I can't argue with that reaction, but I do have to question it.
So we have a protagonist who is not entirely likable, who does some things that we think are unreasonable. Does that really invalidate their character, somehow? When I watch a film and see a character do something contemptible, I feel more deeply for that character. Because I've done contemptible things, and I hope like hell that those things don't damn me in spite of everything else I've done, and in spite of everything that I feel. This is especially true of those things that I did in childhood. I once nearly strangled my younger sister when I was a kid. I have no idea why, she was annoying me in some way that did not at all merit that kind of reaction. I terrified her, and to this day she cannot let people touch her neck. She can't even look at someone else touching their own neck. She can't wear tight necklaces. Now, who knows if this phobia is actually rooted in that experience, but it very well could be. That's a terrible thing, and who knows why I did it, but as soon as it was done I knew that it was wrong. I know, as a kid, that I felt god-awful for that, and I continue to feel guilty about it, even when kid-me sometimes seems like a different person than now-me. I should hope someone watching my life wouldn't condemn me just for that. And that wasn't the only terrible thing I ever did, and it wasn't the only terrible thing I did to my sister. We do unreasonable things, especially when we're children. My sister and I now get along better than any other siblings I know. We adore each other, we never argue, we get along beautifully. So maybe I did something detestable, and maybe I did lots of things that were detestable. Still, those were not the only things that I did, and I felt awful for the detestable things that I did, and sometimes I tried so goddamn hard to make things better and they only got worse. So I admire Where the Wild Things Are precisely because it does not shy away from that, because it does make Max obnoxious, bratty, sometimes detestable, more often than not wrong and entirely misguided. Completely incapable of making things right. That's what makes this a good film. Its irresolution is its bravest and most admirable quality.
I have a major problem with films about children. Not children's films, necessarily, but any film about children. This problem stems from the cliches inherent in material about children, and in an audience's expectation of what a child should be. Because both of those are so very far from the truth. Children are, at times, funny and delightful, adventurous, innocent, maybe even perceptive in their own way of looking at the world. They are just as frequently selfish, loud, annoying, irrational, and deliberately cruel. Children are so often used to garner sympathy it sickens me (if I see another goddamn film about children in the Middle East, I will shoot myself in the foot). Sometimes, though less frequently, artists emphasize their cruelty and forget their admirable qualities. So I always appreciate the attempt to balance the two, and I feel like Where the Wild Things Are tries to do this, and that it more or less succeeds.
A film about children that I love: The Fallen Idol. I've heard a lot of complaints about this film, namely that people had difficulty watching it because the kid was so annoying. That, to me, is the heart of the film. It embraces his inability to understand and his desire to be heard, even when that manifests as an attempt to be as loud and grating as possible. Because I don't know if anyone of you people have ever seen kids, but god knows they do that. They do that all the time. If I were to make a list of the things kids do, garnering attention by whatever means necessary would be at the top of the list. Sometimes they do it through cutesy tactics, and apparently that's acceptable. But if they behave irrationally, they are detestable brats. The Fallen Idol is a good film because it observes childhood with such honesty, showing all the fear and neediness and incomprehension and love that make up a child's emotions.
A film about children that I have mixed feelings about: The Spirit of the Beehive. I love a lot of things about this film: its atmosphere, the cinematography, the silence, the uncertainty. And so many people praise it, and they praise the depiction of the children, and I just can't praise it for that reason. Because the children in that film are nothing but bullshit, through and through. Those aren't children. Those are "children in an art film". That's what we would like to think children are, quiet and contemplative, dark eyed and innocent. The film occasionally gets it right (Ana Torrent's sister is the film's saving grace), but for the most part it is not a film about children. It is the memory of childhood, told by someone who has mostly forgotten.
I guess this isn't really a criticism of what you said. It's more my inability to understand, at a fundamental level, how "yell[ing] contemptuously at your Obviously Loving Single Mother" makes you irredeemable. I can't argue about your opinion of the film, but I absolutely have to question the reasoning that led you there. It's this very issue that enriched it for me. At its heart, the film is about a child's lack of control: over his peers, over his parents, over the world, and even over himself. We really are powerless as children and I think its something children constantly struggle against: they want control, but they can't have it. I think the film captures this beautifully, and is all the more admirable for doing so.
I hope that you understand this isn't an attack on your perspective, or anything. Really, it's a question asked in earnest: how do you see it that way?
So I'll hold off on talking about the film. For the sake of clarifying my position, I loved the film. I have some doubts and criticisms and questions, which I might get to later, but those in no way detract from the impact it had on me. Incredible film. It left me in a strange and wonderful mood that lasted the entire day (I saw it at 4pm), and that's a rare thing. Hell, traces of it are still clinging to me even now.
So, coming from that position, I have to disagree with Phil. My disagreements actually have very little to do with the film itself, though. I only let you know that I liked it so that personal bias can be accounted for.
Phil had difficulty sympathizing with Max, which made the film as a whole problematic for him. I can't argue with that reaction, but I do have to question it.
So we have a protagonist who is not entirely likable, who does some things that we think are unreasonable. Does that really invalidate their character, somehow? When I watch a film and see a character do something contemptible, I feel more deeply for that character. Because I've done contemptible things, and I hope like hell that those things don't damn me in spite of everything else I've done, and in spite of everything that I feel. This is especially true of those things that I did in childhood. I once nearly strangled my younger sister when I was a kid. I have no idea why, she was annoying me in some way that did not at all merit that kind of reaction. I terrified her, and to this day she cannot let people touch her neck. She can't even look at someone else touching their own neck. She can't wear tight necklaces. Now, who knows if this phobia is actually rooted in that experience, but it very well could be. That's a terrible thing, and who knows why I did it, but as soon as it was done I knew that it was wrong. I know, as a kid, that I felt god-awful for that, and I continue to feel guilty about it, even when kid-me sometimes seems like a different person than now-me. I should hope someone watching my life wouldn't condemn me just for that. And that wasn't the only terrible thing I ever did, and it wasn't the only terrible thing I did to my sister. We do unreasonable things, especially when we're children. My sister and I now get along better than any other siblings I know. We adore each other, we never argue, we get along beautifully. So maybe I did something detestable, and maybe I did lots of things that were detestable. Still, those were not the only things that I did, and I felt awful for the detestable things that I did, and sometimes I tried so goddamn hard to make things better and they only got worse. So I admire Where the Wild Things Are precisely because it does not shy away from that, because it does make Max obnoxious, bratty, sometimes detestable, more often than not wrong and entirely misguided. Completely incapable of making things right. That's what makes this a good film. Its irresolution is its bravest and most admirable quality.
I have a major problem with films about children. Not children's films, necessarily, but any film about children. This problem stems from the cliches inherent in material about children, and in an audience's expectation of what a child should be. Because both of those are so very far from the truth. Children are, at times, funny and delightful, adventurous, innocent, maybe even perceptive in their own way of looking at the world. They are just as frequently selfish, loud, annoying, irrational, and deliberately cruel. Children are so often used to garner sympathy it sickens me (if I see another goddamn film about children in the Middle East, I will shoot myself in the foot). Sometimes, though less frequently, artists emphasize their cruelty and forget their admirable qualities. So I always appreciate the attempt to balance the two, and I feel like Where the Wild Things Are tries to do this, and that it more or less succeeds.
A film about children that I love: The Fallen Idol. I've heard a lot of complaints about this film, namely that people had difficulty watching it because the kid was so annoying. That, to me, is the heart of the film. It embraces his inability to understand and his desire to be heard, even when that manifests as an attempt to be as loud and grating as possible. Because I don't know if anyone of you people have ever seen kids, but god knows they do that. They do that all the time. If I were to make a list of the things kids do, garnering attention by whatever means necessary would be at the top of the list. Sometimes they do it through cutesy tactics, and apparently that's acceptable. But if they behave irrationally, they are detestable brats. The Fallen Idol is a good film because it observes childhood with such honesty, showing all the fear and neediness and incomprehension and love that make up a child's emotions.
A film about children that I have mixed feelings about: The Spirit of the Beehive. I love a lot of things about this film: its atmosphere, the cinematography, the silence, the uncertainty. And so many people praise it, and they praise the depiction of the children, and I just can't praise it for that reason. Because the children in that film are nothing but bullshit, through and through. Those aren't children. Those are "children in an art film". That's what we would like to think children are, quiet and contemplative, dark eyed and innocent. The film occasionally gets it right (Ana Torrent's sister is the film's saving grace), but for the most part it is not a film about children. It is the memory of childhood, told by someone who has mostly forgotten.
I guess this isn't really a criticism of what you said. It's more my inability to understand, at a fundamental level, how "yell[ing] contemptuously at your Obviously Loving Single Mother" makes you irredeemable. I can't argue about your opinion of the film, but I absolutely have to question the reasoning that led you there. It's this very issue that enriched it for me. At its heart, the film is about a child's lack of control: over his peers, over his parents, over the world, and even over himself. We really are powerless as children and I think its something children constantly struggle against: they want control, but they can't have it. I think the film captures this beautifully, and is all the more admirable for doing so.
I hope that you understand this isn't an attack on your perspective, or anything. Really, it's a question asked in earnest: how do you see it that way?
-
Phil
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:51 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
For me, it's not the fact that Max did something terrible - like everyone, lord knows I did enough terrible things to my Obviously Loving Married Parents in my youth - it's that the tone in which that crucial line on the table was delivered struck me as so thoroughly awful as to move beyond simply the hurt and confusion of childhood into a realm where Max struck me as something of a sociopath. (To be honest, I can't even remember what the actual line is, because the vitriol with which it was delivered was so strong to me that that's the only thing ringing in my mind - I think it was "Cook me dinner, woman" or something like that?)
I don't disagree in the least with your points about the film's excellent handling of the pains related with a child's inability to control the world - in particular I thought the use of destruction/construction in a physical sense as a mean of understanding was perfectly done, and I too appreciated that it didn't condescended to the sort of awww shucksisms that ruin so many films about children, it gave Max his world to work through these things and it took it totally seriously.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with films that make use of highly flawed protagonists who may be difficult to sympathize with (e.g., I think In A Lonely Place is the best American film ever made); I realize bringing that Ray up as an example, where Bogart really is a sociopath might seem like a contradiction, but there the flaws, and as such, the sympathy, stem from that pathology, where here Max's next-level shittiness struck me as totally at odds with all of the good work in building a believably flawed/scared child that the film had done up to that point. Perhaps the best way I can verbalize my problem with it is that that crucial line struck me as a far too mature bit of disdain; choking your sister or yelling "I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU!" are children's responses (and again, I realize that choking your sister could be the work of sociopath as well, but presumably you weren't setting out in a calculated manner to, you know, actually murder her...it was a base reaction that you didn't understand the ramifications of), what happened here prior to Max biting her was something far more than a child's response to me.
So really, my trouble with this comes down almost entirely to those seconds on the kitchen table, which is a shame, because there certainly is a lot to like here. I think I'll probably give it another chance in the theater, and maybe in a different mood/on a different day that sequence won't rub me so wrong.
Also, and totally unrelated
I don't disagree in the least with your points about the film's excellent handling of the pains related with a child's inability to control the world - in particular I thought the use of destruction/construction in a physical sense as a mean of understanding was perfectly done, and I too appreciated that it didn't condescended to the sort of awww shucksisms that ruin so many films about children, it gave Max his world to work through these things and it took it totally seriously.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with films that make use of highly flawed protagonists who may be difficult to sympathize with (e.g., I think In A Lonely Place is the best American film ever made); I realize bringing that Ray up as an example, where Bogart really is a sociopath might seem like a contradiction, but there the flaws, and as such, the sympathy, stem from that pathology, where here Max's next-level shittiness struck me as totally at odds with all of the good work in building a believably flawed/scared child that the film had done up to that point. Perhaps the best way I can verbalize my problem with it is that that crucial line struck me as a far too mature bit of disdain; choking your sister or yelling "I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU!" are children's responses (and again, I realize that choking your sister could be the work of sociopath as well, but presumably you weren't setting out in a calculated manner to, you know, actually murder her...it was a base reaction that you didn't understand the ramifications of), what happened here prior to Max biting her was something far more than a child's response to me.
So really, my trouble with this comes down almost entirely to those seconds on the kitchen table, which is a shame, because there certainly is a lot to like here. I think I'll probably give it another chance in the theater, and maybe in a different mood/on a different day that sequence won't rub me so wrong.
Also, and totally unrelated
Spoiler
I thought Carol pulling Douglas' arm off was by far the most shocking bit of violence I'd seen on a screen this year; hit me quite a bit harder than the stupidly ballyhooed bit of nastiness in Antichrist. I thought it was an incredible example of a person doing something truly terrible without realizing in the least what they were doing. It was a beautiful and heartbreaking moment, made even more so by Douglas' forgiveness and the perfect image of him with the stick in its place.
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
In a way I see this as the Wild Thing equivalent to the woman line that offended you so. It is really a terrifying and horrible thing that is almost impossible to redeem from. As for your problem with the line at hand, and this is an assumption on my part, but would it be possible that that is something Max had heard from his father and he was performing mimicry for attention. He saw his father get attention by saying that, so he'll get attention by saying that ultimately not knowing what that means to the mum. Relating further with the wild things incident if the wild things are just aspects of his mind maybe Carol's initial reaction to that is Max's own to his mother. He did something with innocent motivation not knowing the true malice behind such a thing. What you seem to be doing, accidentally of course, is disliking a child for not having a scope to understand the strength of things and acting in the ways he saw he was supposed to.Phil wrote: Also, and totally unrelatedSpoiler
I thought Carol pulling Douglas' arm off was by far the most shocking bit of violence I'd seen on a screen this year; hit me quite a bit harder than the stupidly ballyhooed bit of nastiness in Antichrist. I thought it was an incredible example of a person doing something truly terrible without realizing in the least what they were doing. It was a beautiful and heartbreaking moment, made even more so by Douglas' forgiveness and the perfect image of him with the stick in its place.
-
Phil
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:51 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I did consider this, and I think it's a valid and intelligent parallel; but again, my problem doesn't lie with the content as much as the delivery, which like I said, just struck me as off: while it could, and perhaps should, have played as mimicry in search of attention, it just didn't to me. While I appreciate the aspect of misunderstanding, and I promise you, I'm not damning Max for not acting like an adult, and I'm not damning Max for doing things that are shitty, I'm questioning the tone of awfulness that I thought it created, which just didn't work for me in the context it was presented. For all I care, Max could've killed his sister and with the right tone, it wouldn't have detracted from the latter emotional parallels in the least. As is, he just seemed too convincingly adult in that situation for me to spring right back into totally committing to the examination of his youthful turmoils. I guess should rephrase what I originally said: it's not that this awfulness there was awful in such a manner as to make him totally irredeemable, it's that it was awful in a way which seemed at odds with the emotional register that had been set up prior to that, and in which the rest of the movie would work.knives wrote: As for your problem with the line at hand, and this is an assumption on my part, but would it be possible that that is something Max had heard from his father and he was performing mimicry for attention. He saw his father get attention by saying that, so he'll get attention by saying that ultimately not knowing what that means to the mum. Relating further with the wild things incident if the wild things are just aspects of his mind maybe Carol's initial reaction to that is Max's own to his mother. He did something with innocent motivation not knowing the true malice behind such a thing.
I will say that the more I've talked about this here and elsewhere the more my appreciation has grown, which is always a good sign.
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
It actually seems like we're agreeing and just have different emotional responses to that agreement which is no fault of either person and really shows the strength of the film more than anything else.
-
Phil
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:51 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Yeah, I'm down with that.
I'm not sure how many people here will have seen it (I think it might be available on iTunes), but it's really interesting comparing this with the surreal short Jonze made with Kanye West earlier this year, We Were Once A Fairytale, which is also very much an examination of the need to control one's world and the inability to do so, albeit in the the case of celebrity instead of childhood (which all things considered, probably aren't so far apart). There's an intriguing contrast in intuitive vs. acknowledged recognition at play between the two. I would highly recommend it to anyone who liked Wild Things.
I'm not sure how many people here will have seen it (I think it might be available on iTunes), but it's really interesting comparing this with the surreal short Jonze made with Kanye West earlier this year, We Were Once A Fairytale, which is also very much an examination of the need to control one's world and the inability to do so, albeit in the the case of celebrity instead of childhood (which all things considered, probably aren't so far apart). There's an intriguing contrast in intuitive vs. acknowledged recognition at play between the two. I would highly recommend it to anyone who liked Wild Things.
-
karmajuice
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:02 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Great response, Phil. I would have said the same as knives just did, but he beat me to the punch. Also, it should be said that much of my original post was not responding directly to you, but addressing an issue I've thought about for a long time but never spoken about. That may be self-evident, but I wanted to clarify.
I would like to see We Were Once a Fairytale. I'll get it on your recommendation, once my extraordinarily chaotic life evens out a bit.
I would like to see We Were Once a Fairytale. I'll get it on your recommendation, once my extraordinarily chaotic life evens out a bit.
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I'm seeing this tonight, and have a question about the running time: imdb lists two, 101 minutes and 94 minutes, which one's right?
-
Phil
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:51 pm
- Location: NYC
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
-
LQ
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:51 am
- Contact:
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Karmajuice, great post above. My reaction was largely emotional too; I just got back from seeing it and am in a sort of strange mood myself, which no doubt will linger for a while. I was shocked at how seamlessly I was inserted into the mind's eye of a child again...the trailers and images from the movie suggested such but I couldn't have expected to be as moved by it as I was. The beauty, sadness and wonder of it brought out such a flurry of memories, feelings...you certainly run the full gamut of emotions while watching this and are left in some ineffable state somewhere in the middle of nostalgia, pensiveness & joy. I absolutely loved the movie.
Similar to my reaction to The Fall, I feel that a great deal of my enchantment stemmed from the performance of the excellent child actor: Max Records was stunning. But placing that performance within the magically creative, deeply resonant and honest context of the film as a whole makes me think that Where the Wild Things Are is something terribly unique, and an instant classic.
Similar to my reaction to The Fall, I feel that a great deal of my enchantment stemmed from the performance of the excellent child actor: Max Records was stunning. But placing that performance within the magically creative, deeply resonant and honest context of the film as a whole makes me think that Where the Wild Things Are is something terribly unique, and an instant classic.
-
Phil
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:51 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
This link includes the full Jonze/Kanye short, for anyone who wants to check it out.
http://2dopeboyz.okayplayer.com/2009/10 ... more-63395
http://2dopeboyz.okayplayer.com/2009/10 ... more-63395
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
After letting this sit for a few days all I can come up with is that I didn't enjoy it much. Outside of the beginning non-fantasy world scenes (which were fantastic) I thought that once Max does get to the fantasy world the film moves at a snail's pace. It had some interesting aspects to it - Gandolfini did great voice acting and Records was superb in the lead - but I just failed to see much else that was redeemable in Jonze's adaptation outside of the performances. Plus the moments where the camera shook like an earthquake made me want to walk out.
-
Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:58 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I bet all those naysayers at Warner Bros. (if they still have their jobs) are feeling a little sheepish right now: the film is their biggest-opening October release ever.
-
karmajuice
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:02 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I actually thought the non-fantasy world scenes were rather lacking. Not bad, but very Expository. We know Max has to be upset for some reason and the scenes are contrived accordingly. The emotions felt more genuine in the context of the fantasy world, and it felt like a great deal more was at risk. Again, this mostly derives from a knowledge of the film's structure.Outside of the beginning non-fantasy world scenes (which were fantastic) I thought that once Max does get to the fantasy world the film moves at a snail's pace.
On the other hand, I watched We Were Once a Fairy Tale last night and felt the opposite way.
Spoiler
I loved most of the film: the gorgeous opening shot, the uncertainty of the camera-work, Kanye's performance. The film is very hard to watch, and I mean that well. It is desperate and lonely, and all the more wrenching thanks to the character's drunken optimism/obliviousness. So I liked most of the film, but I'm not sure about the ending. It may read better after a second viewing, but it seemed like the cheap way out. With Where the Wild Things Are, we know the character will end up in this fantasy world, which acts (I think very effectively) as a manifestation of his internal and interpersonal dilemmas, his coming to terms with his impotency as a child (his inability to control himself and the world around him, even a fantasy world), and the complexities of childhood at large (mixing imagination, friendship, conflict, childlike behavior, and universal issues of miscommunication and selfishness). In the short film, the surrealist twist is very sudden, where the bulk of the film is largely realistic (if subjective). The CGI feels a little amateurish, looks a little silly, and feels phony in the context of everything else. I think the same message could have been explored in more engaging ways without such obvious metaphors. The fantasy enhances the experience of the feature but detracts from the short, I feel.
-
kaujot
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:28 pm
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
About the short film:
Spoiler
who's to say that the ending actually happened? It's not like Kanye was actually fucking a girl on the couch. Just the couch. The same could be applied to the ending.
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
I think I just failed to see Max the character as very interesting so when the film fully delved into his psyche with the fantasy world it took me out of it, not that any of the other real-life characters were very compelling either. But the snowball fight andI actually thought the non-fantasy world scenes were rather lacking. Not bad, but very Expository. We know Max has to be upset for some reason and the scenes are contrived accordingly. The emotions felt more genuine in the context of the fantasy world, and it felt like a great deal more was at risk. Again, this mostly derives from a knowledge of the film's structure.
Spoiler
Max's subsequent fit in his sister's room (if this even needs to spoilered, which it probably doesn't)
-
karmajuice
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:02 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Thanks for pointing that out, but I'd already taken that into consideration.
Murdoch: Out of curiosity, what do you make of the fact that Max retreats to this fantasy world? That his fantasy is not mere escapism, that it has as much or more conflict than his real life? That he makes himself king and fails to fulfill his promises? Also, why do you think the "need" for ten-foot tall monsters is inherently less sincere? It seems to me that the monsters are much less like monsters and much more like regular kids, Max's friends. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but your last comment seemed to imply that the use of the monsters was somehow less valid than human characters.
(I realize, by my differing opinions regarding the short film and the feature, that I've left myself open for attack. Willing to face any charges to that effect. I do think there's a difference.)
Spoiler
My issue isn't so much whether the ending is feasible or consistent, but that its infeasibility and inconsistency aren't justified by the moment's impact. And the scene, whether it's actually happening or not, feels like too simple a solution. Also, for the record, I'm not entirely sure I dislike the ending. I'm ambivalent toward it, maybe leaning toward a negative response. It's a jarring ending, for sure, so maybe I'm just trying to come to terms with it.
(I realize, by my differing opinions regarding the short film and the feature, that I've left myself open for attack. Willing to face any charges to that effect. I do think there's a difference.)
-
dx23
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 am
- Location: Puerto Rico
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Reading things like this scare me to think on what beholds the future of the US. It's sadder to see parents just promoting this ignorant behavior.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
The best kids movies are sad though. Christ, the Secret of NIMH and the Fox and the Hound don't need calliope music and exaggerated pratfalls to qualify as good kid's entertainment
-
mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
- Location: Miami, FL
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
But a lot of parents don't want their children to feel sad, frightened, even energetic anymore. The perfect response for that mother to give to the "Why is this movie so sad?" question is either "You'll understand someday." or "Watch the movie and it'll make sense." and then give them the life-isn't-always-roses conversation on the way home. Why is it that children are now only allowed to be exposed to sadness and disappointment in real life, but have no artistic expressions of these emotions to connect to? When I was growing up, if I didn't have the junk shop and auto yard sequences in The Brave Little Toaster (one of countless examples I could have given, obviously), I would have turned out a lot more soft than I did, and not nearly as empathetic towards others' feelings or my own.
And I would have seen Couples Retreat this weekend rather than Where the Wild Things Are probably. It's a vicious cycle, being exposed to nothing but homogenized faux-joyful pop culture as a child.
And I would have seen Couples Retreat this weekend rather than Where the Wild Things Are probably. It's a vicious cycle, being exposed to nothing but homogenized faux-joyful pop culture as a child.
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Ditto. What this situation makes me more upset about though is that these same parents have no trouble showing their children something as crass as the Shrek features. This sort of Real life issues=bad; crass language/behavior without care=good mentality makes me cynical.
-
Murdoch
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:59 am
- Location: Upstate NY
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Kids today are wusses. I remember when I was a counselor at a summer daycamp for 10 and 11 year-olds back in the VHS days we popped in Goonies and most of them were too frightened by it, so we ended up putting Veggie Tales or something in. And it's only gotten worse. The best strategy is to show kids Salo at six and then everything that comes after will be a cakewalk: "Don't worry, honey, Salo was a thousand times more scary than this."
"You're Worthless" is the most depressing catchy song ever.mfunk9786 wrote:When I was growing up, if I didn't have the junk shop and auto yard sequences in The Brave Little Toaster (one of countless examples I could have given, obviously), I would have turned out a lot more soft than I did, and not nearly as empathetic towards others' feelings or my own.
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: Where The Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)
Funny story about this, recently when I rented Salo my sixteen year old sister and her fourteen year old friend convinced me to let them watch it, For the first two sections I was nervous because of the two girls laughing at the movie, they also made 'humorous' comments. They ell asleep just before the Circle of Shit and resumed watching in the morning. My sisters opinion was firmly, 'it was okay, but a little over the top on the sex'. Kids are way too jaded I think.Murdoch wrote:Kids today are wusses. I remember when I was a counselor at a summer daycamp for 10 and 11 year-olds back in the VHS days we popped in Goonies and most of them were too frightened by it, so we ended up putting Veggie Tales or something in. And it's only gotten worse. The best strategy is to show kids Salo at six and then everything that comes after will be a cakewalk: "Don't worry, honey, Salo was a thousand times more scary than this."