As a parent of a young child, and a fan of Maurice Sendak's books, I was interested to see there was a film adaptation of Where the Wild Tings Are, but even as I saw the advertisements, I wondered if I would be rushing out to see it. Now, having read the reviews, I know I won't be taking my four year old, and will not be rushing out to see it myself. Why? Because of one review, explaining everything wrong with it, and why it is so symbolic of our age.

On IMDB a reader complained that the film not only distorted a childhood favorite, but made it inappropriate fro children. To which another replied that it was "an artistic work targeted at teens and adults". And that is my problem. It is, yet again, an effort to take something rather simple and innocent and make it "grim" and "deep" for arrested adolescents who never outgrew their childish attachments, but want to think those left over juvenilia are somehow really "profound". So the film maker had to add in mock psychology, pointless violence, and make the whole thing "edgy" and "intense".

The original book was perfect for childhood, a fun romp that taught simple lessons, life without any rules is not as much fun as one thinks, and that loving family at home may be worth all the rules. From what I have read the new version is full of simplistic pop-psychology, apropos of a film aimed at the pseudo-profound, and leans far too heavily on visuals and too little on plot. Nor does it persuade me that Sendak told the maker to make it "dangerous". Sendak's books were "dangerous" to a young child, but it sounds as if the "danger" of the film is of a different nature.

Of course, I have not seen the film, so I may be completely off base, I am going here off reviews I have read. Then again, as the people arguing in favor of the film convinced me of the problems even more than those arguing against it, I think it probably is a pretty accurate impression. In any case, with films costing a fair amount of money and taking up a large chunk of time, I do not feel the need to go see every film before deciding if it is worthwhile. If the arguments in its favor convince me not to watch it, then I can say with certainty, barring seeing it on cable when nothing else is on, I won't be bothering.

POSTSCRIPT

My earlier post "Graphic Novels, Comic Books and Cultural Barometers" is very similar to this one, concentrating on the efforts to have comics books accepted as literary works. I would also recommend reading   "Frightened for our Future", "The Adoration of Youth", "I Blame the Romantics", "Revisiting an Old Topic", "The Sky Is Falling! Again! Really! We Mean It This Time!", "Tired and Annoying Theme", "IMDB Makes My Case", "A Thought On the Watchmen", "An Interesting Article", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"" and "Our Rude Behavior", as they cover related topics.

POSTSCRIPT II

Reinterpreting juvenile fiction for an adult audience is usually a bad idea. Besides the fact that I think it tends to produce something suitable for neither adults nor juveniles, it also usually degenerates into gimmick writing, such as Anne Rice's pornographic "Beauty" series. The best example is probably The Company of Wolves, though my fondness for that film is probably more due to a teenage crush on Sarah Patterson, more than any inherent merit. Still, it manages to keep the feel of a fairy tale while examining some subjects of actual adult interest. Despite a somewhat exaggerated feminist bent, it still manages to be entertaining without becoming excessively didactic. But beyond that single example, I can think of nothing really worth mentioning. The endless "reimaginings" of The Wizard of Oz, from Zardoz to Wild at Heart to Tin Man to the many new Alices coming out now, be they American McGee's or Tim Burton's or some "Syfy Original", all seem to fall flat, coming off as either kitschy, immature, gimmicky, or downright psychotic, but none that one would call good.

Then again, as most reworkings of childhood material for adults indulges the same tendency I found in Where the Wild Things Are, that is catering to arrested adolescents who want to find significance and "depth" in their childhood favorites, and who define "depth" in quite adolescent terms (most as "dark", "edgy" and "grim"), I am not surprised at the limited success of such films. Unless a writer has truly unique vision allowing them to take a childhood image and reinvent it for an adult audience, if they are simply going to take the material and turn it "dark", then it is probably best to leave it alone. Simply adding gore or perversion to a children's tale does not qualify as art.

POSTSCRIPT III

I suppose eventually I will see the film for myself and judge the results. However I am not willing to go to see it in a cinema, as I am reluctant to give my money in support of a hipster revision, filled with indie music and navel gazing, which many reviews, both positive and negative, seem to indicate is a valid description of this film. Come on, how many children are big fanciers of Karen O? Or think Spike Jonze's overly hip editing tricks? No matter how much it is showing its age, I think I will stick with the 70's vintage animated version. At least it follows the book faithfully. (Now that I think about it, who thought a 400 word book would support 90 minutes of film? That may be the biggest mistake in the whole venture.)

I know some will call me unfair for criticizing a film without seeing it, and normally I would be hesitant to do so. But in this case, when those defending the film manage to convince me not to see it, I think I am safe in my assumptions. When critics and defenders agree on so much, and what they agree upon is troubling for me, I don't think I need to see the film to know I will find little to enjoy. The most telling aspect was the fact that parents almost uniformly hated it, and those who loved it were largely childless thirty-somethings and artsy hipsters. Even more telling were the reviews by older reviewers and the parents, who not only thought it inappropriate for children, but both shallow and boring for adults. It sounds as if its appeal is limited to those with nostalgia for the book coupled with a rather shallow understanding of human nature and a conviction that delving into dysfunction is the only "honest" portrayal of human nature.

By the way, this discovery is doubly disappointing, as not only does my son love the book (he sleeps with stuffed versions of two of the wild things who he dubbed "Hairy" and "Scary"), but my wife was excited as well, having fond memories of the book. So it is even more disappointing to find out how badly the entire undertaking was handled.

POSTSCRIPT IV

The more I think about this film, the more bizarre it seems. The defenders keep saying its intended audience is adults, yet it is sold as a children's film based on a children's novel. That is akin to selling a film called Bambi, in a package with lovely animated deers, but with hardcore pornography as the primary element of the plot. It is possible to do so, but why? What would be the point? And that is my problem here. What is the point of taking a children's book, making a film marketed as a children's movie, but with a sensibility that is all Gen-Y emo whining? Unless it is a marketing ploy for Flintstones Chewable Paxil, I can't figure out the motivation. I once joked about having failed as a children's writer because no one wanted to purchase my book "Wanda the Leather Witch". I never thought I would see the day when someone would actually think that was a good idea, yet this comes pretty close to mixing two equally inappropriate genres, not children's book and S&M, but children's book and whiny, emo, arty "mood piece". The modern version of kitchen sink dramas do not mix well with childhood fables.

POSTSCRIPT V

Last postscript, I promise. But I forgot one of the most significant problems. In the original, one of the most important facts was that Max's journey was all in his head, taking place in his room. In short, he acted up, got sent to his room, dreamed of a wild place, then came to realize he would be better off at home. In the movie, I gather he comes close to psychotic behavior, actually runs off and finds a boat, and then, after endless pointless monster-based emoting, unchanged, comes home to the same miserable existence, having learned nothing. Not sure I like the new take on things. Especially the way the directory felt the need to move the action outside of Max's room. Well, to be honest, I don't think I like the melodrama, the dysfunctional family, the psychotic Max, or the lack of fun and wonder either. Judging from the reviews I don't think I would like much.

For once reviews did their job. Despite the effusive praise, the simple summaries were enough to convince me that it was not a film for me.