How do you adapt the unadaptable? That’s a challenge that an increasing number of film-makers are willing to take on in these days if increasing technological advances. Lord Of The Rings set a pretty high benchmark, and recent years have seen a slew of films that have taken on the challenge of bringing to the screen what was previously thought to be impossible. It’s not just adaptations – The Matrix broke new ground on action sequences. James Cameron said it took him years to develop the technology to show what was in his head – sadly he didn’t seem to realise that a sense of wonder is more than just impressive visuals.
If anything’s un-filmable, then it may well be the classic children’s book Where The Wild Things Are. That’s partly because you mess with a much loved children’s book at your peril, and also down to the length. Just how do you make any sort of meaningful film out of an original with so few words in it? The answer is you take a director who understands the need to escape from claustrophobic and limiting environments (Spike Jonze), a screenwriter who’s creative with rhythm and syntax (author David Eggars), and don’t get too wedded to special effects. The wild things here are large furry monsters brilliantly voiced – especially by the inspired casting of James Gandolfini; the boy is simply brilliant – all wild, boyish exploration and tears.
The film does tell a story of a sort, but it’s more about evoking a mood of childhood – watching it I could feel again the warm tears associated with the grazed knees of games enthusiastically played, the exciting possibilities of wild spaces and open skies and the constant wish to escape somewhere more exciting. This film evokes all and more beautifully – and as such, this is no children’s film. It’s for anyone who is or has been a child. Like Avatar it’s aiming at a wide market. Like Avatar, it’s trying to put on screen what many might naturally shy away from. Like Avatar, story isn’t the most important thing about it. Unlike Avatar, the emotions and themes it evokes are more deep, wondrous and beautiful than anything in the film people are putting on a new set of glasses to watch. You don’t need new glasses to see things differently with Wild Things. James Cameron should have taken lessons.
The Blog of David Meldrum 
I saw it with a 5 year old and an 8 year old. Thus, my take on it is probably a bit different from yours, as I saw it from their eyes.
And, on the whole, we didn’t like it much.
Visually stunning of course, the realisation of the wild things is amazing, but what heart it has is quite a sad one. The overwhelming feel of the film is one of saddness, so the kids were less than impressed – they don’t want to know that life has the potential to get you down, make you angry, etc.
Somehow, the film lacked the wonder that it really, really should have had.
A bit disappointed.
That’s an interesting reflection. One of the things I appreciated as, I know, have other children (though I didn’t get into this above) is that the wonder & enjoyment is appreciated precisely because of the sadness – it’s real, therefore earthed and not empty. One of those ongoing debates…
Pingback: The Road: Urgent, terrible beauty « The Blog of David Meldrum