Films 37 and 38 (Where the Wild Things Are/Unbreakable)
What a busy weekend and I got to spend most of it with an amazing person! Breakfast, included.
You know those kinds of people that you miss when they're not around? That's what's happening. It's a good feeling. And to know it's mutual feels pretty good, too.
I watched "Where the Wild Things Are" again recently. I had seen it in the theater when it first came out in 2009. I remember, it was the first time I got together with an old Bull Moose co-worker (John) in about 8 years, because he had started dating my great friend, Vanessa. So, the three of us went to see because it was the consensus that we all enjoyed the book immensely as kids. Now, I knew what to expect going to see a feature-length film of a children's book that only has 16 sentences in the entire book. There was going to be a lot added and many liberties taken to the story to make it something worth sitting for one hour and forty-seven minutes. It's directed by Spike Jonze (good thing) and the screenplay was written by Dave Eggers (one of my favorite contemporary writers, hello "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius," but also one of the most pretentious writers, as well, perhaps that's why I like him!).
I remember leaving the theater and discussing with Vanessa and John how I did not exactly enjoy the film and it left me feeling a bit cheated, perhaps because I was expecting really great things. You know, how when you read one of your favorite books and then they turn it into a movie and you are disappointed because it's not how you envisioned it? I think that's how I felt. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the other world that Spike Jonze took us to "where the wild things live."
As I watched it again, a few years later, I realized that I perhaps missed the point of the film. It's a children's book/story loaded with adult ideas of childhood. The book may not be able to tackle these things and children's books are meant to delight and engage children in reading. A movie doesn't necessarily have to do that and as I watched it, I began to see the story through Jonze's and Eggers' vision. It's a sad film. But it is self-conscience of this. It's visually stimulating, although rather dark in colors and presentation.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is a creation of Max's imagination. It's his form of escapism (whoa, adult theme!) because he has an argument with his mom and prior to that his sister abandons him for her friends after they wreck his igloo (abandonment issues, whoa!) Max is triggered by his sister and then amplified by his scene with his mom (women issues?) He has apparently also been abandoned (?) by his father. Either way, he is absent in the story. Max takes a sail boat to "Where the Wild Things Are." And each of these Wild Things have their own, unique personalities, which almost seem to be characteristics of Max, himself. That was something I completely glossed over the first time viewing it. But I definitely saw it this time around, and I was proud of myself for finding it.
Max proclaims himself king of the Wild Things and the Wild Rumpus begins, which in the book is 6 pages of illustrations with no words. The book ends soon after, because as a reader, you get the point, but the movie has about an hour to fill, so Eggers decides to explore harder subjects. The film takes on a sort of Existential aspect, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
The Wild Things ask Max, "Will you keep out the sadness?" as their king. Hmm. Who knew these creatures were struggling with complicated relationships, hurt feelings, lost best friends, and secret new friends. The neediest member of the group is voiced by James Gandolfini and I loved his entire "character. Being with the Wild Things, Max sort of discovers what it is like to be an adult, but most importantly, a parent. Something perhaps missed in just a read-through of the book. Once Max has his epiphany it is time for him to go home and we end the film seeing him eat dinner with his mother, which I enjoyed, because in the book, Max returns to his room to find his dinner in there waiting for him.
Of the wild rumpus, a professor explained it well:
"A complete, pre-Oedipal submersion in the child's ecstatic eroticism in which he satisfies his libido's wish to dance with the overpowering beasts of Sendak's own creation."
___________________________
I also watched M. Night Shyamalan's "Unbreakable" the follow-up to his great "The Sixth Sense." I enjoyed his take on the superhero story plot, which can seem rather overdone, but this film was done in 2000, before the true boom of the comic book superhero. I appreciate Shyamalan's pacing because he allows the story to develop along with the characters and waits til the end to surprise the viewer. Here, though, the ending leaves you feeling rather unsatisfied (as well as his film "The Village"), but kudos to him for "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs" (one of my favorites).
Bruce Willis plays a man who's never been sick and cannot get hurt. Perhaps an early take on the Superman story. Where did this guy come from? He struggled to understand himself, as a man, and his life seems rather out of his control. Shyamalan tells the story of this man (and his counterpart) through an observant everyday realism. Yes, it's a "supernatural" thriller, but it is told with human details and human interactions, which help make the characters a lot more real. There are relationships (father-son, husband-wife) and there are real problems, not fantastic/otherworldly issues.
Shyamalan explores the idea of "good cannot exist without evil" here by telling us "this man cannot be hurt or sick, but at the other extreme we have a man with a very rare disorder that can have his bones broken very easily." I enjoy stories that have balance, but I believe Christopher Nolan tackled the idea best with his interpretation of Batman and the Joker (Christian Bale versus Heath Ledger).
I watch Shyamalan's films with patience and an understanding that he is basically plagarizing Hitchcock's style of filmmaking. He might say that he is paying homage, but as a self-described film student, I know the difference; and I can still appreciate when he makes a decent film. He made one here worth watching.
You know those kinds of people that you miss when they're not around? That's what's happening. It's a good feeling. And to know it's mutual feels pretty good, too.
I watched "Where the Wild Things Are" again recently. I had seen it in the theater when it first came out in 2009. I remember, it was the first time I got together with an old Bull Moose co-worker (John) in about 8 years, because he had started dating my great friend, Vanessa. So, the three of us went to see because it was the consensus that we all enjoyed the book immensely as kids. Now, I knew what to expect going to see a feature-length film of a children's book that only has 16 sentences in the entire book. There was going to be a lot added and many liberties taken to the story to make it something worth sitting for one hour and forty-seven minutes. It's directed by Spike Jonze (good thing) and the screenplay was written by Dave Eggers (one of my favorite contemporary writers, hello "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius," but also one of the most pretentious writers, as well, perhaps that's why I like him!).
I remember leaving the theater and discussing with Vanessa and John how I did not exactly enjoy the film and it left me feeling a bit cheated, perhaps because I was expecting really great things. You know, how when you read one of your favorite books and then they turn it into a movie and you are disappointed because it's not how you envisioned it? I think that's how I felt. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the other world that Spike Jonze took us to "where the wild things live."
As I watched it again, a few years later, I realized that I perhaps missed the point of the film. It's a children's book/story loaded with adult ideas of childhood. The book may not be able to tackle these things and children's books are meant to delight and engage children in reading. A movie doesn't necessarily have to do that and as I watched it, I began to see the story through Jonze's and Eggers' vision. It's a sad film. But it is self-conscience of this. It's visually stimulating, although rather dark in colors and presentation.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is a creation of Max's imagination. It's his form of escapism (whoa, adult theme!) because he has an argument with his mom and prior to that his sister abandons him for her friends after they wreck his igloo (abandonment issues, whoa!) Max is triggered by his sister and then amplified by his scene with his mom (women issues?) He has apparently also been abandoned (?) by his father. Either way, he is absent in the story. Max takes a sail boat to "Where the Wild Things Are." And each of these Wild Things have their own, unique personalities, which almost seem to be characteristics of Max, himself. That was something I completely glossed over the first time viewing it. But I definitely saw it this time around, and I was proud of myself for finding it.
Max proclaims himself king of the Wild Things and the Wild Rumpus begins, which in the book is 6 pages of illustrations with no words. The book ends soon after, because as a reader, you get the point, but the movie has about an hour to fill, so Eggers decides to explore harder subjects. The film takes on a sort of Existential aspect, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
The Wild Things ask Max, "Will you keep out the sadness?" as their king. Hmm. Who knew these creatures were struggling with complicated relationships, hurt feelings, lost best friends, and secret new friends. The neediest member of the group is voiced by James Gandolfini and I loved his entire "character. Being with the Wild Things, Max sort of discovers what it is like to be an adult, but most importantly, a parent. Something perhaps missed in just a read-through of the book. Once Max has his epiphany it is time for him to go home and we end the film seeing him eat dinner with his mother, which I enjoyed, because in the book, Max returns to his room to find his dinner in there waiting for him.
Of the wild rumpus, a professor explained it well:
"A complete, pre-Oedipal submersion in the child's ecstatic eroticism in which he satisfies his libido's wish to dance with the overpowering beasts of Sendak's own creation."
___________________________
I also watched M. Night Shyamalan's "Unbreakable" the follow-up to his great "The Sixth Sense." I enjoyed his take on the superhero story plot, which can seem rather overdone, but this film was done in 2000, before the true boom of the comic book superhero. I appreciate Shyamalan's pacing because he allows the story to develop along with the characters and waits til the end to surprise the viewer. Here, though, the ending leaves you feeling rather unsatisfied (as well as his film "The Village"), but kudos to him for "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs" (one of my favorites).
Bruce Willis plays a man who's never been sick and cannot get hurt. Perhaps an early take on the Superman story. Where did this guy come from? He struggled to understand himself, as a man, and his life seems rather out of his control. Shyamalan tells the story of this man (and his counterpart) through an observant everyday realism. Yes, it's a "supernatural" thriller, but it is told with human details and human interactions, which help make the characters a lot more real. There are relationships (father-son, husband-wife) and there are real problems, not fantastic/otherworldly issues.
Shyamalan explores the idea of "good cannot exist without evil" here by telling us "this man cannot be hurt or sick, but at the other extreme we have a man with a very rare disorder that can have his bones broken very easily." I enjoy stories that have balance, but I believe Christopher Nolan tackled the idea best with his interpretation of Batman and the Joker (Christian Bale versus Heath Ledger).
I watch Shyamalan's films with patience and an understanding that he is basically plagarizing Hitchcock's style of filmmaking. He might say that he is paying homage, but as a self-described film student, I know the difference; and I can still appreciate when he makes a decent film. He made one here worth watching.
Have you read the novel Where the Wild Things Are by Dave Eggers? I have it but I haven't finished it. It's hard- I love Maurice Sendak's book and while the movie gets darker, I liked it too. Reading a novelization of the movie was more of a struggle. I'll finish it someday.
ReplyDeleteI have it, but haven't read it yet.
ReplyDelete