What did the studio and producers expect when they hired Spike Jonze to direct and co-write an adaptation of the beloved children’s novel Where the Wild Things Are? I mean, honestly – this is the guy that directed Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. I’ve been purposely silent on this for a while, but this entire ordeal is just beyond frustrating to read about over and over. It doesn’t ease my mind when Jonze has been a class-act about it all and kept his mouth shut, when I only wish he would start swearing and calling the studio and producers a lot of bad, bad names. At least he has the unanimous support of the online community as well as Oscar-winner and star of his movie Forest Whitaker, according to /Film. Whitaker said of Jonze’s cut:
“I play Ira, he puts the holes in the trees,” the Oscar-winner grinned. “I have a wife and kid, and we’re the only family unit inside [the land of the Wild Things]. It’s a good movie. I saw an early cut of it. I brought my kids to see it, and I was really impressed. … [The dark scenes] are the point of the movie, and I hope that they maintain that point, because I think children can identify with a character who is upset. … [Max] rolls by himself, no father figure; this is a single family home,” he continued, with passion. “His mother ends up having a boyfriend that becomes like a monster to him… people have to build trust with the people their parent starts to date…These are real issues that the character deals with, and I hope that [the filmmakers] continue to explore them, because kids need to see that; they need to see that other kids are dealing with it. The thing is, it’s one thing to read [scary stuff] in a book, but when you see an itty-bitty kid running alongside a 10-foot-giant on the side of a cliff, it gets intense. But that’s the point, because we’re representing the things inside of the kid. They represent his struggles, either him being too angry or being confused, or not feeling like he belongs. They’re a gargantuan extension of the way he’s feeling inside.”
Originally slated to come out at the end of this year, this movie won’t see the light of day until October of 2009, because the test audiences said it was too mature, too scary for children (but it’s no secret that test audiences are, as a whole, idiotic, is it?). That’s 19 months away. And they’re going to butcher Jonze’s movie with this proposed reshoots. And I don’t want to have to wait and see a Director’s Cut. This is so frustrating. Can a studio take a chance? I get that they are business and all most of them care about is making dough, but come on. When a studio hires a unique, offbeat, Oscar-nominated director, can they just let the man do his job and create his vision? Obviously, he explained this vision to everyone before he was able to sign on the dotted line, so it can’t be too much of a surprise to them.
God forbid, we actually challenge children a little bit.
Lets be honest – challenging kids and scaring them into half wits are two different things but I completely agree. This is disastrous for everyone involved. As you said, the studio had to know what they were in for when they hired the Jonze and frankly, if it’ll scare little kids, then just live with a higher rating! I’m sure it’ll probably be ok for the 8-12 year old crowd. But wait, that’s alienating some of the market. Go figure.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that kids stuff is made into a kids movie. If Spike Jonze wants the film to resonate with a different crowd, how about he doesn’t adapt a kids book? I mean you’re putting it out as if “the studio should know better”, but really, Spike Jonze should know better as well. And if he doesn’t want to make a kids film, he shouldn’t make one. Just do something else.
I will say though, that I think the test footage looked cool. At least visually this looks like a cool movie, but as I understand the look of the wild things is pretty heavily set in the book?
Either way, if you don’t want to be forced to make a kids film, don’t adapt a kids novel. If you’re in it for the cashgrab, at least be honest about it.
It is frustrating. I think they didn’t take two things into account. First, Where the Wild Things Are was written 45 years ago when thing that today many would find unacceptable in kids’ book WAS acceptable. Second, this is Spike Jonze we’re talking about! You really have to wonder what they expected, between the book being adapted and the director directing the adaptation….
Russ from CHUD nailed my thoughts, so I’ll just quote him:
“I’m no parent, but I do know that kids are far more resilient and (generally) smarter than they’re given credit for. I can’t imagine that Jonze has crafted some children’s movie version of Saw, and if there’s a recognizable basis for the scary stuff in the movie, most young audiences will be able to handle it.”
Jonze just needs to hold on a bit more until Coraline comes out, scares the bejeebus out of adults everywhere, and then the studio might realize that the kids handled the ordeal far better then their parents did and maybe they will let him make a proper Where the Wild Things Are.
A) Where the Wild Things Are is supposed to be kind of scary. The book scared the bejeezus out of me when I was little.
B) I guess that was my only point. I was going to get into it about kids movies with Henrik, then thought better of it.
“because the test audiences said it was too mature, too scary for children”
Who gives a shit? So it’s scary. Why does it HAVE to be a kids’ movie. Why can’t it just be a movie and see what comes of it. Catering to children will just make the movie smell like ass.
not to mention that David Eggars is the screenwriter for the thing. Having just finished his book “A Heartbreaking work of Staggering Genius” I tend to wonder exactly what the suits were expecting by pairing up Eggars and Jonze. Methinks the product was exactly what these two would come up with, then the suits are upset about it?
I hate focus groups.
I mean, why have a classic film that will make serious buck in the long run, and be watched for years, when you can go for the quick cash with high bank in the first two weeks of Box Office, before dumping to DVD and all but forgotten. Anyone going to remember Ice Age 3? Didn’t think so.
The beauty of Sendak’s book is that there is no moral, no lesson, just an artistic expression of a kid having a temper tandrum. It’s not necessarily a kid-friendly book in the post 1990′s “my beautiful and fragile snowflake” age of parenting. I say the movie should reflect that.
Look at the DISNEY film “SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES” – bloody terrifying little movie to a small child, and I have very, very warm memories of it.
Look at the British film “THE WITCHES” another classic that is legitimately scary too. We need more of these folks.
I think they were expecting a heartbreaking work of staggering genius. The suits judge books by covers.
I dont know, I would say the book is beloved by very young children… more so then Witches, and I can see an argument that they have ostracized their intended audience if it is too scary. I was also terrified by ‘Something Wicked This Way Comes’ as a youngin’ and it took me a long time to get over it. Did not see much positive in the experience.
Not sure what they wanted Eggers unless they wanted a few ‘motherfuckers’ sprinkled into the dialogue. Eggers does meta, but does a kids movie need meta?
“Why does it HAVE to be a kids’ movie.”
“I don’t think it’s unreasonable that kids stuff is made into a kids movie. ”
Oddly enough, amidst your bickering, you’ve both missed the point in the exact same way. Without having seen the film it sounds to me like Jonze has made a kids film. A film filled with imagination, adventure and unconvention. A film in the tradition of childhood classics like Bambi, Pinnochio, Dark Crystal and Never Ending Story.
Unfortunately he’s offended modern society’s obsession with “protecting” children from things like imagination, adventure, and unconvention. What pisses me off about stuff like this is that all these rules about what is and isn’t appropriate for kids are only for the benefit of adults.
Somehow we’ve recently convinced ourselves that childhood is a time of absolute purity and innocence, nothing upsetting ever happens and all kids are completely ignorant about sex and have never heard swear words. It’s a sick and perverse delussion that robs kids of the imaginative story telling they deserve.
And also, fuck bicycle helmets and life preservers. Learn to swim asshole.
If Jonze had filled the movie with fart jokes and product placement for Burger King (I guess I don’t know he didn’t) it would’ve been waved by without incident and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
sure its all conjecture at this point… how dark is the question. good point about neverending story… the ‘nothing’ was a terrifying thought to confront as a child and that film was beloved by me.
My memory may be a bit fuzzy, but I took NEVERENDING STORY to be ‘mostly harmless’ which I saw it as a kid…Didn’t Wolfgang Peterson do that movie almost concurrently with Das Boot?
And miracles can happen, look at Babe: Pig In City, and the batshit crazy “Don’t Look Now” hommage in the middle:
http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/the_new_cult_canon_babe_pig_in
(Third Clip, scroll down)
Never-Ending Story had the Wolf that has this long ass monologue about how it is going to kill Atrayu, and just the nihilist conceit of the Nothing was heavy stuff for a kids film.
Something else occurred to me today. Maybe the movie SHOULD be marketed for adults. I mean there are way more of us that have fond memories of the book than there are of kids.
Corporate, money-grabbing issues aside, I’d like to see something that I can relate to or that will take me back and give me frightful feelings, rather than some fluff for kids garbage to sell more tickets.
Andrew, I don’t want to come off as an asshole, but I can’t help but wonder why in the world you would look to “Where the wild things are” to find something to relate to.
Never Ending Story has got the scene where the horse drowns, slowly and agonizingly. It traumatized us as kids with its cruel revelations about life. We watched it twice a year in grade school.
Andrew, first of all I don’t know why a kids film is anymore “money grabbing” than a film for adults. Secondly, whatever the logistics I think it’s reasonable for the film’s investors to want to make a childrens film. My gripe is that it sounds to me like Jonze did make a children’s film.
Henrik, I suspect you are unfamiliar with the story.
Rusty, “…first of all I don’t know why a kids film is anymore “money grabbing” than a film for adults. Secondly, whatever the logistics I think it’s reasonable for the film’s investors to want to make a childrens film…”
These two statements seem to contradict one another and is exactly my point. A movie marketed towards kids is probably going to do very well at the box office. One aimed at adults might not. Therefore, they want something aimed at kids – hence, money grabbing instead of just caing about artistic integrity and letting this experienced director do what he wants to make a great film.