Where the Wild Things Aren’t
— Monday, October 19th, 2009 —
This past Saturday I took my three oldest sons to see the movie Where the Wild Things Are. Some Christians are all exercised about the fact that the movie might be too frightening for children. They’re wrong. The movie is not a great one, but that’s not the reason why. As a matter of fact, Where the Wild Things Are fails because it’s not scary enough for your kids.
And there’s something there Chrisians can learn about children, horror, and the gospel.
From the time my sons were babies I’ve read to them the Maurice Sendack classic picture book. They love it, and so do I. They’d sit attentively through Goodnight Moon, but they’d squeal “Let the wild rumpus start!” whenever we’d journey with Max to the place of the wild things.
Children, it turns out, aren’t as naive about evil as we assume they are. Children of every culture, and in every place, seem to have a built-in craving for monsters and dragons and “wild things.” The Maurice Sendak book appeals to kids because it tells them something about what they intuitively know is true. The world around them is scary. There’s a wildness out there. The Sendak book shows the terror of a little boy who is frightened by his own lack of self-control, and who conquers it through self-control, by becoming king of all the wild things.
The Sendak book, with its muted words but fantastic drawings, achieves this sense of wonder and wildness. The movie doesn’t. That’s because the movie tames the wild things too much. It’s not that they’re too scary for children. It’s that they’re not believable as scary. The dialogue sounds like it was lifted from an old episode of Thirtysomething, as the beasts talk through their psychodramas and jealousies and interpersonal offenses with one another. Kids will be entertained because the special effects are good. But they won’t “get it” deep inside like they do the book.
I’m amazed though by the way some Christians react to things like this. They furrow their brow because the Max character screams at this mother, and bites her, even though this is hardly glorified in the movie. They wag their heads at how “dark” the idea of this wild world is. Of course it is “dark.” The universe is dark; that’s why we need the Light of Galilee.
Where the Wild Things Are isn’t going to be a classic movie the way it is a classic book. But the Christian discomfort with wildness will be with us for a while. And it’s the reason too many of our children find Maurice Sendak more realistic than Sunday school.
Too many of our Bible study curricula for children declaw the Bible, excising all the snakes and dragons and wildness. We reduce the Bible to a set of ethical guidelines and a text on how gentle and kind Jesus is. The problem is, our kids know there are monsters out there. God put that awareness in them. They’re looking for a sheep-herding dragon-slayer, the One who can put all the wild things under His feet.
Your kids might be bored by the Wild Things movie. They won’t be bored by the Wild Things book. It’s their story, and mine. But read them the story of Max and his monsters, and then show them the Story they were knit together to love.
And let the wild rumpus start.
13 Responses to “Where the Wild Things Aren’t”
Trackbacks
- Russell Moore on Wild Things and Sunday School « Εις Δοξαν
- Movie Reviews: Where the Wild Things Are « who am i?
- The Children’s Ministry Blog Patrol (October 2009) « Dad In The Middle
Thanks for this thoughtful response, Dr. Moore. If we shelter our children from the reality of evil what will we say Christ saves them from?
Reply
Lucas, that’s exactly right. They know it’s there. It’s Heb 2 and Rom 2. That’s why those “tamed down” fairy tales (you know, where Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf work everything out in the end) don’t work for kids. They know better.
Reply
Dr Moore: Thanks for your comments on this movie. I too took my sons on Saturday to see the movie and we all liked the book better (as usual). Personally, I thought the movie was horrible; a total waste of time and dollars. I didn’t even think the special effects were good. The only part I liked, upon reflection, is at the start of the mvie when Max is building and playing in his ice fort.
This movie . . . what a drag.
Reply
I’m surprised you didn’t like it that much, Dr. Moore.
I’m not sure Jonze was going for scary, so I don’t know how much I would fault him for not being scary enough. I think he used the favorite children’s book to look at the “horror”, if you will, of broken families. I thought it was an interesting look at the destructive nature of sin to fracture relationships.
The king those monsters were looking for was one who would “keep all the sadness out,” who would be able to conquer them and make things better. But Max is mortal. Those monsters are his own. He can’t be their king because he needs one too.
Of course Jonze doesn’t ever get around to delivering such a king, but I wasn’t holding my breath. Considering all that, I really liked it.
But I do agree with your larger point about the danger of sugarcoating the world around us for our kids. Perhaps in the hands of a different artist, Where the Wild Things Are would have been “scarier” in all the right ways.
Reply
@Tyler Wittman, Oh but he was aiming for scary. He says so in virtually every interview. That’s why both he and Maurice Sendak say that parents whose kids are scared should just “stay home.” Plus, the scariness of it all is exactly what “Where the Wild Things Are” is about. You can’t understand the archetype that’s at the root of it without tapping into the terror of childhood.
@Dr. Moore, well if that’s the case, then he fooled me! I thought it went for funny more than scary.
@Tyler Wittman,
there was a great line near the end by one of the monsters, something like, “i don’t think there really is a king who can do all those things.” that’s a line we should hang our hats on - without a great king, THE king, there really is no hope, nothing to sustain us in all the brokenness and instability of the world.
@Dr. Moore,
i think of films as different media than books. films, by their very nature, have to foreground some things in the books while leaving others out (e.g. LOTR) since they can’t tackle it all. i guess what i’m saying is that this film is a different artistic work than the book, and i personally feel it’s better than what you’re saying it is (though i agree it’s “different than the book”). it has a lot going on at several levels, one of those films with which the interpreter can keep playing and drawing connections.
“The Sendak book shows the terror of a little boy who is frightened by his own lack of self-control, and who conquers it through self-control, by becoming king of all the wild things.”
I’m not sure I agree with your spin on the book. Let’s not forget that Max becomes king of the wild things only to leap into a kind of wild, hedonistic “rumpus,” indulging the animalistic, destructive desires that he was engaging when he was being so naughty during the opening of the book.
I didn’t care too much for Jonze’s movie, but it wasn’t because the film wasn’t scary (if the book is “scary,” it’s only scary in a humorous, light way). I am at odds with Jonze’s film because it is incessantly mopey, failing to conjure up any emotion other than a melancholy. There’s no real sense of exhilaration, fun, adventure, or whimsy. It’s like a perpetual rain cloud hangs over the picture, drowning any life in a flood of sadness. As a result, even the moments that *should* be sad fail to hit home. The film hits the same note far too frequently.
Reply
@Ryan Holt,
i tend to agree with your take. it’s weakness, in my opinion, is that it lacked emotional variety, though seeing max laugh and enjoy himself at various times in the wild was fun. good thoughts
I really appreciated this post and thought it was very well written.
I’ve yet to see ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ (my how things change when you have a kid), but I’ve read the book and have loved it since a kid. I now read it frequently to my 1 year old boy who growls and shouts with me as we read it.
What resonates so strongly with me about this post are statements like this one,
“The Maurice Sendak book appeals to kids because it tells
them something about what they intuitively know is true.
The world around them is scary. There’s a wildness out
there.
I couldn’t agree with this more. I’ve never understood the fear-mongering attitude of some parents regarding the slightest hint of magic or monsters.
More importantly, this attitude and fear has found it’s way, like you’ve said, all the way into the Sunday school classroom. How silly have lessons become that focus far more on behavior change and instructions on interpersonal ethics.
You said it well when you said, “They’re looking for a sheep-herding dragon-slayer, the One who can put all the wild things under His feet.”
The monsters in this world don’t go away just because we close our eyes. Or put our hands in front of our kids’ eyes.