Comments on: Where the Wild Things Aren’t

By: Christianity Today’s Top Ten Most Redeeming Movies of 2009 « A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:02:07 +0000

[...] Number 6 in the list, however, is by far one of my favorite movies of 2009. I grew up reading Maurice Sendak’s book, and the images were captivating. While some reviews of the movie were less than appreciative of the adaptation (see, for example, Kenneth Turan’s review for the LA Times), others saw it as a beautiful rendition of Sendak’s original nine sentence book (see, for example, Rogert Ebert’s review for the Chicago Sun-Times). While the story was changed for the film adaptation (nine sentences is difficult to translate to a full-length movie), I believe that the changes were for the better. The opening scene is one of the best looks into the wild heart of a boy that I have seen, and the dialogue, which clearly reflects a young boy’s mind, gives the movie an authenticity that is lacking in many movies that attempt to achieve the same goal. To see a different take on the movie, read Russell More’s insightful post here. [...]

By: Ryan Plantz

Ryan Plantz — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:37:51 +0000

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.

By: The Children’s Ministry Blog Patrol (October 2009) « Dad In The Middle

The Children’s Ministry Blog Patrol (October 2009) « Dad In The Middle — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:03:10 +0000

[...] Where the Wild Things Aren’t [...]

By: Movie Reviews: Where the Wild Things Are « who am i?

Movie Reviews: Where the Wild Things Are « who am i? — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:33:50 +0000

[...] Southern Seminary professor Russell Moore suggests the movie might not be wild enough: Where the Wild Things Aren’t [...]

By: Russell Moore on Wild Things and Sunday School « Εις Δοξαν

Russell Moore on Wild Things and Sunday School « Εις Δοξαν — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:45:45 +0000

[...] Read the whole thing here. [...]

By: mike

mike — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:24:35 +0000

@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

By: mike

mike — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:22:02 +0000

@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.

By: Ryan Holt

Ryan Holt — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:23:39 +0000

“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.

By: Tyler Wittman

Tyler Wittman — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:03:26 +0000

@Dr. Moore, well if that’s the case, then he fooled me! I thought it went for funny more than scary.

By: Russell D. Moore

Russell D. Moore — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:34:50 +0000

@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.