Here’s a prediction: the upcoming feature film adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where the Wild Things Are, to be released on October 16th, will be stunning artistic triumph or a critical disaster.
If it’s the former, it might even be a box office hit. If it’s the latter, it will surely end up a massive flop.
How is such an “either-or” prediction possible?
It has a lot to do with the unconventional director, Spike Jonze, who has broken the “rules” of filmmaking on both his previous films and who sees Wild Things as his most personal ever — despite its $80 million-plus studio-level budget.
But it also has to do with the troubled history of the film — turmoil that’s been spilling out onto the blogs for years now and is now featured in a splashy cover story on last Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine.
Jonze is the director of only two previous films: Being John Malkovich and Adaptation — both critically acclaimed, but also impossible to pigeon-hole. (Indeed, Adaptation is a satire of the whole by-the-numbers filmmaking process — and an homage to those who try to circumvent it.)
From the start, the word on Where the Wild Things Are has been that it’s different — really different.
According to the New York Times, Universal Studios passed on the film, claiming that Jonze’s script, co-written with author Dave Eggers, didn’t have enough of a plot (much like the book). It was Warner Brothers that finally greenlit it, based on earlier successes fitting quirky indie directors like Christopher Nolan and Alfonso Cuaron into big-budget hits like Batman Begins and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
But Jonze battled the studio throughout the production, insisting, for example, that it’s okay that the film is thematically ambiguous and that what little dialogue there is be “realistic” and not always capable of being understood by the audience.
According to 2007 blog reports, an early screening of the film’s rough cut resulted in crying children and walk-outs.
The studio insisted on changes, but Jonze reportedly refused most of them. After all, the director went through similar disagreements with the financiers of Being John Malkovich, and he ended up being hailed as visionary.
With many millions of dollars at stake, the studio is now at least pretending to play nice.
“It’s like the studio was expecting a boy, and I gave birth to a girl,” Jonze told the New York Times. “And now they’re learning to love and accept their daughter.”
With the impending release of the film, it’s tempting to simply assume that Where the Wild Things Are is yet another case of a brilliant filmmaker being forced into mediocrity by a craven, soul-less movie studio — another Brazil, for example. The studio agreed to release Terry Gilliam’s cut of that film only after the Los Angeles Film Critics Association shamed them into it; the critics awarded Gilliam’s version Best Picture after a private screening by the director.
Still, for every success like Brazil, there are plenty of “director’s cuts” that are pretty much unwatchable disasters — films like Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain or Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut. (And for the record, Brazil still flopped, at least in the U.S.)
In other words, the studios aren’t always wrong, at least when it comes to wide appeal. After all, “wide appeal” is how they make their money.
There are even those (like this writer) who think that Jonze’s earlier films had major flaws and were critically acclaimed mostly because their concepts were so outrageous and bold — so decidedly different than anything else Hollywood was producing.
Still, no matter how slight the plot of Where the Wild Things Are is, the story of its adaptation as a movie will have a very definite ending: on October 16th, when the film is released.
It remains to be seen, however, if that ending will be a happy one for Jonze and the studio.
Looking to buy Where the Wild Things Are? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.
![[Bloglines]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[Digg]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Fark]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/fark.png)
![[Google]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Squidoo]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/squidoo.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Just as a complete aside, “The Fountain” wasn’t an unwatchable disaster to anyone with a modicum of background in science fiction… or just regular quantum theory/nanotechnology. In fact, it was a completely and utterly cool and brilliant piece of work showcasing themes barely seen in entertainment media outside of books. For people who knew what they were watching, The Fountain was totally unbelievably cool and awesome.
I would invite readers to rent THE FOUNTAIN to decide for themselves if it’s unbelievably cool and awesome or an unwatchable disaster.
Um, sorry, I hated the fountain too. I guess that means I don’t have a modicum of background in science fiction or quantum theory … even though, weirdly, I do.
Since when was “Eyes Wide Shut” an unwatchable disaster?!? EWS is a brilliant film and most definitely Kubrick’s masterpiece.
From all I’ve seen thus far — “Where the Wild Things Are” is going to a phenomenal film. The trailer sends shivers up my spine and brings tears to my eyes.
I agree with the other posts, The Fountain was in no way an unwatchable disaster. It was a disaster for the studios and corporations hoping to profit from it, but the film itself was a piece of art and totally underrated. By now, The Fountain is almost a cult classic, with a relatively large “underground” fan base. Think again!
Really? Wow. There was open mocking in the theater I saw it in.
I enjoyed “The Fountain”, but it’s not a movie I would grab on DVD.
As for “Where the Wild Things Are”, I’m hopeful that it will be a good movie (the trailer looks incredible), but I’m going to try and go into the film with very low expectations so that I’m not too disappointed. If Jonze had complete control, I’d expect an interesting film, if not an enjoyable one. With all the studio interference, I fear it will be a dull, “paint by numbers” film.
Big thumbs down on The Fountain, but intrigued by Wild Things. It sounds like the studio TRIED to interfere, but it didn’t work.
Wow, the monsters in the trailer really really look like …puppets. Puppets that look like the children’s book monsters, but still puppets. Interesting choice. He’s definitely breaking the rules…………
Interesting point. Jonze keeps saying he’s trying to make the movie from the POV of a child. Maybe that’s the point of monsters who look like puppets.
As a child of the seventies, I have to say when I saw the trailer all I could think was ………. PUFF’N'STUFF. The monsters looked like they were recycled Puff’n’stuff costumes - with fur added.
Not that I mind fur
“…that are pretty much unwatchable disasters — films like Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain”
When such statements are not qualified, at all, I can’t take them seriously. The movie is brilliant for numerous reasons, the acting alone was very moving, then there are the ground breaking special effects which were done almost entirely without CGI, believe it or not, and most importantly, the story was ingenious and very avant garde, not to mention heartfelt, genuine and very moving.
Now it’s understandable if such high quality, cerebral entertainment doesn’t appeal to everyone, but I’d appreciate it if at least an effort was made to justify such a ludicrous statement as the one quoted.
Thanks for contributing to the article, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’d love to write more about the film, but this is an article about WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, not THE FOUNTAIN.
For the record, the film has a 28% “fresh” rating among the “cream of the crop” critics at RottenTomatoes (and a 51% among all critics). Likewise, Netflix users have given it disastrous ratings. This doesn’t mean I’m “right” and you’re “wrong.” It means these are all opinions — but that perhaps mine is less “ludicrous” than you maintain.
P.S. I agree that the visual look of the film was beyond stunning. But to me, that made it that much more of a disappointment, because it seemed wasted in the service of a muddled, pretentious script.
i cant wait to watch this movie it is going to be bomb
I agree, both ‘The Fountain’ and EWS were very cool movies (especially the first one).