I can’t criticize much about the unique direction taken in the movie, since the book was so open to interpretation. The movie wasn’t wrong, just so very different from the book. That being said, there were some aspects of the original that I would have liked to see brought into the movie adaptation....
It seems futile to compare Where The Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak and the movie directed by Spike Jonez and written by Jonez and Dave Eggers, seeing that the original was so simple and open to the imagination while the movie was very much more closed and specific in the unique narrative tangent it chose to follow. However, I did feel a sense of loss for a few changes or omissions of elements from the book. For one, I felt sort of dissatisfied with the Wild Rumpus. Maybe I expected to see page by page recreations of the 3 full-page spreads in the book, but I think it was more that it didn’t seem like everyone was having as much fun as they do in the book. Everyone knows we need some hanging from trees in a decent Wild Rumpus.
Also, the color palette was overly muted. The color correction or lens filters brought everything into such a monochromatic visual realm and the book was so much more colorful and dynamic visually. This decision may be have been the result of simple stylistic differences or it could have been an accidental artifact of the Zeitgeist, seeing that so many of the modern films are going with heavy use of dominant coloring to heavily suggest moods for their audiences. Often visual effects artists use this sort of extreme color-washing to hide problems with cohesion and consistency among the various visual elements in a shot.
The scenes from the book I missed most of all was the transformation of the bedroom into forest. Not only is it such a defining image from the book, but it also represents to me something from my childhood. How often did my own safe, simple bedroom turn into someplace else entirely. The metamorphosis is also a master stroke of artistic skill by Sendak and it would have been great to see what the artists working on the film could have done with it. The magic was completely lacking in the movie where Max actually runs away from the house, has a tantrum in a deserted lot and arrives at a conveniently located docked boat. Too prosaic for my taste and such a missed opportunity.
The most heart-wrenching part to me in the book is when Max says goodbye to the wild things and leaves the island. I always felt the wild things were getting an unfair deal. Max shows up, gives them a new friend, shows them a new way to live and play, then leaves them behind, carelessly abandoning them to revert to their old wild ways. Despite the lackluster way the filmmakers handled the delivery of the line “we’ll eat you up – we love you so!”, I felt that the movie carried the same sort of melancholy and unfairness as the scene in the book. I still felt like the wild things got the underside of the bargain. They finally got a king they didn’t eat for goodness sake and then he up and leaves them. And I have to admit, that the final growl, no matter how contrived it may have been, made me blow my nose a few times (because I was tearing up, not because I am allergic to fur and claws).
Overall, the changes I mention above are indicative of a major change in theme. In the book, Max is still a child, albeit a selfish one, but still with much of his innocence intact. He never actually leaves his bedroom (or so most of us assume) and he returns to a nice warm plate of food. He isn’t overtly faced with adult issues, except maybe anger and a general feeling of loneliness. In the film, Max is a character who has been forced to grow up rather quickly before he even leaves on his travels. When he does run away and go to the land of the wild things, he is faced with an even scarier adult-like existence, where he finds himself in a role of responsibility and fragile leadership and has to deal with questionable issues of right and wrong. When he gets back home, he is left to digest some serious issues and push forward into adolescence and its complications.
Though I applaud Spike Jonez and crew for a brave, thoughtful treatment of such a huge cult classic, the movie and the book are different beasts entirely and I prefer Sendak’s wild things to Jonez’s.
