Saturday, October 17, 2009

max at sea

Last night I saw Spike Jonze's mega-hyped Where the Wild Things Are. I liked it. The visuals were spectacular, and the boy who plays Max could not have been better cast. His face is perfect in every shot, and my friend left the theater saying, "That is exactly how I want my son to be."
That said, I left the theater wondering why the wild things were so despairingly sad.

At the end of the summer I read Dave Eggers' story "Max at Sea" in the New Yorker, which I later found out was taken from the novel The Wild Things which is based on the screenplay Eggers wrote with Jonze for the movie. The story was fine, though I have yet to feel the same amount of adoration for Eggers' writing that I did after reading A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.
At any rate, last night as the movie began I was shocked by how closely the opening sequence matched the New Yorker story. It is fair to say that I preferred it on the big screen. But I'm still left wondering why the creatures Max encounters struggle with the tragedy that marks human existence. They were so so sad!

I read a New Yorker interview with Eggers where he talks about why he wrote a novel based on the beloved children's story. Here is what he said:

So it was a matter of probing deeper into who Max is, what he wants, what his life is like at home and at school. And on the island, looking deeper into who the Wild Things are and what they want from Max, his life as their king, and why he leaves. From the beginning, though, Maurice was clear that he didn’t want the movie or the book to be timid adaptations. He wanted us to feel free to push and pull the original story in new directions. Spike also gave me total leeway to make the book my own. He didn’t change a word, even though there were some things he was surprised by. That’s why we say the book is “loosely” or “very loosely” based on the movie.

I don't know if I would ever read this book.... I would definitely re-watch the movie, because it was gorgeous and entertaining (though, as I continue to dwell on, shockingly sad), but I feel like an adaption into a full length novel is a strange endeavor. The short story in The New Yorker featured just the right amount of what it feels like to believe you're utterly alone at age ten.

And, more importantly, (hah), I immediately ripped out the title page photo to bring to school for decoration. (My parents gave me permission to remove it, only after insisting that I photocopy the last page of the article on the opposite side of the photo...a story about electronic cars that I'm positive neither of them read).

Here is the photo currently next to my bedside. It alone gives an idea of just how lovable Max is in the film.






3 comments:

  1. I haven't seen the movie or read Max at Sea (now will have to look that up and read it!)

    Since you seem interested in the topic, I'm curious as to what your take is on several other adaptations of Where the Wild Things Are (which is, by far, the best children's book out there.) Have you seen the 1973 short animated film about the book? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSkHA6IjrlY&feature=related

    It's almost exactly like the book, but is actually kind of scary in parts with the movements of the beast and the bizarre oboe music and pounding kettle drums to go with it. The narration makes me wonder if it's actually a plus or a detriment to hear someone else's voice set the tone of the story.

    There was also an opera- the first part of this clip is specifically for "Where the Wild Things Are..." very bizarre:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSbOCfIh3HI

    ReplyDelete
  2. That opera was ridiculous!

    I think your question about narration altering a tone of a story is a valid one... I'd have to say that the inflection in the narrator's voice makes it worse, but that's just my opinion.

    Thanks for sharing those, they're great.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was able to make it to the movie over this past weekend, and my brother (who went with me) is convinced the story is a reworking of Plato's diagram of the soul mapped out in The Republic.

    Briefly...Plato's soul is comprised of three parts. On top is a human head, the middle is a lion head, and the bottom is comprised of multi-headed, multi-desired beasts. So:

    1. You have a small human head atop the others that controls cognitive thought and reflection but is actively powerless over the other parts. This head works most like a record or camera for the entire beings actions (Max).

    2. The large and powerful lion head competes with the human and the other beasts. The lion has the most control, but it cannot be viewed as either benevolent or malevolent (Carol, I think his name was).

    3. The beasts are fairly one-dimensional, each of which pursues whatever they please. They fight with the lion and the human, but their actions are ultimately meaningless except that they distract the other two parts (all of the other "wild things").

    Mostly I just thought you would find this interpretation interesting, as I did, and maybe you would want to look into it.

    My biggest fear was that the movie would go Harry Potter on us and cater to a much a younger demographic, but as you said with the sadness, this was not the case. I enjoyed this a lot and alluding to Plato added a whole other level.

    I can't say whether I liked the movie or not, but my expectations were very high. Then again, if you are going to adapt one of the most beloved children stories ever written, you better do it right.

    ReplyDelete