What I researched and Why?
I looked into more modern day interpretations of Maurice Sendak's book Where the Wild Things Are. I remember my father reading this book to me when I was young because he loved the book, but all I remembered about it was that it was a little scary. I eventually outgrew that stage or got used to the story, one or the other, but I wanted to see what other people thought about the book.
What I found?
I found that some people thought that the book was slightly scary, and early readers were concerned about this. Critics early on thought that the book might traumatize children and show them an appreciation for chaos, freedom, and fantasy. These early critics have been overshadowed by the great deal of praise for the book being able to help children deal with "dark emotions". The book was published in 1963 and was the first around that children could really identify with to help them deal with anger.
In the early 1980's Disney had possession of the rights to the book and were considering making an animation film from it. Disney decided to pass for whatever reasons and lost the rights to the story. Currently Warner Bros has possession of these rights and is due to release a live action/ puppet/computer animation movie based on the book. The movie is to open in Oct of 2008 and is being directed by Spike Jonze. The film will be rated PG13 for computer animated violence, language, and adult situations. Movie
My Interpretation
I think it is interesting that the movie will be rated PG13 when the book was designed to help young children deal with anger. The movie is obviously aimed at an older audience. Maybe the audience needs to be able to understand things that the book has already taught them. As I can tell the book currently does not deal with violence, language or adult situations that are over the heads of children under 13. I am curious to see how these situations were included into the film.
Children's interpretation of the story will most likely be altered due to this film. People seem to remember more about a film than they do about a book. This may be do to how much visual stimulus is actually given to you. If someone is given more of how the director sees the story, then they are less likely to use their imagination to create their own ideas about the story.
What this Adds to Class Discussion?
Will the meaning of the story change as a result of this film? Are films a good thing? Do they help children understand a story in a way that will help them, or do they stunt a child's own development of being able to come up with a moral that is age appropriate to them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Molly, I thought this was a really good find, I had no idea there was a movie in the works and I am interested to see how it comes across the public, and critics upon release. Typically, I think films based on children's literature doesn't hurt the meaning of the books and helps children, especially those who may not have wild imaginations, gain a better visual image of the words they have read. I'm all for using movies and visual imagery as a teaching tool especially when paired with the original literature. However, I have a different feeling from this. This book doesn't need visual accompaniment from a movie, it's already a picture book with fantastic drawn imagery. I do think it may hurt the integrity of the book, but I don't think by any means, it's harmful for children. I just don't like that for many children, their first encounter with this classic is with a movie. But I looked through the internet for related news and Sendak gave his support for the film, “I am in love with it. If Spike Jonze did not do this movie now, I would just as soon not see any version of it ever get made.” And the 'Wild Things' have great cameos from the likes of James Gandolfini, Forest Whittaker and Benicio Del Toro.
This reminds me a little of the current animated movies that are out, such as Shrek. It seems like it should be a tale for children, but it takes on adult humor that most likely goes right over kid's heads. It's a good thing though because both children and adults can enjoy those films. I'm not sure of the ratings of those films, maybe PG? But it differs in the movie version of Where the Wild Things are since there's not too much violence or frightening images in Shrek; I would consider him frightening though if he didn't have such a lovable personality, so both children and adults can enjoy it, not just kids over 13.
It makes me wonder if Shrek would have been written in older times, would it have been directed more towards children? Is it a trend that more children's books are being turned into movies that are directed toward an older, broader audience than originally intended?
I think this whole post really ties in with the theme of the class that you really have to research a tale before you judge it. You never really know what it was originally intended for by just looking at modern adaptations.
Molly, you made an interesting point concerning the mature rating: that it's marketed to adults because it addresses dark topics that the audience will actually need to understand and not just experience. Reading the book allows us immediately to relate with the character's helplessness and frustration...and once he gets to stamp around and release his pent up feelings, he returns to his socially acceptable self. If the book can convey this message to children and adults, can't a movie address a wide age range as well? The reasons and ways we act out may be drastically different depending on our age and life situation, but the feelings are definitely universal. Even so, I'm extremely curious to see how they've chosen to expand upon the story to make it a full-length, pg-13 rated movie.
I am very curious about how the film makers will portray a book like this. So much of it's magic is in the imagination that goes hand in hand with the images. Anyone can read it in a mere 5 minutes and yet, for so many of us (myself included) this book stays with us as a dear childhood story and memory. I am particularly interested in how the 3 pages of pure imagery (the wild rumpus) from the book will be portrayed. This is a time when the cliche about a picture being worth a thousand words certainly applies, and I am afraid that taking away children's abilities to imagine all of the crazy things that the wild things and max do during their rumpus will detract from the overall story.
I feel that the book version of the story isn't really violent and something that chould be censored. If books had ratings like movies, I would, without a doubt, give this one PG. Because of this, I am very interested to see how the film is going to expand on the original plot. What are they going to add that will make this childhood book only appropriate for teenagers and up?
I agree when wondering how they will make this book a PG-13 film. Given how short the book is, an hour and a half (if they're shooting for almost the average length) film seems quite the task.
I'm not a Film Major, but some ideas that come to mind as to how they may fit the time could be:
1)Backstory: Find out more about Max, his mother, and maybe his father
2) Max's sailing in the boat: Stretch it out, maybe include scenes of storms and such
3) Long Montage of the Wild Rumpus
I can see violence meriting a non-G rating, but PG seems more appropriate. I wonder what these "adult situations" will be?
I had no idea they were making a film out of this book! I think one reason they might be making it for older children is because they might make more money from it in that way. Although film is a really great form of art, I think that many times the money making aspect of it wins out over the artistic aspect of it. So rather than asking what would be lost or gained as far as what the original book's purpose was, I think the makers of the movie are probably just more worried about how marketable it will be. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Post a Comment