Free Consultation

Use our contact form to schedule a free consultation about your project.

Friday
Oct232009

Where The Wild Things Are: The Hidden Meaning

Guest Review by Molly Johnson, author of Spartacus and the Circus of Shadows

I can’t tell you how long I’d been waiting for "Where the Wild Things Are". When I saw the trailer, I knew that I finally had a movie to look forward to. I talked to everyone about it. I downloaded the Arcade Fire song that played on the trailer. I made plans with a childhood friend and we saw it together, the first Saturday it came out, grinning side-by-side, while a peanut gallery of 6-year-olds sat behind us, narrating every scene.

There are some great reviews out there about what worked and what didn’t (Salon.com and The New Yorker, for a start). But none I read touched on the larger meaning of the movie: What was the message? I’ll tell you my experience following the movie, the conclusions I jumped to…and the interpretation that came to me, two days after the movie had time to swim around in my brain.

My initial reaction was that the movie was very self-indulgent. Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers had to imbue the monsters with many characteristics that were not there in the 300-word children’s book. I understand that. What I didn’t understand was why the whole thing had to be so damn sad.

I understand the jealousy and the fighting and the breaking things (they are beasts, after all), but I don’t understand the moping. Oh god, did they mope. Stephanie Zacharek’s review in Salon aptly describes them as EMOnsters (as in Emo) —and they really are.  Brooding and dejected, they shuffle through the woods or sit alone on a cliff, shoulders rising with every painful sigh. Max sits quietly beside them, very confused, as were we.

“Why is he sad?” came a small voice in the theater behind me.

“I don’t know,” answered the bewildered mother.

“I don’t know, either,” my friend whispered to me.

One monster in particular, the giant bull, lurks in the background for the entire movie. Nothing broke my heart more than at the end when the Bull creature finally speaks, telling Max goodbye in a defeated voice, his furry hands reaching out uncertainly in the obvious “I want a hug” gesture... and Max just walks away. We can only assume the Bull committed suicide shortly after Max left.

Many children's movies can go back and forth between exultation and melancholy, but this movie stayed mostly down in the dumps. What kind of masochistic kid would enjoy this strange trip? It really seemed to me like perhaps the filmmakers had used the chance to extrapolate the original story to express all of their own feelings of a lost childhood. Or perhaps it was Dave Eggers’ post-modern influence: I can imagine him sitting around in the brainstorming session, saying “Okay, we got to make this thing dark!”. Was this really what Maurice Sendak had been intending?

However, all of that was before I slept on it, before I was able to pinpoint the undercurrent I was sensing beneath the surface. I respect Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers a lot, and I know they are smart guys, and I know they didn’t make this movie without putting a lot of thought into it. I could feel a meaning hidden there at the edge of all that melancholy and confusion, similar to that feeling I get after watching a David Lynch movie. There’s something going on there, but what is it?

Max’s trip is obviously a dream, and as in dreams, you can see parallels between Max’s experiences in real life and his experiences with the beasts. There is a fort-building, there is a fort-destroying, there are strange, confusing creatures that are meant to represent Max’s family as well as parts of himself. I got some of that. But why do the beasts want Max to be their king? Why does Carole, the main monster, want Max to “keep out all of the sadness”? Why are they so unhappy with him not being able to deliver on this tall order? What is the movie saying? You always hurt your family? You should leave them when things get bad?

It finally came to me two mornings after watching Wild Things. There is a scene when Max tells an upset Carole, “You need a mom.” Suddenly, it clicked: Max’s role as “king” of the beasts is the same role that children assign to their parents: this enormous, unachievable task. “Keep out all of the sadness.” “Keep us together.” Max’s journey, and the point of the movie, is the unfolding of his realization that his mom is not all-powerful, and that there is no one who can fully protect a family from being unhappy. Max leaving those ‘wild things’ behind is symbolic of his maturation, of his better understanding of the difficulties of ruling a kingdom (or family).

I believe that this is what Jonze and Eggers were going for, and I’m surprised I haven’t read anything about this interpretation. The subtlety of the movie, and the way it leaves a meaning lodged in your unconscious, lead me to like it a lot more than I did right after seeing it. But my reservations are still there, and that's because, no matter the worthwhile meaning, it’s still just so damn depressing.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: my review here
    Lovely Site, Carry on the very good work. Appreciate it!

Reader Comments (3)

I think the meaning can go deeper. Obviously everyone needs a family. I think the true meaning of this movie was to show how misunderstood children (or adults) see everyone. Max is just a misunderstood kid who only needs compassion, similar to the beasts in the different world. All the creatures are depressing because they all have to reflect the feelings and emotions of the helpless people like Max. They each represent different human emotions that an "emo" kid might have. When Judith says to max that she needs him to let her eat him if she wants, she means that he should let her do what she wants, no matter if it hurts people. This relates to the "emo" kids who cut themselves or commit suicide. They want to take care of their problems and they want people just to care. The bull in the movie is quiet because he (like many misunderstood children) doesn't know how to explain his feelings to other people. He just keeps quiet and eventually, will commit suicide because no one dared to give him the time of day. Max ignored him, just like everyone ignores the mysterious quiet kid. This movie was most likely made to show people into the complex minds of the "emo" and misunderstood population; the population that dies slowly everyday because no one thinks to care.

March 8, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterMiranda

You're a fucking wanker. The quiet one doesn't even say goodbye to Max at the end, all he asks is if Max will say good things about them. He doesn't even gesture a hug, he just dwindles his fingers. You make the movie sound way more depressing than it really is, but if that's how you see it, fine. Just don't say he committed suicide later, because he spoke up and he realized that Max cares, because Max did care. Nothing about him screams suicide, all it screams is HOPE.

Lern to read body language, k?

March 27, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterMax

I just watched the movie and I was impressed with some aspects of the movie, however it was depressing. Its not really a kids movie, only an adult can understand the meaning of the movie (if you are lucky). I think Z Elwood is right regarding the family and the single mom, good job. Regarding the story ... its can be described in less then 300 words, I think that you can only appreciate the movie if you understand the message behind it.

July 13, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterBuddy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
« The Hidden Meaning of Ishiguro's 'Never Let Me Go' | Main