Is "Where the Wild Things Are" Too Scary For Your Children?
On tonight's edition of "The Ron Reagan Show," we'll debate whether "Where the Wild Things Are" is too scary for kids.
Wednesday October 21, 2009 4:16 p.m.
In this film publicity image released by Warner Bros. Pictures, Max Records, portraying Max, right, is shown with the character Carol, voiced by James Gandolfini in "Where the Wild Things Are." (AP Photo/Warner Bros. Pictures, Matt Nettheim)
On tonight's edition of "The Ron Reagan Show," I'll be discussing whether or not "Where the Wild Things Are" is too scary for children, a topic I got to debate about on--gasp!--"Fox and Friends" earlier this morning. View it here!
###
Despite the fact that there are some harrowing moments in "Where the Wild Things Are"--particularly when young Max comes ashore amid violent whitecaps on what I'll call "Wild Things island"--you never get the impression that he's in any real danger.
The Wild Things are big and aggressive but they're also child-like and caring in their handling of Max. They make jokes about eating Max, but it never seems like a serious threat. They treat him the King he proclaims to be and go from there. Even when Carol--the ostensible leader and either a surrogate for Max or a stand-in for his father, depending on your interpretation--has meltdowns and gets violent, he's violent against inanimate objects.
All that said, the main reason why "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't scary is because Max never seems scared. He's upset and sad and angry--sometimes all at once--but fear never crosses his face. That's a fine line, and very nuanced for a kids' movie (oh that's right: this isn't a kids' movie!), but I think children would recognize that immediately. If he is their entry into this world and he never gets scared then why should they?
(Great credit for this should go to not only Spike Jonze but also child-star Max Records, who gives a wonderful performance throughout. In a crappy year for Best Supporting Actor contenders--Christoph Waltz and, uh, hmm--I'd love to see Records get some consideration.)
Moreover, when compared to other kids' movies, "Where the Wild Things Are" is literally child's play. Think about "WALL*E," which basically depicted the end of humanity; or "Up," which ends with a tension-filled finale that takes place in mid-air and features the young boy almost falling to his death multiple times. Kids' movies are serious stuff! See also: "Bambi," "Dumbo," and "The Lion King." By comparison "Where the Wild Things Are" is, in theory, a fun time. (I say "in theory" because I think it would actually bore kids, since Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers seem more interested in creating a mood of melancholy, nostalgia and innocence lost than something rollicking.)
Save the hand-wringing for something truly incendiary; the kids seeing "Where the Wild Things Are" will be alright, as the song says. So, let the wild rumpus start and enjoy the show.
There are 2 comments
I have only seen previews and this looks like it is one of the better films to come out. it is probably no more intense than other movies and maybe less so.
I saw "Where the Wild Things Are" with my (admittedly older) kids who are aged 17, 14 & 14. Personally I LOVED this movie as a film first and foremost. I think that it plays on several "layers", really young kids might find some of the scenes a little frightening, but nothing that is over the top.
One thing that nobody is talking aobut is the fact that this is first and foremost an art film (almost Bergmanesque in it's beautiful symbolism). the Wild Things all represent different aspects of Max's psyche and diferent forces at work in Max's life. I would go so far as to say that if it didn't have the "Where the Wild Things Are" moniker and pedigree that you would never see this film outside of an "arthouse theatre".
Post a Comment
You are not logged in:
Log In | Register