I Talk Stuff

The Book

Where the Wild Things Are, a popular children’s picture book from 1963 by Maurice Sendak about a wild boy who journeys to a land of wild monsters fueled by the power of his  emotions and imagination.

The Movie

A Spike Jonze adaptation from 2009, which turned out a popular, critically-acclaimed, and surprisingly thought-provoking cinematic experience.

ROUND 1: Story

We follow Max, a little boy who is behaving like . . . a little boy, and his parents finally send him to his room without supper. While in his room, he imagines a journey to the land where the wild things are, a distant island where all manner of ferocious beasts live. Max, as a wild thing himself, takes charge and declares himself king of the wild things, and they engage in all manner of fun adventures, portrayed only in picture, until Max grows homesick and decides to go home where his supper is waiting for him. The end.

The story is poignant in its simplicity. We’ve all had days as kids where all we wanted to do was run away and go somewhere to have fun and be wild. Stories like Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland were borne from such memories, and they resonate with everyone’s innate desire to be a wild thing. But ultimately, Max goes home and leaves his wild life behind, as we all must do.

The movie essentially has the same story and message, but fleshed out to a full-length film. Max is actually given a bit more backstory, so we understand a little better why he is the way he is. His father’s left him, and his sister’s lost interest in playing with him, so he’s feeling abandonment, and he’s on the cusp of adolescence, so he’s starting to feel unfamiliar and confusing feelings as well. The wild things are essentially reflections of Max himself, and the whole island becomes an outlet for his emotions. So the whole movie is basically one big emotional roller coaster. It takes us through the typical day of a little kid, and all the ups and downs he feels. The movie is not always pleasant to watch, and it’s not really supposed to be. One of the biggest differences between the book and the movie is that, while the book was most definitely for kids, the movie was most definitely marketed for adults. Which is not to say that kids can’t enjoy it, too, but the story and characters are definitely more complicated than in Sendak’s book.

Now, if you’ve been with me for a while, you know that I usually lean toward the more complicated story, because . . . I just like complicated stories. But in this case, I think the simplicity of the book actually serves the story better. Both book and movie tell basically the same story with the same message. But what I appreciate about the book’s story is that it’s able to say a lot with almost no words. The book only has ten sentences. That’s it. And honestly, you could cut those sentences out and still get the story strictly through the pictures. The point is made very subtly and simply, and while I like that the movie went more deeply into the psychological issues and the personalities of the wild things, I personally find the book’s story more compelling. And I think that adults can get more out of the children’s book than the children can get out of the movie marketed for adults. For that reason, I think the book has the better story. WINNER: Book

ROUND 2: Imagery

As I said before, the story is told primarily through the imagery of the illustrations. And the wild things have become pretty iconic in their appearance. And I love the creative design of the many different creatures. They almost resemble familiar animals–you’ve got the rooster, the bull, the water creature, the cat-like creatures . . . and yet they have some human elements to them, too. For all that we only see a few pictures of them, they’re pretty expressive. We feel their anger, fear, joy, and grief.

When I saw the trailers for the movie and actually saw the wild things, I got really freaking excited, ‘cause . . . I mean, look at them! They look exactly like three-dimensional versions of the pictures! Jim Henson’s creature shop designed the puppets, and it’s clear that they put in a lot of work to really capture the original illustrations. Plus, I love that they use puppets and costumes. Yeah, there’s some CGI, but what little there is is really subtle and it blends in well. You do actually feel like the creatures are really there. Not only that, but they’re incredibly expressive. I mean, they really do a great job portraying the emotions of these characters. The only downside to them is that . . . well, they do look exactly like the book’s pictures. And while that’s great and all, the creativity of the original design is what inspired the creativity of the puppets.

Plus, one other potential problem with the movie is that it’s pretty dark and unpleasant at times. There’s a lot of shaky cam, and a lot of moments where they try to make us feel just how dirty or cold or miserable Max is. The book’s imagery is pretty clean. Yeah, he gets homesick, but you don’t get the feeling that he’s living in his own filth, like you do in the movie. The book portrays the experience more like a dream. While in the movie Max actually runs away, in the book he’s sent to his room, and his room turns into the wilderness. So he hasn’t really gone anywhere. There are hints that the movie experience is a dream, too, but they treat it more like a real experience. In the book, they make it clear that the story is entirely in Max’s imagination.

The imagery of the movie is definitely more gritty and real. And while that can make for an often unpleasant viewing experience, I really love how this movie portrays so many different and complex moods. One of the things that irritates me about a lot of literature for children is when authors assume that kids can’t feel emotions more complicated than “happy” or “sad.” And I’m not saying that Where the Wild Things Are is like that, but I do appreciate that the movie gives a more complicated array of confusing emotions, and a lot of that comes through in the imagery. One of the criticisms the movie’s received is that some of the imagery is too scary or unpleasant for kids. To which, I would like to quote Maurice Sendak’s response. He says, “That is a question I will not tolerate. I saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child’s eyes. So what? I managed to survive.”

Plus, it is a story about a wild little kid, so you’d expect there to me mood swings and for the camera movements to be a little wild, too. In fact, it’s like the camera is, itself, a character in the movie, playing with the rest of them. The imagery portrays everything that is childhood, both the fun stuff and the miserable stuff.  It’s not a happy film, but it’s not supposed to be. The original pictures are wonderful, they tell the story beautifully, and as you’d expect from a movie, this film makes those images seem real and three-dimensional. WINNER: Movie

ROUND 3: Characters

Probably the most important and noticeable difference between the book and the movie is the fact that we’re comparing a picture book with about ten sentences of actual text to a feature film which was definitely marketed more to adults than to kids. As such, the characters in the book are comparatively simple. Max is basically just a typical, imaginative, and wild little boy. He’s simple enough to be relatable, and yet the little bit that we see of him says a lot.

Movie Max is considerably more complex and developed. For one thing, we actually meet his family. His father is out of the picture, and his mother is struggling to raise a teenage girl and a little boy on her own. Max is facing a number of changes in his life, including his mother dating again, his sister not being interested in playing anymore, and the beginnings of his transition from childhood to adolescence. And he’s pretty emotional and sensitive, which makes him wild, but also makes him sympathetic at times. Max takes us on an emotional roller coaster throughout the movie, and his mood swings are much like the mood swings of a real little boy with a big imagination. He’s creative, but selfish, protective of his ideas. He wants to be a leader and please everyone, but he also wants to have fun. He’s as complicated as a little boy can be, whereas Max in the book is just . . . the wild thing. He’s still an identifiable character, though, despite his lack of development. And, to be fair, the lack of development is mostly due to the fact that the book is, you know, ten pages long.

The other major characters, of course, the are wild things, the monstrous creatures of Max’s imagination. The monsters from the book are, as I said before, iconic figures, creatively designed and easily recognizable. As far as personalities go, however, they’re pretty much just your typical monsters. I mean, you can make some predictions as to what their roles are based on the pictures, but they’re mostly just nice to look at. The movie wild things, however, are entirely different. Not only do they each have their own unique personalities, but each of them seems to represent a facet of Max’s personality. So you’ve got the sensitive and temperamental but extremely loyal Carol, the cynical and blunt Judith, the calm and peaceful Douglas, and the more grown-up and individual K.W. Not only are these creatures all representative of some aspect of Max, but they’re all driven by his emotions. Their mood swings are also Max’s mood swings, and it’s when it becomes clear to Max that he does not want to live a life driven purely on emotion as they do that he decides that it’s time to go home. Plus, in addition to looking like the book illustrations, the creatures are also incredibly expressive, so you can identify with what they’re feeling really easily. We also have characters like Max’s mother, sister, and mother’s boyfriend, who don’t really appear in the book at all and add a lot to the story and to Max’s characters. It’s these characters and the definition they’re given in the movie that really drives the story. I like the simple characterization in the book, and it absolutely works for that medium, but I definitely like the more complex characterization of the movie more. WINNER: Movie

Book’s Worth Rating

Worth owning (new)

Movie’s Worth Rating

Worth owning

Next Books vs. Movies Review

Alice in Wonderland vs. Alice in Wonderland

The Book

In 2005 was published what has since become one of the most overhyped pieces of literature in the last decade, Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight, the story of a delusional girl and her sparkly vampire boyfriend. Such was the popularity of said novel that–what else?–they made a movie.

The Movie

The movie version of Twilight came out in 2008, starring Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, and directed by Catherine Hardwicke . . . a virtual treasure trove of wooden acting, awful special effects, and some of the most hilariously misguided directing you’re likely to see outside of a Tommy Wiseau film. Deciding which version of the story is better very much becomes a question similar to that of which tortuous death you’d rather experience.

ROUND 1: Edward and Bella

Sadly, these two have become somewhat iconic in the world of supernatural romance, though God help me if I can find anything remotely romantic about their relationship. Bella Swan moves from sunny Phoenix where she lives with her mother to rainy Forks where her father lives. In the book, her motivation for moving is pretty weak, though to be fair that may be because she whines about it constantly. Movie Bella is considerably less annoying, probably mostly due to the fact that you don’t hear every insipid thought that passes through her brain.

I guess the downside to her, though, is that she’s not quite as well developed. Because the story is told in first person, we get a little more insight into Bella’s character. Now, granted, that character is a complete twit, but at least she’s a well-developed complete twit. She’s pretty unhappy until she meets Edward Cullen, who at first seems to hate her, and then wants to be friends with her, and then wants her to stay away, and then . . . they’re sporadically in love. Go figure.

Edward, the other half of our couple, is . . . well, pretty much a complete ass. He has very few redeeming qualities, and actually comes off as pretty threatening . . . and not in the “I’m a vampire” way, but in the “I’m a really creepy person who thinks of his girlfriend as bacon and sneaks into her room regularly to watch her sleep” way. Though they both have these traits, Edward from the movie is, again, a little more likable. Part of that has to do with the way Edward is written in the book. I don’t know what it is, but somehow the Edward in the book seems like a worse actor than the actor in the movie. It’s really quite astounding. Edward in the movie at least seems a little more genuine and realistic, if only a little.

But I think what decides it for is the relationship between the two. And, despite how annoying they are individually, the relationship itself is definitely done better in the book. Don’t get me wrong . . . it’s impulsive, sporadic, and stupid. But at least it’s believable. You do actually get the feeling that they really believe the things they’re saying . . . which in itself is kind of sad, I know, but it’s a more realistic portrayal of a relationship, even if it’s a stupid one.

In the movie, Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have absolutely no chemistry on screen. I mean, none. Which is kind of ironic when you consider their relationship off camera. If someone told me that the two of them were shot separately, and that their scenes were just edited together in post-production, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. They’re both so wrapped up in their own tortured pretentiousness that they forgot that they’re supposed to be a couple. Also, neither of these two actors can do drama convincingly. I bought the happy moments, but I never bought any of the dramatic ones. And seeing as how the entire story is supposed to revolve around the relationship between these two characters, it’s helpful if the characters actually make you believe in the relationship. For that reason, the book seems to have the better portrayal here. WINNER: Book

ROUND 2: Other Characters

Though you wouldn’t think it to look at this egocentric narrative, there are a lot of other characters. Let’s start with the vampires. Now, a lot of people have railed against the vampire mythology in this book, saying it’s a slap in the face to traditional vampires. This really isn’t something I mind that much, though. I don’t really have any problems with non-traditional re-imaginings of mythical creatures. The problem is not that they’re not like traditional vampires . . . the problem is that Meyer doesn’t explain the differences well. There are few explanations of why the vampire myths exist. Edward just kind of laughingly dismisses them when Bella brings them up, and the one major explanation of a vampire myth is . . . well, stupid. I mean, okay, I know everyone’s made fun of this, but come on . . . really? Vampires sparkle in the sunlight? Regardless, the mythology is the one part of the story that’s even remotely interesting. Maybe if she’d focused on that instead of the creepy romance, this would have been a better story.

The movie doesn’t really touch on the mythology, but it makes up for it by actually having vampires in the story! And I mean actual, blood-sucking vampires, not the vegetarian ones. The vampires are introduced as an actual threat early on, and you feel like something dangerous is looming. In the book, they don’t even use the word “vampire” for most of the first half, and even then, the only exposure we have to the creatures is Edward, whose credentials as a vampire are shaky at best. Honestly, this is where the interest lies in the movie . . . not in the Edward/Bella relationship, but in the other characters and the drama of having this threat in their community.

But the first legitimately interesting part of the book is when Jacob is telling Bella the myth surrounding the werewolves and the vampires, which brings us to the second group of mythical beings: the werewolves. Obviously, these creatures are developed more in subsequent novels, but you start to hear about them here, and I’ll admit, it’s kind of an intriguing myth. The mythology on vampires might be underdeveloped and stupid, but the mythology on werewolves is actually a little interesting. Again, it’s one of those things that COULD have made the book better if she’d focused on that. The book seems to be full of that sort of unrealized potential.

But Jacob, who only makes a couple brief appearances is the book, is much more firmly established in the movie, and he definitely has more personality. Plus, the mortal characters of the movie just blow the book’s characters out of the water. Again, it’s because Bella of the book is so wrapped up in her own little drama that she colors everything with her perceptions. We see Charlie as awkward, we see the students as shallow, and we see everyone except the Cullens as beneath her because that’s how SHE sees them, so everyone is colorless, vapid, and stupid. The main advantage that the movie has over the book is that you GET OUT OF HER FREAKING HEAD! So you actually see the other characters as mildly interesting and likable people, not as a bunch of people who are either shallow or who just want to get into Bella’s pants. In reality, the book doesn’t really HAVE any other characters. Bella’s ego and Edward’s  . . . sparkly-ness . . . just kind of shove them out of the story. The movie’s better characterization easily beats out the sloppy mythology from the book. WINNER: Movie

ROUND 3: Composition

So . . . the book is written badly. I mean . . . badly. When you misuse the word “sarcastic” twice and don’t know that fog that obscures your view of the sky is, in fact, called clouds, you’ve got serious problems. And yet, for some reason, this story drew in a lot of people. I mean, Meyer seems to have a unique talent here: her writing is crap, and yet people find it engrossing . . . on the first read. On subsequent reads, that’s another story. And once you start to pick it apart and look at the meaning, it doesn’t REALLY seem worth tattooing it on your body and naming your kids after characters, y’know?

The movie’s screenwriter did at least try to put a good story together. They kept some of the better and more well-known lines from the book, but there did actually seem to be an attempt to make the characters sound halfway intelligent . . . with a few notable exceptions of course. Also, I do give the movie credit for being one of the few films I’ve seen use narration effectively. Narration is a tricky thing in movies, because so much of it is visual. If you’re going to use it, it can’t just be a description of what’s going on on screen . . . we can see that for ourselves. It has to forward the story or develop the characters in some way. Narration in movies also has tendency to disappear after the five minutes. Not only do we get Bella’s narration throughout the entire film, but it actually does help the story. She doesn’t tell us anything we that can easily figure out for ourselves, and we do actually get a little bit of an insight into what she’s going through. And unlike the book, she doesn’t (for the most part, anyway) come off as a vapid little self-righteous bimbo, which is nice. (That, from what I understand, comes in subsequent movies.)

I guess the one advantage to book’s composition is that it’s told in first person, which gives us a firsthand look both at what’s happening to Bella AND what’s going through her head. You get a lot more insight into a character’s motivation when they’re the ones actually telling you everything. That said, though, her perception colors everything. We can’t see the characters in any sort of realistic light, because she is just such a spoiled brat and sees everyone either as beneath her or paling in perfection to the sparkly perfection that is Edward.

On top of that, the pacing is just a mess. I mean, it’s awful. Half of the novel is just boring conversations, and the other is boring descriptions of Edward’s perfection. Nothing happens for pages and pages. The whole novel is like one big make-out session . . . it might be fun for the participants, but we really don’t want to read about it. The only interesting things are just glanced over, and there isn’t any sort of fantasy adventure until the end. For all its flaws, the movie does actually make you feel invested in some things. The main plot is crap, but the subplots they throw in are actually a little engaging. We see this town struggling with a killer in their midst, and we actually get a sense of danger and tension at the beginning of the story . . . and by danger and tension, I mean more than just Edward being angsty and talking about how dangerous he is with nothing to back it up. Seriously, this guy’s over a century old? He acts like he’s fifteen. Like I said, there does seem to have been attempt to put together a decent story. And, yeah, it fails, but not quite as badly as the book does. WINNER: Movie

ROUND 4: Imagery

Okay, so . . . it’s no secret that the imagery in this movie is pretty horrible. I mean, for a story about blood-sucking vampires, everyone in the film looks pretty . . . bloodless. I guess the washed out coloring is supposed to add to the atmosphere of the whole thing, and in a way it does. You do get a feeling of eeriness with the whole thing, and there are moments where it draws a decent contrast between the dramatic situation Bella is in, and the relatively light-hearted and easy world of her classmates.

All that being said though . . . I mean, c’mon. Look at this thing. I mean, look at it. Have you ever seen film trying so hard to look artsy and yet failing so miserably? I mean, it’s TWILIGHT for crying out loud, and you’re going to try to make it look like high art? Seriously? On top of that, these special effects are just crap. I mean . . . they are hilariously bad. All that’s missing from these running scenes is the “Benny Hill” music. And apparently, when Edward goes into the sun, he turns into a cheap photoshop effect. And don’t even get me started on the action scenes. These moves are so fake you can practically see the strings. The book isn’t much better, but I give it credit for a few good descriptions here and there. I mean, yeah, most of them have to do with what godlike being Edward is, but still, you get a decent sense of the gloominess of the location. It does actually create a decent atmosphere, albeit a depressing one.

But on that note, the movie does actually create the same atmosphere through its odd use of coloring and weirdly pretentious shots. Forks really does seem every bit as gloomy here as it does in the book. Also, for all the rules they break in the mythology, the vampires do at least kind of look like vampires. I mean, the cheap photoshop skin notwithstanding, they do look enough like vampires that you kinda wonder how no one caught on that they weren’t.

But overall, this movie has some pretty seriously misguided direction. And I think the pinnacle of goofiness, aside from the sparkly-ness, is the scene with Edward and Bella in the meadow together. I mean, good God, you have never such hilariously misplaced music in your life. This film can’t decide whether it wants to be a romance, an adventure, a coming-of-age story, a horror flick, or a Tommy Wiseau film, and a lot of that comes through in the music. I mean it, keep track of how many hilariously misplaced musical moments there are in this film. Bottom line, the book may have some crappy writing, but it least it keeps a fairly consistent tone and sets a decent atmosphere, whereas the movie . . . just makes you giggle inappropriately. WINNER: Book

ROUND 5: Story

All right, let me say this, first off: neither of these stories was nearly as bad as I thought they were going to be. In fact, on the worth meter, I’d give both them the equivocal levels of “Worth Skimming” and “Worth Sitting Through.” Not stellar ratings to be sure, but they both at least have some redeeming qualities and some potential to be considerably better than they are.

The book has a semi-interesting backstory with the werewolf legends and the Cullens not wanting to kill humans. If they’d focused more on the vampires and less on the pretentious romance, it could have been a decent book. The movie has the subplots going for it. It does actually create some legitimate drama and tension when we see how concerned Charlie and the other residents of Forks are about the killings. And I appreciate that they actually introduce threatening vampires early in the film and not as an afterthought toward the end. And even though I never gave a crap about the romance between Edward and Bella, I did kind of feel invested in the other characters and what they were going through. And to be honest, Bella really isn’t that bad at the beginning of the film. She actually has sort of a reason for leaving her mom, she doesn’t complain about it really at all, and seems considerably more upbeat than her literary counterpart . . . right up until the sparkly one himself shows up.

I give the book credit that, when I first read it, it held my attention until the end of the story, and I did actually feel compelled to read New Moon, a decision I still deeply regret. It pulls you into the drama and the atmosphere so much that, when you’re reading it for the first time and haven’t really learned how to read critically yet, you don’t notice that it’s written like complete crap . . . though admittedly, once you do notice, that’s all you notice. Twilight was a LOT harder to read the second time around.

And that, I think, is the bottom line: the movie is more entertaining. When you’re looking at a crap story with few redeeming qualities, all that’s left is entertainment value, and the movie beats the book out there easily. I’m not going to say it’s necessarily better than the book. In reality, they’re probably both on the same level. Both require you to shut off your brain a little in order to get through them, but where the book just becomes unbelievingly boring and grating, the movie is absolutely hilarious if watched with the right attitude. In fact, I think this might be the first truly bad movie I’ve ever watched that honestly entertained me with its horribleness. And in this review, that’s worth a lot. Plus the movie’s only two hours of torture as opposed to . . . however long it takes you to read five hundred pages of drivel. So when all is said and done, the movie may not be better . . . but I liked it better, and that’s what we’re going with. WINNER: Movie

Current Score: Books-9; Movies-8

Book’s Worth Rating

Worth Skimming

Movie’s Worth Rating

Worth Sitting Through

Next Books vs. Movies Review

Where the Wild Things Are vs. Where the Wild Things Are