Like many others, I was highly anticipating the release of Spike Jonze's take on the classic children's book Where the Wild Things Are. I had been intrigued by its visual design from the beginning, to the point that I think it was mostly the unique look of all the trailers and posters that got me interested in seeing the film in the first place. As a designer, I was also incredibly excited (perhaps to a nerdy degree) by the fact that a blog was created to track the many forms of inspiration, encompassing various media, that influenced the making of the film. Going through it really heightened my expectations for the film’s release, because it gave a unique behind-the-scenes perspective of the planning process and how research images, music, and design became a part of the visual communication that the filmmakers used to achieve such a unified aesthetic among all the departments.Therefore, not surprisingly, I loved the film aesthetically. It had such a distinct visual tone, with its gray, neutral, muted colors that perfectly reflected the mood of the story. I like the fact that the aesthetic choices reflected that it was about creatures who were upset, angry, confused, hurt, lonely, underappreciated, etc., despite the fact that it was a children’s story which typically use bright, saturated colors, regardless of content. I also appreciated the creativity in the set design, particularly that of the large, Death Star-esque fort and the wild things’ individual huts. It was so imaginative that it completely reinforced the idea of being in the other kingdom that was distinct from the real world that had been left behind. While the topography of the land was still somewhat familiar, the details were a reminder that this was not just any forest, any lake, or any desert.
However, despite its sophisticated visual style, I felt like the film’s story was somewhat underdeveloped and left me less than satisfied. While I liked it as a children’s book, I think it could have been better adapted for the screen in order to fill the feature-length running time. I think it could have been a great thirty-minute movie, but there just wasn’t enough to the story to keep me engaged for over an hour. I really wanted to like it, but I found myself constantly fighting boredom.
Perhaps this is a result of the fact that the film seemed to be a little confused about who its audience was intended to be. While it was a children’s story, I feel like the film was made more for adults, particularly based on its visual style, music selection, and overall mood. On the other hand, a lot of the dialogue seemed crafted more for five year olds, which got a bit exhausting to hear as an adult because it was all so juvenile. I realize that there is a subtext to all the simplicity and that all of the wild things’ struggles are universally relatable, but I think there was a lot of missed opportunity to add more subtext or depth so that the story would be more entertaining to an older audience as well. After loving the story so much growing up, maybe I had just expected it to have grown up a bit with me…
