The Hot Blog

Meh, it's uneven. The first act is the best part about it (and beautiful) but I think it bears some nasty developmental scars. That said, I do like it, mainly for what it almost is.

"Developmental scars?" Please.

A little information is a dangerous thing.

Thanks for the "Shoot the Moon" shout out, Dave.
Keaton's performance in that film--flawed like all of Alan Parker's movies, but vibrantly, messily, gloriously alive---may be a career-best.
I saw "WTWTA" on Tuesday afternoon, and it's easily one of my favorites of the year. (As much as I love the "'Wild Things' Island" scenes, it's the bookending sequences that truly blew my mind.) Unfortunately, my viewing experience was handicapped by incessant, maddening kiddie foot traffic which consistently impaired my line of vision (I didn't pick the seat; it was "assigned" by Cleveland's WB rep).
Were those wee bairns bored, confused or merely suffering from ADD? Not sure, but I'm anxious to re-visit the film--preferably at a weekday evening performance when most rugrats are safely tucked away in bed where they belong.

Yes movieman, let us keep the kids out of a kids film. Seriously, if a kid ruins your viewing pleasure so damn much. Go see it at a screening, or wait til it's on DVD.

this is one of the best reviews I've read on WTWTA. You have convinced me to go see this film.

IOI, Movieman clearly said that he saw it in a screening.

this is an absolutely great review.

(re bob & terry -- the film was at universal before warners so i don't think sendak would have put forward that reference.)

As I stated in my previous posting, 101, it WAS a "screening"--or "promo" as they like to call them in Cleveland where studios rarely book theaters for "press-only" events these days.
My point was that "WTWTA" didn't play especially well (if at all) with the kiddies at my promo/screening. They seemed bored to death with--I'm just guessing since I didn't bother taking a post-mortem poll--the studied arthouse pacing and lack of pop culture references and poop jokes (in other words, some of the same qualities which make it so wonderful for adult moviegoers).
I really think that most of today's kids are given way too much credit for being smarter, and more sophisticated, than grown-ups like to think they are. I'm sure that if you'd quizzed my aisle hoppers they would have told you that "Monsters Vs. Aliens" and/or "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" were vastly superior to "WTWTA." Just because they can text message and play video games before reaching pre-school doesn't make them appreciably brighter (or hipper) than previous generations of American youth.
While leaving the theater, I told my screening companion that I would have preferred seeing the movie on a portable dvd player curled up in bed.
But why pick a(nother) fight with me, 101? I said that I loved the movie--it ranks with "Up" and "Up in the Air" as one of my tip-top 2009 favorites. I was only commenting on the annoying behavior of the (clearly) disinterested juveniles at a studio-coordinated promotional screening Tuesday afternoon.
Which begs another question: is "WTWTA" too good for kids?

....make that "...too good for most kids:"
with Leah's son being an obvious exception.

Movieman, but do you really think it was even MADE for kids? I liked the book as a kid and even met Sendak at FAO Schwartz, but I would definitely say if I saw these trailers and clips for the movie at 8 years old, I would not at all be interested. It definitely looks like it's aimed at perhaps a family crowd, along with the older nostalgia crowd/older fans of the books. And some kids WILL get it and enjoy it, but it looks and seems to play like a Spike Jonze movie which is really for teens and up. This is the perception though as I haven't seen it. The fact that it's in IMAX also seems ridiculous to me but that's where the movie is I guess these days.

Er, that's where the "money" is these days. Guess that's also where movies are these days too. IMAX, 3D, whatever.

SPOILERS:

I had the same interpretation of Carol and KW, but then I realized afterwards that I was wrong, or only got half of it. Carol represents his fear and confusion about his sister (KW) growing up and making new friends he doesn't understand (Bob and Terry). It's so dense that they simultaneously also represent his mother and father, but it's fascinating to see his emotions about his sister becoming distant and having her own life represented as one of the wild things.

Also does anyone else feel like this is the Benjamin Button of 09?

"with Leah's son being an obvious exception"

cheers, movieman (my boy does have rather good taste, but i would think that because his taste is remarkably similar to mine...i can't imagine why! and his cinema decorum is impeccable. in my experience it tends to be the 'six and under' tykes that scurry around the theatre like disease-carrying rodents babbling nonsensically)

we are both psyched for 'where TWTA', still a ways off tho, opens in early december here. of course it's hard to tell about the actual film from just trailers but it looks to be 'sophisticated family fare' to me, which is always welcome.

(and can i just add my love for 'shoot the moon', one of the truly terrific family dramas, superb all around and a great soundtrack to boot, some of parker's finest, most naturalistic and compelling work. any comparison to 'shoot the moon' is high praise indeed)

Of course I don't think Jonze intended "WTWTA" to be a kidflick, Martin.
He's even gone on record as saying that "it's not a children's movie; it's a movie about childhood."
Once again, I was only commenting on the obvious lack of interest in the film by the studio-invited riot of kiddies at my promo screening.
But you can't deny that WB is trying to play both sides of the fence in their marketing campaign: they're courting the all-ages-friendly demographic as well as the Gen Y hipster claque. Ironically, this could be that rare "family movie" that mom, dad and/or teen brother(s)/sister(s) likes more than any accompanying rugrat(s).
Maybe they should have tried the same approach last year with "Speed Racer" which seemed targeted to one demo (the fanboy brigade) at the expense of its more natural core audience (kids, particularly young boys).
P.S.= Thanks for the shout-out, Leah!

DP, your comparison to Oz was apt...if only WTWTA had a bit of its narrative drive.

Production design & puppets = genius! Voice characterizations, absolute genius. Masterstroke casting Gandolfini, whom I thought had been mis-cast when the trailers first hit.

Great set-up; we get to the island, now for the adventure! Only, there really isn't any. Just lots of squabbling among family stand-ins and shadow selves. Not that there are not charming and touching moments during these scenes, but Max encounters very little in the way of obstacles or direct conflict, and has no clear external goal or desire.

At one point, Keener's character wonders "what will Lasseter think" about a project she's working on, and I think, if John Lasseter wrote this script, he would have insisted on a clear, external goal for Max--get off the island, stay on the island, build the grand fort--that would have carried through the whole movie.

BTW, movieman, the row of teens next to me (not my kid, who didn't go) talked and texted through the whole thing. The row of little kids behind me were enraptured.

Still, the concept itself is so utterly brilliant...those raggedy, frayed Things are SO wonderful and lifelike, it sounds mean-spirited to do anything but rave. But I'm officially mixed on this one.

here in l.a., we have a kid's bookstore called 'storyopolis'...it's brilliantly designed, carries all the atheistically correct titles, carries rare first editions and even has a gallery of limited edition kid's book illustrations...upscale parents loooooove it...kids, well, not so much....but, it's the kind of bookstore parents really, really, really want to think their kids like......

jonze's 'where the wild things are' made me think of that bookstore.....

btw-- if you didn't catch the hbo doc on sendak by jonze and lester bangs, make it a point...it's one of the best i've seen this year and is certainly award worthy (not sure it qualifies for oscar but it should)......

it's brilliantly designed, carries all the atheistically correct titles

Oh man, nobody better tell the Family Research Council about this place

Jeff: I was clearly referring to the next time movieman will see the movie. The whole "Seeing it when they are asleep" thing rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry.

This film is like an $80 million lament on the childhood of someone who didn't really enjoy that period of his life. I didn't connect with the film on any emotional level, and there's only so far that a cerebral experience can carry me in terms of liking something.

Do I appreciate this film? Sure. Did I enjoy it? Not really. Would I take my kids to see it if they were younger than 10? Absolutely not. This film tries to dissect how a child sees and interprets the world, but it does so from a very adult perspective. It takes almost all the fun and magic out of being a kid and replaces those fundamentals of childhood with imaginary realism. Is childhood discovery of right and wrong really such a dramatic event? No.

I find this film to be much more of an examination of Spike Jonze's views on how mis-parented youths look back on their childhood than anything else. Basically, it was the polar opposite of "Up", which I consider to be the best film of the year thus far. Does that make it an awful film? Of course not. But it's like Spike Jonze wants us all to live in the melancholy of his childhood, and that bored me to tears.

SPOILERS:

By the way, David, I don't believe you've got the connection between Carol and KW and their real world equivalents correct. I'm fairly sure that KW represents Max' sister (although an argument could possibly be made that it represents all his female family figures -- gee, that scene where KW puts Max inside her sure seems weirder in reflection). And Carol is clearly at least partially based off of Max' own psyche.

bod -- jonze's melancholy is nothing compared to that of the book's author: a self-loathing homosexual, bitter over the loss of a long-term partner, carrying a life-long obsession with death and who says his life has been soured because people only know him for wtwta.

You're right David. I made it up.

Great review Dave. It's nice to see your really passionate about a film. Definitely looking forward to seeing in a few weeks when it comes out here.

QUOTE:
"Great set-up; we get to the island, now for the adventure! Only, there really isn't any. Just lots of squabbling among family stand-ins and shadow selves. Not that there are not charming and touching moments during these scenes, but Max encounters very little in the way of obstacles or direct conflict, and has no clear external goal or desire.
At one point, Keener's character wonders "what will Lasseter think" about a project she's working on, and I think, if John Lasseter wrote this script, he would have insisted on a clear, external goal for Max--get off the island, stay on the island, build the grand fort--that would have carried through the whole movie."

Mild spoiler for the movie in this response:

try and understand that Max is telling a story to himself and Max's stories go like this: "There was a vampire who had a lot of vampire friends. And there were big buildings that walked around. And the vampire bit the building and all his teeth fell out. And his friends said, "oh that's okay, those were just your baby teeth." And he said, "no those were my permanent teeth." Then all his friends left him because he couldn't be a vampire anymore."

They aren't exactly big on plot and goals and A-B-C story development, but it's indeed a rather effective little story.

and that's what the whole interlude on the Island is, Max, telling himself a story that he understands that helps him sort out where it is-exactly-that he fits. He's not learning a lesson, rather he's filling in his comprehension, in a way we're seeing his mind actively developing as it quests about in an attempt to figure out how it all works.

I would say that applying totalizing analogues to the Wild Things is incredibly clunky. We can't call one id and another superego anymore than we can call one depressed and another bipolar, or one a father figure and another a mother figure--these sort of adult labels don't really fit because the representations are more convoluted than using categories to simplify them can encompass. We're seeing the sort of natural interplay between fantasy and logic as Max fuses the two together. Of course all the wild things represent Max in one way or another, but they also represent many of his other experiences so there are also tones of father and mother and sister and friends throughout mixing into all these characterizations. it's more like we're seeing Max being Max and also Max acting out everyone he knows as well. Like a one man play with a single actor performing every part what is going on with Max is both very internal and very collective in how we see how he understands his own and others' emotions as well as just how wierd it is how differently everyone relates to everyone else.

After having read a number of critics saying the film lacked "narrative drive," I really, really tried to let the movie slow down on me, go nowhere, make me bored, etc.

Didn't happen for a second. Maybe this isn't for kids, maybe it's for me. If so, hey, thanks Spike Jonze! But I think it's for a lot of people.

and you nailed why i hated the film.

why does a great children's story have to be turned into a commentary on the sad state of the disintegrating family unit. We have raised a generation of kids from broken homes. And these kids have grown up to be broken filmmakers. So the Wild Things have to be problem plagued mirrors of real world counterparts, a grim psychological playground for Max to try and deal with the horrible reality he is forced to face.

But the reality isn't really that horrible. Sure, to a kid it seems that way, so i get the point. But why are American children portrayed as so fractured?

If you do use the island as Max's psychological way of dealing with his issues, then he may turn out to be a serial killer. Karol's behavior is downright disturbing. When things don't go his way, he acts out by destroying everyone's homes. It may be just one part of his psyche, but it's the one he most closely identifies with. A friend of mine who works with kids affected by domestic violence said she found the movie disturbing and that Karol exhibited the behavior of someone trapped in an abusive cycle.

Now, if you're of the belief that this is a movie for adults, then it could be deemed as genius that the movie was able to draw such fascinating paralells.

If it's a movie for kids, it's a little troubling.

Why would Max grow up to be a serial killer? He might identify with the pure rage and appetite for destruction to start, but as he is informed by observing those around Carol and that behavior, he realizes how horrible that is. The island is his mirror.
He literally sails away from all the unattractive qualities he once relished.
Max realizes he needs a mother as much as they do. He sees that a life without parents is directionless. They're never going to get better because he's not equipped to be that parent or king. That bull, for me, is that unseen father who is untouchable and silent.
For me, at least, it's not a coincidence that Carol is searching for that male figure that's going to make everything- the fears, the anger- go away.
When Max leaves, the bull speaks, asking to spoken well of and remembered. Max needs more than distant support. He needs a father.
The thing that makes me reconsider that, though, is that if the bull represents the father, he sails from that world. Is he rejecting his father's gift of the world, too?

In retrospect, I guess the flip side of my last statement is that Max is actively realizing he needs more than just a world handed to him. He craves more. He wants to treat people better and how to treat the world and those he loves better. A world run by emotionally-stagnant children never gets better. He's ready to listen to his mother and whoever else is ready to teach.
I'm guessing the bones of king's past are boyfriends/men who tried and failed, but were eaten up by Max through the years.

well, you've got me there palm. he does leave the island and rejects the world he's created.

I suppose the psychology isn't that dire.

oh, and palm, i stand by my loathing of the concept. everything's a suburban tragedy. i'd love to see 'wild thing' world created by the african kid who had everyone in his family butchered by machete weilding mobs.

I pine for an age where divorce isn't considered tragic. It's the rule now, not the exception. But is it really an epic tragedy?

And that leads me to "max needs a father"

If that is the point, then it's a ludicrous one.

It reminds of something Howard Stern said about kids who are adopted always feeling somethin glacking in their lives, that they're basically damaged goods.

there's a lot of armchair psychology happening in this film either way.

Hm. I'm adopted. No wonder those Scientology commercials are starting to look pretty appealing these days!

SJR, there's nothing more i hate than blanket statements dealing with a complex issue.

everyone who makes blanket statements obviously suffer from a mental imbalance.

movielocke, I do understand, and narrative drive and emotional sub-text are not mutually exclusive. I believe it's the reason so many are scratching their heads, trying to figure out why this movie doesn't quite gel. "Clunky" is lines like: "It's hard to be a family," and "Can you keep out the sadness," "Yes, I'll get a sadness shield."

Also, do Eggers or Jonze have kids? Do they realize that no 9-year-old boy starving for attention sits quietly at mom's feet, tugging at her nylons, but says, "Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom." a million times time Mom answers?

With all of that said, I saw Things on screen I have never seen before, and consider the film well worth the price of admission.

I think movielocke nailed it when he said, "applying totalizing analogues to the Wild Things is incredibly clunky." Hell, not only is it clunky, it's incorrect, as Jonze has explicitly stated in multiple interviews (saying something to the effect of, 'There is no lion = this character, scarecrow = that one').
Dave is right when he says that the Wild Things are Max's family, Max, Max's interpretation of his family, and fragments/figments of Max's imagination -- all in one. This is why this isn't a film to be 'figured out' through repeated viewings, but a film to be experienced anew with each viewing.
By the way -- great review, Dave. It's the best I've read so far!

Didn't you just make a blanket statement about blanket statements, anghus?

Great review David, but I think it helped me realize what I DIDN'T like about the film. I'm still unclear on who the Wild Things are supposed to represent. I too thought Carol was his dad, K.W. his mom and so forth. But I can also see how they're ALL little parts of Max's personality.

If Carol really is meant to represent Max's dad, was Max's dad abusive??

I still dug the movie but wasn't as blown away as I wanted to be.

I haven't seen the film, but from what I remember of the book, it was about scary looking monsters on an island that turned out to be very charming and personable friends to the main character. I guess the allegory everyone is talking about here feels very forced onto a kids story. Haven't seen the movie though, it may play a lot better than others here are making it sound.

yes don, i did. it was my attempt at a joke. i thought that was pretty obvious.

like I said, 'this represents that' is a bad way of looking at the film, Carol is far more Max than a father figure, Carol is in a lot of ways the neediest little boy on an island of little boys, just because he's big and male our brains struggle with labeling him and decide to come up with 'father' as the label that sort of fits. I don't think it fits at all. Saying Carol represents Max's father is more inaccurate than saying Carol represents Max's id--both statements are incredibly inaccurate and speak to the adult brain necessities of compartmentalizing and making everything safe with a category. Carol is an imaginary friend, not really a father construct anymore than the fence that Max kicked at the beginning of the movie is a father construct.

all the armchair psychology going on is in the minds of the viewers rather than onscreen. Max has essentially stormed off and is sulking in his own private world for a few hours thinking how great it would be if he could run the world and there'd be no problems, but in the midst of that sulking his mind is adapting and growing.

Of course a counselor who deals with abused kids is going to see a 'cycle of abuse' in the film, such a person is only seeing what they expect to see based on their own experiences and labeling something is one of the ways an adult brain can stop thinking about something. Once you can label Max, everything else about Max are all put on ignore.

I agree with Bodhizefa. I read the KW/Carol as the sister and Max. As Max floated away, Carol seemed to feel abandoned like Max had felt from the divorce. They were also trying to draw KW in like Max was trying to get his sister's attention, either at the igloo or at dinner. I can, however, see the mother/father interpretation, and that is just a compliment to the ambiguity of the story.

The Jim Henson spirit was very much present. As I looked at the "wild things," I couldn't help but think of Sweetums from "The Muppet Show."

Bodhizefa,

I'm not sure that you are making the right connections with this point:

"Do I appreciate this film? Sure. Did I enjoy it? Not really. Would I take my kids to see it if they were younger than 10? Absolutely not. This film tries to dissect how a child sees and interprets the world, but it does so from a very adult perspective. It takes almost all the fun and magic out of being a kid and replaces those fundamentals of childhood with imaginary realism. Is childhood discovery of right and wrong really such a dramatic event? No."

I totally agree with you that Jonze/Eggers are trying to dissect how children see the world, and that it is from a very adult perspective. I loved the movie, but I walked out thinking "That was not really made for kids." But I do think that the childhood discovery of 'right and wrong' is a dramatic event, especially when viewed from the eyes of a child who has experienced his parents divorce at an early age.

Maybe you aren't someone like me, who was not only disappointed to find out that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny were fake, but also more disappointed to find out that my parents had been participating in a deception scheme! I think that the Max character is supposed to represent Jonze/Eggers from the perspective of someone like me. Is it more disappointing to realize that the people you grew up with imagining (Santa Clause/Easter Bunny) are fake, or more disappointing to realize that you can't trust everything your parents say? I guarantee you that Jonze/Eggers are arguing the latter.

I have to say, I am a little amazed about the "why Spike serious?" response to the film.

Are we not all aware that a very significant percentage of children are children of divorce?

Did we not all get the harsh texts and subtexts of MOST of the great, lasting children's stories?

Oy.

Max leaving the island, not having been eaten, is the narrative goal of the story. He will, of course, take steps back. But he runs home to his mother, who does not hurt him, but gives him soup (chicken soup with rice?) and cake.

As for the specific of Carol/KW and Dad/Mom, I think I note that the matches are not precise. That Carol does embody him and his dad and the blur that children have about that identity. Same with KW, though I think that Alexander has much more of his sister in him than KW does. KW is the woman who left the leader, who is trying to not to engage that fight, who is all about keeping him safe, even putting him in her womb.

And the possibility of Max's dad having been abusive is there... big time... never spelled out... but no question, it is there.

PS Kris, I know you didn't make up the development issues, but you have decided to interpret the film based on them, which is not smart and really, I would say, quite lazy intellectually. If you can point to specific "development scars," have at it, but the idea that what didn't connect with you about the film is a result of this tiny piece of information that you and the world have about development is exactly what is so terribly wrong with all this "I read the drafts" and "I heard about this thing that happened on the set" bullshit. It's too much information to really focus on the output, which is ALL that matters and it is too little to actually be smart about what did happen. I don't blame you. You have been taken down this path by children who don't know any better... Max's who want to be king of something when all they really are is little boys. I'm not saying that everyone who talks shop with a journalist is a fool or full of shit, but if you try to judge the movie by the process, you are effectively judging neither the movie not the process... except in the rare case when someone goes back years later with perspective and a broader effort in reporting the range of perspectives.

I think Kris's assertion is one of (well, many) the issues I have with sites and writers who are so deeply immersed in films from start to finish. Screenplays get read over several drafts, set visits show what the filmmakers are trying to do and then junkets, editing bay visits on and on but in the end, all we have to judge a film on really is what's onscreen.

I mean, if you read a screenplay you're going to probably see things you want to see that may differ from what a director sees or wants. Your idea of say "Where the Wild Things Are" based on a rough cut or a second draft isn't what eventually ends up on screen. So, aside from the fact you're super cool because you got to witness a film from it's start, what's the point of all this inside baseball info?

I don't mind the "I'm super cool" element anymore - used to piss me off some - but I do think that it skews how one sees a movie and that it encourages comparisons to things not in the film.

Someone I quite respect was talking to me about the movie this morning and she was talking about who the "thanks" went to at the end of the film. It was a boys club and therefore, she saw the movie through that perspective... boys who hadn't grown up. And while that could be a viable argument - I don't think so, myself... at least in the context of her idea of it - it is about something other than what is on screen.

For all the stuff floating around out there, the only thing that is "forever" is the film. Not how the film was made, not the fights on set or in offices, not the personal relationships made stronger or weaker in the process... it's the movie, damn it.

Dave, characters have goals, not "the story."

David, agreed on the abuse part. I re-watched last night and want to write my own review on my blog that no one reads just to get my thoughts down.

That conversation between K.W. and Carol while Max is in her stomach is telling. Max is stuff in her stomach after Carol came swinging for him.

Carol's almost in a drunk rage at that fire, saying 'it was supposed to be like this,' and 'you're a terrible king.'

That conversation felt familiar to Max.

Max was perhaps the child they had that they thought would solve their problems. Instead, he came and the problems still got worse because they never sought help. They were stagnant in the relationship. Carol almost blends from Max into his father.

While Max listens to their conversation, "I just want to talk to him!" you get the sense that Max might have caught his father on the wrong night.

He starts to see how his mother struggled to protect the family from the issues. Max even says his mother's words, "You're out of control!"

He sees and hears her pain in dealing with the selfishness. He know how hard it is to play the protection game and still seek your own happiness. A life outside the home is impossible when you live with a selfish, jealous spouse.

That re-birth scene is pretty remarkable. His appreciation for his mother is instantaneous.

Max starts to recognize he's turning into his father- a ball of rage that can't hide his own jealousy well. Now he sees how miserable it makes others.

I still think the bull represents the father in some way because he's distant with his love.

Douglass and Ira just feel like the guys who are enablers. Perhaps Max once tried to be them.

Judith is harder to pin down for me, especially that "HAHA!" argument with Max.

I read Carol as the father identity, & it didn't even occur to me to see him as a Max alter-ego.

This might be worth exploring: could the identification of Carol as father corrolate with more positive reviews?

For some reason I just couldn't get into the movie. I'm not sure why. It just never felt very compelling or engrossing. I think maybe, for me, the children's book premise was a bit too stretched for a feature length movie. The detailed discussions of the psycho-therapeutic praxis of the film are perhaps an indication that the fun and mystery of the children's story have been over-elaborated into something too conceptual. It's as if what happens on the island is too psychologically revelatory and significant, like a perfect Freudian dream. A child's imagination would be more unpredictable and weird than this island. So part of the problem is that the whole island is too much of a construct but at the same time too arbitrary. He travels across the sea to an imaginary island and encounters...an allegory of his domestic psychodrama. And I think an imaginative boy would be more preoccupied with the specific physical features of the place. I like the moment where they run down to the cliff and howl at the sea. The movie needed more moments like that.

I would love to see Jonze tell a story that's not based on a big "interesting" and conceptual premise. I think he shows tremendous promise with actors and drama, and I'd like to see him do a "realistic" movie.

I agree with torpid bunny pretty much totally. It's a psychologically uneven film and that took me out of it and kinda left me cold. I think I liked it more than he/she did....but I agree with the points raised.

I also think LFF's comments add to my feelings in that it's totally unclear who identifies who if anyone does at all. That had me wearing my critic shoes too early on when I just wanted to relax and enjoy. I certainly hate heavy-handed allegory but maybe more of a push in the right direction would have helped me.

WTWTA is extraordinary. It might be sort of a Rorschach test into which viewers read their own emotional experiences, but I can not remember another movie that had such a powerful emotional effect on me. I have no doubt there are a multitude of ways in which children experience domestic strife and perhaps Spike Jonze's vision does not resonate with others but it sure did with me. The guilt/fear that your action caused or contributed to the strife and related fear of being a bad person, the realization that parents are not all-powerful and the beginnings of an ability to empathize with the pain the strife inflicts on them, the overwhelming, omnipresent fear that without the parents, you will never survive the larger world, the excruciating inability to fully understand what is happening and why, the twin realizations that while your own powers are limited you also have the power to dream and create your own world, and the enormously powerful reward of beginning to forgive and love your parents even while beginning to accept their faults and their pain--I saw all of that in this film. Very painful, very powerful, very eloquent. Brilliant.

Oh, and great review. Thanks for taking the discussion beyond whether the film is faithful to the book and the like.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: