Digging Deeper of a Children's Story: Critical Analyses of Where The Wild Things Are Movie
November 05, 2017
Reading
Add Comment
Updated November 5, 2017
Where The Wild Things Are
The movie is an adaptation from the children’s book written by
Maurice Sendak in 1963. The original story in the book is only 338 words and
focuses on young Max and his struggles with his mom that resulted in an amazing
adventure in his imagination, together with the Wild Things.
Our group analyzed the movie based on three critical communication
traditions: postmarxism, postcolonialism, and poststructuralism. Using these,
we have now removed ourselves from the simple questions like “What are the
themes explored?” and “What are the messages delivered to the audience?” All
three traditions under their critical approach reaches to the social and psychological backgrounds of the meanings shown in the movie.
Postmarxism
One of the
main goal of postmarxism is to focus not just on class struggle but on
individual struggles as well. Postmarxism teaches us that struggles are not
necessarily caused by our state. In the movie, Max’s mom was obviously
struggling to have a proper relationship with Max because of the fact that Max
ran away when his mom had a visitor (his mom’s boyfriend). The focus on the
movie shifted from Max’s mom struggle to Max’s own struggle. Postmarxism is a
great theory to review of the movie because of many different individual
struggles present in the movie. Using postmarxism, we can identify that the
individual struggle of Max’s mom was having a proper relationship with Max
while Max have the same individual struggle because of lack of attention he was
receiving. The individual struggle of Max’s mom led to Max leaving their house
while the individual struggle of Max himself led to destroying things in the
room and becoming rude to his mom and his mom’s visitor. When Max started
imagining things, even the Wild Things were in a chaos. Through postmarxism,
we can tell that the chaos happening among the Wild Things are not because of
class struggle but because they are different animals. Their contradicting
individual struggles caused the chaos among them.
Postcolonialism
Postcolonialism
resides in the premises of colonization and decolonization process itself.
Postcolonialism also claims that decolonization doesn't just means giving back
the land and allowing the natives to take over the leadership, but it also
focuses on the aftermath; which primarily means that taking a deep look into
the culture is a must, especially since colonization altered the lives of
native in many ways possible. Moreover, postcolonialism also holds that
colonizers create language to limit people and to reaffirm their
"higher" status of being. Finally, postcolonialism also talks about
the binary between the Orient and the Occident; Orient (the site of unchanging
civilization) takes the alter ego of Occident (the site of learning and
progress). In the movie Where The Wild Things Are, if we are to use the lenses
of postcolonialism, there really are convergence points that can be taken note.
First and foremost, Max, an ordinary kid with bad habits
transformed into a highly esteemed king when he arrived in the island. Max has
taken advantage the innocence of the people; just like what the Spaniards into
the Philippines, the accidental stopover of the Spaniards turned into them
taking over the islands. Max said to the savage* inhabitants that he is a king.
Second, Max altered the inhabitants of the islands. Max instituted that giant
buildings be constructed. He also created pseudo-rules* that the creatures must
follow. Following the premises of postcolonialism, it can be seen that Max
changed the habits of the people living there. Max may not change the physical
appearance of the creatures, he successfully changed some aspects of them and
these changes can be seen at the end of the film. Third, postcolonialism as a
school of thought and by studying various texts, holds on to the belief that
Occident associate* and disassociate* themselves on the Orient. In one scene in
the movie movie are Max was assigning a role to the creatures (good vs. bad guys),
Max insists that the king is never bad, that's why he chose to be on the 'good'
side while all the others except his "friends" are on his team.
However, like
the claim in postcolonialism, not all of the people are in favor of the
"king," Judith and Alexander are doubtful. At the end of the movie,
though the place was chaotic before Max came, everything became messier -
relationships are tormented, and all that can be seen are ruins; colonization
produces effects that can either harm or benefit a place.
Notes:
*Savage since the species there are wild-natured otherwordly beasts; they also attempt to scare Max by saying they will eat him.
*One of the rules are the game time which hurt one of the members.
*The existence of binary opposition between the East and the West is a way of association of Occident with the Orient.
*The creation of curated language to encapsulate the primitive ways of the Orient is a way of disassociation of Occident with the Orient.
*Savage since the species there are wild-natured otherwordly beasts; they also attempt to scare Max by saying they will eat him.
*One of the rules are the game time which hurt one of the members.
*The existence of binary opposition between the East and the West is a way of association of Occident with the Orient.
*The creation of curated language to encapsulate the primitive ways of the Orient is a way of disassociation of Occident with the Orient.
Poststructuralism
Poststructuralism
represents the shift from consciousness to the “body" (Hoy 2004, 19-20). This change is due to
Friedrich Nietzche’s notion that humans are complex. First, we are
composed of varying multiple perspectives that we processed from where the
“body” is situated (21). It could be ideas and values about friendship, family,
love, and fame. Second, these concepts change meaning according to
interpretation (a process which consists of the context and a person’s thought
process). Following this line of argument, interpretation shapes people’s
realities (34). Nietzche only used the body as metaphor for interpretation (51). Third, a
a unified consciousness does not exist but people strive to achieve a more
coherent totality of perspectives (21). However, this does not mean that the
inconsistencies brought about by other conflicting perspectives are terminated.
They are only minimized. Fourth, take for an example that for person A, love means selflessness and sacrifice, but for person B it means that it is give and take while maintaining his/her own identity. Jacques
Derrida states that the network of two perspectives allow for a
deeper understanding on the definitions of concepts (37). Fifth, this
approach does not suggest a line of action because it will possibly limit the
range of solutions one could think of in answering problems (89-90).
There are several
theories under poststructuralism. We chose deconstruction as the appropriate
method of analysis for the movie. Reading is an “an interplay between
construction and deconstruction” (44). The same could be applied in viewing a
movie. Deconstruction is a process where the text is disassembled into smaller
units to arrive at the topics not regularly tackled in the society (Knighton
2016). It tries to uncover the inconsistencies that the text tries to hide in
order to appear unified (Hoy 2004, 45). There are no concrete steps to
execute deconstruction. However, the analyst is free to take on
whatever kind of logical analysis to dig the inconsistencies. It could take the
form of critical questions and answering it based on the text.
Note: A text
can be anything that we can see, hear, and/or feel.
As a unified
text, the movie presents a child’s immaturity and his understanding of his
environment as he faced difficulties in a home where he is not paid attention
to. In the middle of the scenes, he is sent to his own imaginary world or where
the monsters or “the wild things” are located. In here, he was deemed as a king
and was given the attention he desired. Nevertheless, he realized his own
mistakes as he faced his own attitude and behavior through Carol’s character
and Carol’s relationship with K.W. He also was exposed to K.W.’s side which
explores the possible “oppositional side” which are his Mom and his sister.
From there, he grasped that Carol was selfish and only saw his own struggle
while K.W. had her own share of it too. After learning his lesson, he went back
with a deeper understanding of how he had acted and what are the struggles his
family facing together with him.
First, why
was the movie was shown through Max’s perspective? His thoughts might have not
been narrated but majority of the movie explored his reactions to his family
situation and his mental landscape. In comparison with the original book of
“Where the Wild Things Are,” it started off the scene where Max yelled at his
mother, “I’ll eat you up.” There was no emphasis on the struggle of the child
but only an anger outburst which could be passed off as “immaturity.” However,
the movie showed Max’s mockery or imitation of the treatment his sister showed
and his tantrum against his Mother for not paying him attention.
By seeing the
story through Max’s eyes, he was playing alone. He craved attention from his
family members as a sign of affection and acceptance. It is only when his needs
are recognized that he will feel that he belongs. If a viewer dug deeper, the
problem that the family is facing is attributable to every member. Max was not
the problem. The problem Max was facing were loneliness and isolation. He didn’t
have the opportunities to interact with his sister and his mother and express
his need. But it could be seen that it was his family choosing to ignore him
when his sister only talked to her friends and when her mother was talking over
the phone and entertaining her visitor. On the other hand, his mother was shown
struggling with work, building a new romantic relationship, and paying
attention to her children’s needs. This explicates how little a child could
understand when his family members are not able to communicate well why they
are behaving that way.
Second, why
did the production team alter the original story to how it was shown as I said
in the previous paragraph? The movie tackles the side of a child neglected and
how his circumstances affect his behaviors. This gives another perspective to
the mainstream discourse on family issues. Children are expected to act
obedient and to be understanding of their family in the society. They are
expected not to oppose their family’s circumstances and decisions. They are at
the lowest ladder of the hierarchy found inside the family, especially the youngest
ones. The only thing they can do is to follow so they will be seen as good
children. The movie brings the issue of allowing a child to express their
feelings and opinions to their loved ones.
Presenting Max as a “wild thing” in
the first scene where he was chasing the dog with a fork and when his mother
shouted, “You’re out of control!” when he bit her shows an exaggeration of the
universal conception that letting children show their negative emotions and
disapproval to their family is a sign of disobedience and “being wild.” This
shows our tendency to believe that there is something wrong with a child that a
family cannot control. When in fact, it is normal for a child to show all of his emotions. Repressing them for too long will make him emotionally unstable and produce problematic behavior.
Third, what
do the monsters in his mental landscape represent? These monsters are the
voices or the multiples perspectives inside him. Alexander, Carol, Bernard, and
Ira are the perspectives which validate his feelings during his struggles. Alexander
represents how he is usually ignored and not listened to by his family. Carol
represents his feeling of being the only one making an effort for their family
to stay together but he is not given attention by K.W. Bernard represents Max’s
desire for his family to say good things about him even at least in front of
other people. It is his subconscious desire to be complimented and be treated
as a “good child.” This is based on Bernard’s request to Max to say good things
about them despite what happened to him. Ira represents Max’s dad who gave
comfort when Max looked at the globe. This is proved by Ira’s gentleness and
sweet words towards Max.
Written by Serezo, Escosio, & Jimenez.
Then, there are the contradicting
perspectives. Judith, Douglas, and K.W. are the voices he refused to listen to.
Judith and K.W. represent the perceived interpretation of Max’s mom and sister.
They are the possibilities that say his family is making an effort as well for
them to continue being a family and the social and romantic needs his family
has to address while taking care of him. Judith agreed when Max said that Carol
wasn’t the only one who built the fort and the home. K.W. said that she could
still stay friends with Carol even if she had other people she wanted to pay
attention to. Finally, Douglas is the perspective that proved that Max
could not gain happiness by relying on other people to do it for him. During
Carol’s outburst, Douglas finally confronted him and said that Max was not a
king and he only played along for his happiness. He is the what-if scenario in
Max’s interpretation that tries to defend the idea that his happiness depends
on his family’s situation but ends up being a conflict in the end. From this, I
can assume that Max knew inside him that needed to do something as well for his
family situation to change so he could be happy and not feel lonely
anymore.
Overall, the movie offered a
brand new perspective about children and family. The problems faced by the
protagonists are not only experienced by children but also by adults. There are
family issues that continue growing until they are left unaddressed in the
present. These adults could also relate to the issue of not being able to
express their negative emotions as a child, thus, turning themselves into
outbursts or tantrums. These issues could also resonate in any kind of
relationship. It could also be seen in the workplace. This is because the movie
also entails communication problems in general.
Written by Serezo, Escosio, & Jimenez.
References:
Knighton, Andrew. 2016. "Using the Deconstruction
Theory to Analyze the Film 'Remember the Titans.'" Accessed November 4,
2017.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/using-deconstruction-theory-analyze-film-remember-titans-knighton.
Hoy, David. 2004. Critical Resistance: From
Poststructuralism to Post-Critique. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press.
Uni Assignment Centre. "The Key Conceptions Of Post
Marxism Philosophy Essay." Accessed November 04, 2017.
Where The Wild Things Are Book Script. Accessed November 4,
2017. http://www.sfasu.edu/echl/documents/Where_The_Wild_Things_Are.pdf.
0 comments:
Post a Comment