Maurice Sendak tells parents who think Wild Things is too scary for children they can 'go to hell'

[BurtWorm]

http://feeds.guardian.co.uk/~r/theguardian/books/rss/~3/BlBgqWoJdIo/maurice-sendak-wild-things-hell




Children's author gives short shrift to concerns that Where the Wild Things Are is too frightening for children

...

"I would tell them to go to hell," Sendak said. And if children can't handle the story, they should "go home," he added. "Or wet your pants. Do whatever you like. But it's not a question that can be answered."

Sendak also criticised Disney, saying it was "terrible" for children. As a child himself, he'd loved Mickey Mouse as "the emblem of happiness and funniness", and at the cinema he would stand on the chair screaming "My hero! My hero!" at the mouse – who at that point still had teeth. "He was more dangerous," the author told Newsweek. "He did things to Minnie that were not nice. I think what happened was that he became so popular – this is my own theory – they gave his cruelty and his toughness to Donald Duck. And they made Mickey a fat nothing. He's too important for products. They want him to be placid and nice and adorable. He turned into a schmaltzer. I despised him after a point."

He based the monsters of Where the Wild Things Are on relatives who visited his family home as a child, speaking practically no English. "They grabbed you and twisted your face, and they thought that was an affectionate thing to do," he said. "And I knew that my mother's cooking was pretty terrible, and it also took forever, and there was every possibility that they would eat me, or my sister or my brother. We really had a wicked fantasy that they were capable of that. We couldn't taste any worse than what she was preparing. So that's who the Wild Things are. They're foreigners, lost in America, without a language. And children who are petrified of them, and don't understand that these gestures, these twistings of flesh, are meant to be affectionate."

Sendak also recalled a fight he had with his publisher about Where the Wild Things Are, with the safety-conscious publisher keen to change the word "hot" to "warm" at the end of the book, when Max returns from his reign as king over the monsters to find his dinner "was still hot". "It was going to burn the kid. I couldn't believe it. But it turned into a real world war, just that word," Sendak told the magazine.

He won out eventually by "just going at it", he said. "Just trying to convey how dopey 'warm' sounded. Unemotional. Undramatic. Everything about that book is 'hot'."

[waiting for hope]

1. I loved that book as a child - and both of my children love

it too - I plan on taking them to the movies for this one. I saw that Sendak was thrilled with Spike Jonze's interpretation of his book.

[debbierlus]

2. There is no need for that - if it is too scary for young children, parents should know

God, he acts as if kids who can't take it are a bunch of wimps and parents who don't want to scare too young children into nightmares are fostering cowardice.

Geesh, Maurice. Keep true to your artistic vision but don't be rude to potential movie goers who just have their kids best interest at heart.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. A bunch of wimps? Fostering cowardice?

Yeah, pretty much.

[BurtWorm]

6. Not cowardice, but fear of strong emotion.

What he says about the fight over the word "hot," I think, gives a clue to his irritation over parents' fear of the book. And even though he talks about frightened children, I think he's really talking about parents who don't think their children are able to handle it. What kid can't handle that book? It isn't frightening (overtly). Max tames the beasts, who are really kind of cute. It's really a book about anger, which can be frightening to a child. It's reassuring in the end, without resorting to "warmth." You can be angry, and it can take you away, but you will come back. What's really to be afraid of?

PS: I can tell his statements were in answer to prodding questions from the reporter. He didn't volunteer the bit about children who were afraid of the book on his own, I don't think. The reporter asked him about hypothetical children.

[debbierlus]

8. I thought he was talking about the MOVIE, not the book

"I would tell them to go to hell," Sendak said. And if children can't handle the story, they should "go home," he added. "Or wet your pants. Do whatever you like. But it's not a question that can be answered."..........

Telling the children to 'go home' seemed like a reference to the movie, not the book. Why would you tell a child to go home, if they couldn't handle a book? If he was talking about the movie, I stand by my original post, as I have read the reviews and it does state that some scenes might frighten young children.

If he is just talking about the book, then I would agree with Mr Sendak.

[BurtWorm]

11. You could be right about the movie.

I still think he's making a statement about the artist's prerogative to tell the truth as he or she sees it, and if it's too strong for you, that's not his problem.

[debbierlus]

14. That's fine...just don't condemn parent's trying to make a determination

if there is little one is at the right stage to handle scary scenes in a movie....

That is just responsible parenting. Like I said, if he is talking about the book, I am cool with it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. The point is, the hypothetical parent is not making the determination just for himself

but by saying it is 'too scary for little children' he is applying his own standards to everyone. If he's saying 'too scary for MY kids', that might be responsible parenting - saying 'too scary for kids' is irresponsible and intrusive, and he can go to hell.

[rebecca_herman]

23. He can make whatever movie he wants

but I don't see the point in insulting people who are trying to determine if the movie is too scary for *their* child.

He should either not comment or say something like "This is how I feel the movie should be, if you dislike it your kids don't have to see it." Unfortunately, Hollywood companies do not always market movies to the correct audience. I've seen a lot of ads suggesting this movie is for young kids although I suppose the tie-in toys for 4 year olds to violent PG13 movies are even worse - such as the toys for The Dark Knight that were for ages 4 and up. I can't think of a single 4 year old I know that I would show *that* movie too.

So yeah honestly responsible marketing would go a long way... but they are just in it to make money sooo...

[BurtWorm]

37. Easy for us to say what he should say or should have said..

He said what he said.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. It is GOOD for kids to be scared by movies.

They will walk out at the end, unharmed. They learn that fear is just an emotion, like other emotions, and is a reflection of reality, and is NOT the reality itself.

An overprotective parent is the worst danger almost any kid can face, because it leaves kids incapable of coping with the real world.

[Liquorice]

27. That is ridiculous. And the worst danger a kid can face is not an overprotective parent. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. You might note, I did say 'almost' any kid -

and being raised to be afraid of being afraid is something that people don't generally grow out of - and it makes republicans of them. Overprotective parents CRIPPLE their offspring, as surely as if they chopped off their feet with an axe. Such kids grow up being afraid of everything, or in reaction grow up to be reckless and careless, because they never learned to appropriately gauge the reality of danger.

[TalkingDog]

87. No, I'd say that is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to most any child.

In my neck of the woods, we have people who home-school their kids because they don't want them to be exposed to (long list of horrible terrible things) and of course African-Americans, Hispanics and non-Christians....

When I worked for a local non-profit in a large nearby city, our marketing director (who is African-American) went to one of their meetings to present information on our organization. Of the 40 or so moms, (only moms mind you) she was the only African-American woman in the room. She said they seemed kinda nervous when she showed up.

A number of these people have a....marginal (shall we say) education themselves. So the kids, sit around watching Veggie Tales or doing workbook exercises because, heaven forbid, if you take them out somewhere they might be exposed to (something, anything, everything) that threatens their world view.

Now, if this sounds like a slap at homeschooling, it is anything but. I've also known a number of parents who home school for all the best reasons. Their kid has a disability that can't be addressed in the public system. Or their kid is flagging because they are under-challenged. Or they want to expose their kids to learning modalities and experiences beyond that offered in public schooling.

The ones I'm talking about are the ones that thwart their children's exposure rather than trusting their kid to be resilient. Or trusting (and teaching) the kid to be aware of his/her own limitations, so that they can call on their parents for the assistance they should always be there to offer.

I worked in a public library for a number of years and I've had more than one parent come up and tell me that librarians should keep "certain" books away from children of a "certain" age. (the particular book and the particular age would vary from parent to parent) I would always respond that our job is to help people have access to books, not deny it.

But their kid was different, their kid read too fast for the parent to preview everything they read or wanted to read. Their kid didn't need to be exposed to "such and such".

"Well," I would respond, "Then you are just going to have to trust that you did a good job of imparting a belief system that can withstand being exposed to the real world. And you are going to have to trust your kid to adhere to it. If you can't do that, you might want to lock them in a closet til they are 21."

Children who are "overprotected" never develop a way to deal with the real world. So the real world shreds them up and spits them out.

As Frank Zappa sagely explained to a questioner at the PMRC hearings on music censorship: (here he was discussing the sexual content of music and people wanting to "protect" their children from sex education, but the idea applies across the board)

"it makes the child vulnerable, because if you do not have something rational to compare it to when you see or hear about something that is aberrated you do not perceive it as an aberration."

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Well said. nt

[PatSeg]

118. Loved your responses to parents in the library

It seems some are quick to defer responsibility for their children to someone else.

[Liquorice]

131. I've seen much worse things happen to children who are neglected. You're wrong. nt

[TalkingDog]

160. I was neglected. And abused. As was my sister.

My sister never quite learned to be tough. Even though she was 2 years older than me, at the age of 6 I would physically intervene when kids her own age picked on her.

I got tough quick, but I survived fairly whole. Some kids don't.

And while my circumstances may not have offered the opportunities for me to blossom, no flower blooms in a dark closet. You can smother children with too much "protection"; denuding them of their self-hood and dooming them to a life of learned helplessness.

Now tell me I wrong.

[eilen]

154. I had this nutty neighbor once

when my son was 4-5 years old. He used to play with her boys. She was some flavor of Born Again Xtian, or something like that--they had a picture of Jimmy Swaggart in their home. Anyhow, I used to borrow a video from the public library of Maurice Sendak's poetry/books. It had someone reading or singing the words with pictures from the books, sometimes animated, sometimes not. It's something anyone could make now with a scanner and some Apple software in a few hours.

One of them was "I don't care Pierre" which we still use around our home (my son is 16 now).

I had her kids over and they were watching "Where the Wild Things Are" and she came to get them. She was very upset I had this on. She told me she did not want her kids "exposed" to the idea of monsters (but the Bible is A-OK--heh heh). She thinks they are too immature to handle it so young etc. I tried to explain the whole "monster" idea of the book was the concept of taming the monsters inside.... however the concept blew over her head. After that we referred to them as the Flanders-- as in "you'll upset the Flanders." Good thing I never showed them the Simpsons.

She was also anti-Halloween.

[woo me with science]

182. Good post. nt

[bobbolink]

139. Are you familiar with sensitivity? Do you have any idea that not all of us are alike?

[Codeine]

166. A child that sensitive

is doomed, and reinforcing that sensitivity by coddling will only make it worse.

[bobbolink]

183. Ignorance must be bliss.

Try reading The Highly Sensitve Person, by Dr. Elaine Aron.

That is, if you're not afraid of learning something.

Oh, and a sensitive child is only "doomed" because of tough people like you who are unaccepting of anyone different from themselves.

Not exactly a sterling "progressive" quality.

[DWilliamsamh]

152. Short of being raped or killed, yeah it is. But you are right...not THE worst. Pretty close though

[Taverner]

78. Yes. +1! Scary stories were told to children for a reason

[debbierlus]

91. That is bullshit. It isn't being overprotective

To make sure your kid is watching age appropriate movies.

There is no reason to take a kid to a film that might give them nightmares.

My parents took me to see Poltergeist when I was too young for it and I had nightmares for a month. How did that teach me to cope with the real world?

It didn't. It just scared the hell of me for no reason.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. And do you believe in ghosts today?

When I was a kid I had recurring night terrors - two different nightmares that I had repeatedly over a period of many years. One of them went away finally when I was 14 or so - the really bad one I had last when I was in college.

But nightmares are like movies. They are NOT real. I knew that from the beginning. Reality doesn't just go away when you wake up, or walk out into the light of day. I've always had an overactive imagination and even today a scary movie with spiders will have me pulling my feet up under me, even though I work in a science museum and share my office with tarantulas and black widows.

There is being afraid, and there is being afraid of being afraid. People who are afraid of being afraid will never learn how to control their fear, and be able to deal with REAL danger situations.

[debbierlus]

110. What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?

You have veered off entirely from the point.

I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree that parents have a responsibility to monitor the content of what their kids watch. If a movie will frighten a kid because they are to young to handle the subject matter or images, just wait until they are older to allow them to see it. My parents made a mistake taking me to see Poltergeist and they caused my unnecessary fright and nightmares. Nothing was gained by it.

I didn't need to see a scary movie that gave me nightmares to learn to face fear and gain courage in life. I didn't need to think there were ghosts living in the t.v. to learn to live with courage.

[Withywindle]

140. Hell, I'm 40 years old, and....

I've always had an overactive imagination and even today a scary movie with spiders will have me pulling my feet up under me, even though I work in a science museum and share my office with tarantulas and black widows....

I can't count how many times I've seen MOST of the LOTR film trilogy collectively, but there's about 15 minutes of the third movie that I've never actually seen at all--closed eyes, hands over the face, strategically-timed bathroom breaks--and I bet you can guess exactly which scenes.

[Art_from_Ark]

(double post deleted)

[Art_from_Ark]

187. I once saw the preview to a movie when I was 6

that featured some green slime monster slowly walking down the stairs toward some unsuspecting victim. Just that one scene gave me many nightmares.

Sometimes, kids are just not equipped to handle scary scenes in movies.

[redqueen]

77. It's about the movie. It's in the first sentence of the linked article.

Parents who think the new film of Maurice Sendak's picture book ...

[woo me with science]

10. Nonsense.

He rightfully shows contempt for any crybaby parents who can't seem to figure out that it is THEIR responsibility to determine if their children are ready for the movie and to keep them home if they aren't. It is not Sendak's responsibility to be nanny or to sanitize his art for the benefit of such parents.

He is responding to suggestions that the movie is too scary, which is an outrageous claim. If there are parents complaining in this way, they fully deserve a response like this.

[debbierlus]

16. Read what he said:

Children's author gives short shrift to concerns that Where the Wild Things Are is too frightening for children

...

"I would tell them to go to hell," Sendak said. And if children can't handle the story, they should "go home," he added. "Or wet your pants. Do whatever you like. But it's not a question that can be answered."


There is concern that this may be inappropriate for young children, so he cops an attitude? No one was trying to sanitize his vision. I think the point is that the movie may be inappropriate for young audiences, and parents should be made aware that it isn't for very young children.

I see no reason for the rudeness.

[Raineyb]

22. He's not making them watch the movie.

If they can't handle it they can do whatever the hell they like. And he answered the question just the way he felt like doing so. Why is the "scariness" of the movie something he's supposed to answer for anyway? He's no more forcing anyone to watch the movie than he forced them to read the book it's based on.

Quite frankly the question asked of him was an idiotic one.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. This film is not rated G for general audiences

But PG, which stands for parental guidance. Sendak's point is that the film is the film and parents are parents. Each have a job to do. The rating of the film is there to assist parents in that regard. To parents who have touchy kids, I'd say they need to pre screen films that might scare their kid. That is the parent's job. Watch it and make up your own mind if your kids should see it.
Some films are rated G and will still scare some kids. Some. Not all.

[Lance_Boyle]

57. Hence the PG rating, for PARENTAL GUIDANCE

note this this is not a MSG rating, for Maurice Sendak's Guidance. Any parent who thinks it's appropriate to foist off their responsibility for the "guidance" part of the PG rating on someone else can, as Mr. Sendak suggested, go right straight to hell.

[debbierlus]

94. No one was trying foist off anything onto Sendak

Sheesh....

ALL that was said was that the film might be too frightening for young children.

And, he told parents to go to hell for considering whether this movie would be appropriate to take their young children to see. Exactly what any responsible parent would consider before taking their children to see any movie. How is foisting their responsibility onto Sendak?

He was completely rude and out of line. No one attacked his movie. No one criticized his movie. No one stated he should have made a different movie.

[ImOnlySleeping]

119. he's been defending the movie for years.

The movie has been under fire for years from the studio. They wanted the lead child recast to be a cuter kid. They wanted the tone changed. The director told the studio the same thing.

Try these quotes

"The big disagreement is that they thought I was making a children's film and I thought I was making a film about childhood"

"Jonze and Eggers have fought hard for five years to retain the more troubling content in Where the Wild Things Are. Eggers received repeated notes from concerned producers about the screenplay. "There is a whitewashed, idealised version of childhood that is popular in movies. It has the kids sitting neatly in their chairs, talking with some adult, in a sarcastic, overly sophisticated but polite way – a concoction that bears no resemblance to an actual kid," he explains"

[Withywindle]

141. "The big disagreement is that they thought I was making a children's film and I thought I was making

a film about childhood."

THAT is the crucial difference right there.

And it really hits on the issue of 'what are children's films?'

Are they films that children actually like, or are they films that parents think children SHOULD like?

Some parents seem to think that a child being scared or sad or embarrassed or what have you by fiction or images is a life-ruining trauma.

Some children are stealing their parents' Stephen King paperbacks for secret thrills as soon as they master the rudiments of reading.

And children, like adults, are INDIVIDUALS. Some 40-year-olds can't bear horror movies. Some 8-year-olds adore them.

Me, I bawled my eyes out for days over "Bambi," which was the first movie I was ever taken to in a theater, when I was five. It gave me an anxiety about the death of my parents that lasted for years. Do I wish I'd never seen it? NO, actually. Not at all. My parents spent hours talking with me about it, comforting me, reassuring me, and teaching me about how yes, death happens and it's sad, but what's important is to love each other here and now. Eventually, that sank in. Would I let my own theoretical 5-year-old see it? Hell yes, and if a similar conversation needed to happen, I'd gladly have it.

I totally agree wtih Sendak's larger point, that children have emotions and fantasies that are full of anger and fear and violence and all sorts of darkness. The "innocence" of childhood--at least as adults imagine it, as total 24-7 sparkly playland free of anything "negative" or scary or angry or wild or vaguely sexual--is a pernicious myth that harms children by denying their true inner reality.

[woo me with science]

162. Brilliant post! Thank you!

Especially this: "I totally agree wtih Sendak's larger point, that children have emotions and fantasies that are full of anger and fear and violence and all sorts of darkness. The "innocence" of childhood--at least as adults imagine it, as total 24-7 sparkly playland free of anything "negative" or scary or angry or wild or vaguely sexual--is a pernicious myth that harms children by denying their true inner reality."

The denial of this is the cause of many sick and hysterical aspects of our society now. People are taught that "normal" minds do not think these things or experience these emotions, and so they become alarmed when they experience them or see them in children.

We teach bewildered children and hapless adults to be alarmed by their normal dark fantasies and to see them as evidence of deep personal sickness, pathological parenting, or even repressed abuse. Call in the professionals! No wonder there are so many depressed children, emo teens, and adults addicted to therapy.

The human psyche is a wild, imaginative, and messy place. Sendak is right that people need to get a grip.

[Withywindle]

186. Thanks!

Oh god, repressed memories, don't get me started.


I would like to reach back through time and royally curbstomp the person who came up with the idea that children would never play at violence if they hadn't been abused or irresponsibly exposed to it by TEH EBOL MEDIA. And even more damaging is that same principle applied to sex play, "No little kid would think of that on their own! S/he must have been MOLESTED."


That's total crap. Babies figure out pretty quick it feels good to touch themselves there. Toddlers get angry (oh, do they EVER) and appreciate the cathartic power of smashing things before they learn the full satisfaction of going potty properly.

[redqueen]

67. "Or wet your pants."... you're right... there's no reason for the rudeness.

The movie is a little too scary for young kids, in a lot of people's opinions... so for him to mock those people (and their kids) so rudley... and for that to be cheered here... it's just sad. Bullying is way too popular, still.

[pnwmom]

89. The problem is we don't know the question Sendak was asked.

[debbierlus]

Thank you. Exactly.

All the article states is that some people think the movie may be inappropriate for young children. Parents just need to know this to make a responsible decision.

Why should he tell anyone to go to hell for this? No one attacked his movie. No one criticized the movie. No one stated he should have made a different movie more to appropriate to young children. All that was said is that it might not be appropriate for some young kids and he tells people to go to hell.

He can go to hell for being so arrogant and condescending to people who make an observation about the suitability of the film for young kids and don't want to give their little one nightmares.

No one attacked his film.

[pnwmom]

86. I would like to know how aggressive the question was that Sendak was

responding to. And how do we know that the reporter was only talking about "young children"?

For example, he could have asked:

"Some parents are saying that the movie is bad for children, that it is really aimed at adults, and that children would be frightened by it. What would you say to them?"

The way to get a "quote worthy" answer is often to pose a provocative question. I think that may have happened in this case.

[Codeine]

25. Christ.

If giant puppets on screen are frightening to a child something is desperately wrong. Nobody should be that fucking delicate.

And if they do get scared, so what? A scary moment onscreen never hurt anyone. Nation of nincompoops.

[debbierlus]

95. Yes, the four year olds are a bunch of wimps. Buck up!

:sarcasm:

[msanthrope]

97. Why are you taking a 4 year old to a PG movie without reading up on it first? n/t

[debbierlus]

108. That is kind of the point - parents are stating it may not be appropriate for young kids

They HAVE read up on it.

And, Sendak tells them to go to hell.

This thread is a bit surreal. Big disconnect going on here.

People keep stating time and time again that it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids watch. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING BY SCRUTINIZING THE FILM.

I can't believe all the posts cheering Sendak for telling parents to go to hell for simply stating the film may not be appropriate for young kids.

No one criticized Sendak's movie. No one stated he should have geared it towards younger audience. No one stated that it was a bad movie or insulted it in any way.

He told parents to go to hell for simply stating that the film may not be suitable for young audiences.

Why are people praising him for this? He didn't stand up for anything. He was rude, arrogant, and obnoxious for the sake of being rude, arrogant, and obnoxious.

It is really weird that people are praising him for being a jerk.

SHUT UP PARENTS STATING THAT THIS FILM might not be a good choice for your young kids. Go to hell.

That is what people are getting behind. It is just weird. And, I don't understand it at all.

[ImOnlySleeping]

123. I would say

It's because you have no basis for interpreting the statement....

Sendak: I think you're right. This concentration on kids being scared, as though we as adults can't be scared. Of course we're scared. I'm scared of watching a TV show about vampires. I can't fall asleep. It never stops. We're grown-ups; we know better, but we're afraid.

Why is that important in art?
Sendak: Because it's truth.

[Raineyb]

164. Well if they did their homework and they decided it's inappropriate

why bother the author with this tidbit?

He's right. They can do what they want I don't see why it's necessary to bother the man with this at all. People will watch it or they won't. He doesn't seem to give a damn either way; I don't see why he should.

Once again the question is an asinine one --one he doesn't seem to think needs to be answered by him.

I think he's right.

[mzmolly]

128. I think it depends on the child?

My child still needs me to monitor what we view quite closely due to being very sensitive. Other children we know are quite different.

[digidigido]

149. That's not how I took it

I thought he was making a case for art, and allowing parents to decide what was appropriate for their
children to see, but not allow that to determine what the movie should be.

[DWilliamsamh]

151. Here's a clue: THEY ARE!

We have (and the rest of the western world) raised a couple generations of simpering mewling babies precisely because we seek to protect children from everything and anything that might upset them in the least. Then we wonder why we end up with young adults who have neither the resilience nor the inclination to stick to anything and work through disappointment, rather than take the most gratifying route to want they want (read this as cheating lying and stealing) because they have been taught all their lives that they deserve everything, and into there lives no rain will ever fall - or at least that they don't have to tolerate it.

Sometimes things are scary. Sometimes they are wonderful. Some times you win and some times you lose. Learning to deal with ALL of the world's experiences (in age appropriate ways) is a VITAL part of growing up and emotional intelligence. This is what these parent s who want to make sure everyone gets the same sized trophy at the end of little league (or dance, or science fair), regardless of their actual objective performance, do not understand.

[Swamp Rat]

3. Good for Sendak!

The Old and New Testaments are much more scary, and way too violent for children.

[Howler]

44. Exactly!!!

The fairy tales I read as a kid were 'Frighting" too.I agree with Sendak.

[Rebubula]

49. Awesome...

...that is the best response ever.

[Thickasabrick]

4. I love this guy!! nt

[Mrs. Overall]

7. Ha! I love when beloved icons break out of their stereotypical image.

Reminds me of the time a friend of mine saw Mother Teresa throw a temper tantrum at the convent she was setting up in San Francisco. She tore up carpet and threw it out a window.

[LoZoccolo]

9. One of my favorite books as a kid, but he's acting like a jerk. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

33. I loved what he said, wish there were more like him nt

[jinto86]

12. I think the movie should have been marketed way better

Judging from all the advertisments it seemed like this movie would be great for really young kids, as it turns out its better for older kids and even teens and adults. They did the same thing with Terabithia a few years back (though didn't change that story anywhere near as much, so parents should have known what that movie was about). I don't think it is at all wrong for parents to get mad at unproper marketing of a movie.

[rebecca_herman]

24. oh I agree

although The Dark Knight toys for 4 year olds that I mentioned upthread were worse!

[saltpoint]

13. Seems like to me loads of younguns like that book and who gives a

pig's ankle whether their parents like it or not?

I hope any kid who wants to see that film gets taken to see it.

[jinto86]

20. The movie is very little like the book

Keep in mind if the book was made into a movie without adding a lot it would take about 10 minutes.

[saltpoint]

31. Got it. and I haven't seen the film. Still.

[Romulox]

15. Really compelling interview of Sendak by Bill Moyers on NOW (link)

http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/sendak.html

[woo me with science]

181. What a marvelous interview.

Thank you for posting this. Sendak is a treasure.

[unpossibles]

17. Good for him!

I was just discussing with my roommate about how cartoons today (I know; not the same thing) are too tame and safe, as we were wondering why Warner Brothers Looney Tunes don't seem to be shown anymore. They were made for adults, and many of them are violent and the jokes above kids' heads, but you know what? Kids still loved them, and to my knowledge there was not a sudden rash of kids blowing each other up with TNT during those cartoons' heyday.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Just saw it, I wouldn't take very very young children

I'd probably take an 8 year old. Maybe not a 5 year old.

[redqueen]

56. So... I guess we can both go to hell then, cause I agree. (nt)

[Kaylee]

69. Good to know...my kids just those ages love the book

and were very interested in the movie. This is one of those movies that was hard to figure out if we should go or not. We'll wait for video to try it out...some movies they love (Spiderwick Chronicles) and others freak them out (Coraline).

[quiller4]

126. I have to disagree--took a 3 and 4 year old both LOVED it. n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

26. i loved that book as a kid

actually, i still love it.

haven't seen it yet, but i've never seen spike jonez miss, and the reviews have been excellent.

also, the mickey being nice thing is just an act. south park exposed it.

[SidDithers]

74. Those poor Jonas brothers...

:rofl:

Sid

[Divine Discontent]

130. LIES!

I have a personal friendship with Mickey @ diz, and I am adamant that he is everything they talk him up to be! So BOO on you! LOL.... although, that impostor on So. Park was very funny. Mickey even liked it.

[paulsby]

148. define

"personal friendship" with an animal...

or maybe not...

[Divine Discontent]

153. he has no orifices that can be plundered, if that's what you're implying

don't ask how I know this, or what my intent was... LOL...

I jest...see what you've started this beautiful morning!

[Buddyblazon]

28. My parents took me to Jaws at 4.

It was the only movie playing on base (in Zweibrucken)...we went to every American movie that would end up on base...and that was it. So we went.


I grew up just fine. Neither I or my parents remember me being particularly scarred.

[Javaman]

42. LOL I was taken to see "the wild bunch" when I was 5. LOL I survived. :) nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

156. I saw Jaws on TV when I was five

Didn't even want to go in the bathtub after that. But it's still my favorite movie of all time.

[Vickers]

29. Good for him!

People are taking their kids to a PG movie and expecting it to be all warm and cuddly?

:wtf:

Did they read the fucking book?

:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Exactly. The MPAA rating is PG - that means Parental Guidance.

so instead of getting all pissy, the parents need to do their fricking jobs.

[Toasterlad]

46. A-Fucking-Men. So Sick of Parents Expecting Everyone Else to Raise Their Child

You have a kid, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure the movies you take it to are appropriate. Not the author's. Not the producer's. Not the director's. YOURS.

There are many resources available for parents to find out what's suitable for their kids, screenit.com to name just one. So sick of lazy parents who make assumptions and then blame someone else when their precious little spawn get "scared".

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

158. And PG isn't even like it used to be

"Bad News Bears" was PG with little kids saying the N-word, and so was Jaws with a giant shark leaving limbs and heads floating around behind. Both of those would be PG13 at least now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Did he tame them with a magic trick of staring into their yellow eyes without blinking once? n/

[saltpoint]

32. I think Sendak and other young folks' authors are compelling and

full of good things and wonderments.

For reasons I can't explain, I never gave a flying crap about Mickey Mouse.

[bunkerbuster1]

34. It all makes sense now.

Always loved the book, read it to my kid, but I'll have to drag it out and have another look in this new light.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. What a delightful background story.

As a child, I too was intimidated by the beasties, but learned to love them by the end, because the boy trusted them. That was the whole point of the book. Finding comfort in the most unlikely places.

[datasuspect]

36. the first movie i ever saw as a child was "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"

and look how i turned out . . .

[closeupready]

45. Yes, skull and crossbones as an avatar.

:rofl: ;) :hi:

[Jennicut]

38. My kids love Coraline, Nightmare Before Christmas, and the Corpse Bride.

And they are 4 and 5. But not all kids can handle scarier things. And sometimes weird things scare them...my daughter used to be afraid of Thomas the Tank Engine because of the big eyes on the trains.

[2Design]

136. Those were good movies - this one is crap n/t

[Trekologer]

39. He's right

Movies are rated for a reason and this movie is rated PG. It is NOT rated G. Parents need to know what they are taking their kids to watch.

From the movie ratings site (http://www.filmratings.com/):

PG - Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children.

A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.

The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

[Javaman]

40. One of my favorite books of all time.

When I was little, I wanted to be Max.

[NeedleCast]

43. Good

Poor Amewican Chiwdwens, is um dey tooooo scawed?

The Nanny-State isn't coming, it already happened.

[redqueen]

47. Cruel characters are heroes... parents who act responsible can go to hell.

And this shit gets cheered.

Um... wtf?

[Dreamer Tatum]

51. Allow me to explain

The movie is in broad distribution, which means that unsophisticated suburban rubes are
flocking to see it. Since the slightest of artistic impulses tends to trump the concerns
of parents, especially those of unsophisticated suburban rubes, anyone who expresses
anything other than slackjawed wonder at this hefty achievement can go to hell.

That's pretty much it.

[seabeyond]

53. isnt it amazing. i think this is a cultural shift that is real visible on du

not so visible in RL. i hear ya.

[Withywindle]

145. Maurice Sendak is 81 years old.

So I'm skeptical of "cultural shift" theories about the "rudeness" of the "current generation." Sendak is speaking in the grand old tradition of cranky old people who now have no reason to not be honest. Many generations of overprotective parents have wanted to keep their kids from hearing the resulting pottymouths. All those generations have failed, thankfully.


(WTWTA was first published in 1963.)

[Bluenorthwest]

54. A responsible parent would note the PG rating of the film

and if they questioned the film for their own child, a responsible parent would go see the film in advance of showing to their child. A parent who takes a tiny kid to a PG film sight unseen when the kid has fear issues is not responsible at all, but a lazy and uncaring parent. Got that? People who show films to small kids that they have not seen themselves are making that choice, irresponsible as it is. Other kids should not have to watch pablum to protect the few who are upset by movies.
Plus, as the book itself teaches, parents have little idea of what kids see in films or books or anything. When I was a child, I was frightened badly by Peggy Lee on TV signing 'Is That All There Is'. Still, Peggy should not have been banned from the air, and my parents, well, they barely understood my angst about the song at all. It was not her lack of a smile, it was the words and emotions that made me terrified. She sees her house burn and says 'is that all there is to a fire? Let's break out the booze.' Scary as can be. To me. The other kids in the room did not even see her on the screen. Waiting for the puppets. But I watched Peggy. I'll never forget the fear. Would an adult guess that? Be able to 'protect me' from the horrors of Peggy Lee? Nope.
Parents who can not read a rating and want others to do the parenting work and write to their specs can in fact go straight to hell.

[redqueen]

55. The parents are saying it's too scary.

Not, "I took my kid and now they're scared, you bastard!"

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Too scary for their kid.

So that means stay home, they are not the intended audience. That is the parent's job. They should go see some film they imagine will not influence their child in any way they see as 'negative'. Of course if they have not seen the film, what do they know? They don't. Some kids love to be a bit scared. And even the film industry has rated this movie PG which stands for parental guidance. They help the parent by saying 'this might not be for your kid, tread with care'. So what exactly do they want, what do you think should be done? Ratings and warnings and a story that is known to be exactly what it is by millions of people is not enough? Do they need to personally screen all material for the complainers and sack it if their child is upset by it?
I knew a kid who was scared of Countdown. And Keith. He grew out of it. But I'm just saying. The music, the expressions, the intensity itself upset the kid. Worst Persons In the World!!!! Yet I saw a kid of the same age on the internet who adored all of those elements, same tiny age, and that kid actually bobbed up and down and said "worst person world" along with Keith. I was scared of soap operas, but not horror films. I have a friend who was taken to see Bambi as a reward, and she was so terrified that she thought it was a punishment, a specific tale of warning to her.
No one ever said this was a Care Bears movie. It is labeled to advise parents that THEY should decide if it is good for their kid.
So what should be done?

[redqueen]

62. What do you mean, "What should be done?"

How about when parents are responsible, and share their opinion about a movie being too scary for young children, we don't scold them for doing so?

Nobody's asking for the movie to be banned. I truly do not understand this overreaction... from Sendak or people here.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Excuse me, but you were the one using harsh language

and calling the critical parents by loving language. I agree with Sendak. You are the one who took a strong position against him. The word shit was used. In a thread about kid's stories.
I explained that I do not agree that parents are being responsible by expecting all films to be made for their child's particularities. I took issue with your framing and the lack of stated objective. I say they are lazy whiners. Uncaring and irresponsible. The opposite of how you frame them. They also seem to be too stupid to read the ratings and act accordingly.

[redqueen]

70. "The word shit was used. In a thread about kid's stories."

:rofl:

Allllllrighty then. Bowing out now. You have a nice day.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. That's the point - they are not saying 'too scary for MY children' -

they are saying 'too scary for children'.

You want grownups who are terrorized by Republican politicians? Don't let the ever see scary movies when they are kids.

[redqueen]

75. They are sharing their opinion with other parents.

Parents often ask other parents their opinions about these things. It's not as if they're trying to ban the movie.

Every responsible parent knows their own child best, and would know best what sort of things their kids might not be ready for. I'm sure some are overprotective and allow no scary things whatsoever (or no tv at all, or no sugar, or whatever)... but most are only trying to avoid having their kid overly frightened, which is IMO responsible parenting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Overly frightened by muppets.

yeah.

right.

[redqueen]

84. Have you seen it? (nt)

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. Yes I have. And frankly, if kids are complaining about it, the main

complaint should be it is too slow. I don't think it got PG because it was scary, but because it is too thoughtful for young kids who would be itching in their seats at the repeated long, slow treks across the dunes, and who would not understand the subtler messages about how we internalize our emotions and create monsters within us.

Now, Snow White running in terror through a forest that is coming alive around her - THAT is scary. An off screen gunshot, and Bambi's mother not appearing - THAT is gut wrenching.

And both Snow White and Bambi are rated 'G'.

[redqueen]

90. I'm sure it is.

That was my kids' main complaint.

But my 10 year old said it was a little scary, too. And her dad and I are far from overprotective. I've let them see a few bits of what I consider genuinely scary films (when they're curious, becuase I think their imagination can be worse than the reality).

However kids can be funny... some are scared of weird things. I can see a young child being scared of some of the situations in that movie more than the monsters themselves... so I have absolutely no problem with the parents who are IMO doing no more than attempting to warn other parents. No parents of kids who aren't bothered by that stuff would even notice. Parents of kids who have a lower tolerance for that stuff would notice, and they're the ones that would be seeking it out.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal (cause as I said, no one is trying to ban anything... they're just sharing their opinion)... and I certainly don't see cause for Sendak to be so ugly and rude.

[Raineyb]

165. Then they don't have to see it but to complain that they weren't catered to

is asinine and deserves a rude response.

It seems to me the author is saying , see it or don't but don't bother him with it. It is a completely legitimate point of view.

[redqueen]

168. Where is the complaining that they 'weren't catered to'?

Parents said it was too scary (warning other parents, so that other parents have something to refer to when they do their research like responsible parents should), he said for them to go to hell.

And tossed out a 'wet the bed' insult for any young kids who might find his movie scary.

Far from legitimate IMO. Very far.

[Raineyb]

172. Then they don't have to watch it but complaining to the author about the

scary factor is whining about not being catered to. He's not forcing them to watch the bloody movie. Watch it don't watch it I doubt he cares. But if you don't like it I don't think he wants to hear about it. And certainly complaining as though he's supposed to change it to be more in line with what the whiny want is asking him to cater to their tastes. It sounds like he's put out his work and you can take it or leave it and leave him alone. There is nothing "far from legitimate" in this view. The ones who are far from legitimate are those who are whining about the film as though they think by complaining vociferously enough they can get the movie changed.

The movie is what it is. Those who are whining about it don't have to watch it. They don't really need to bother the author of the book on which the movie is based about it either. It's clear he's not going to change it and he shouldn't have to even consider doing so.

[redqueen]

173. Who is complaining to the author?

Parents were advising other parents that they thought it was too scary. That's it.

This journalist asked him about that, and he said they could "go to hell" and that their children could "wet the bed."


Nobody is saying that they're being forced to watch it. Nobody said to change it. They simply advised other parents... again, so that responsible parents who go to research the movie in order to determine whehter or not they take their children to see it will have something to research... and he attacked them in a very ugly way for it.

The number of strawmen constructed in this thread in order to somehow justify this man's hateful rudeness is surprising.

[Raineyb]

174. Why is the journalist bringing this up to the author?

The man wrote the book on which the movie is based. Clearly he thought enough about it to make sure that the movie people didn't completely butcher his book, but all he did was put out a movie. Why the hell should he care if it's too scary he got what he wanted, the essence of his book preserved enough in the movie that he could still recognize it. If it's too scary they don't have to watch the damn thing. That's exactly what he's saying. He's also said he doesn't care to hear the complaints. So the question comes back to why is this being brought up to the man. What the hell kind of question is it anyway? What exactly do they want him to say, "oh I'm sorry it's a bit scary I'll try to fix it next time?" The man is right, it's a question that cannot be answered. If it's too scary don't watch it. What he seems to be saying is don't bother him with it either. Apparently, these days one has to say it in the most abrupt way possible for it to sink in.

And yet it still hasn't sunk in for you. I don't get it. What about the message are you having trouble with?

[redqueen]

177. I don't care why the journalist asked him. He had no reason to be so ugly and hateful. (nt)

[Raineyb]

184. Apparently, he disagrees with either your assessment of his answer

or for the need to abandon "diplomacy." So what?

[Toasterlad]

63. In Your Defense, Peggy Lee Is Pretty Terrifying.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. She can be. That song is scary stuff.

Peggy also made what was my favorite music as a kid, the Lady and the Tramp songs. She had range. And oddly, I liked those songs in part because she'd scared the crap out of me earlier. Of course I was a kid who read the credits, a kid with a plan a running...
Also oddly scary to me as a kid was an album cover of Judy Holiday, smoking and looking regretful. My Mom had to hide it. Never heard the record. Cover too scary.

[Blue_In_AK]

125. I loved the way she did "Fever."

:)

[Romulox]

64. Isn't ANYBODY thinking of the children???

[DWilliamsamh]

163. OMG!! Have you never understood allegory? Exploring reality through fiction?

[redqueen]

169. What has that got to do with the fact that the movie is too scary for some young kids? (nt)

[DWilliamsamh]

179. Reacting to u your post is what it has to do with it

"cruel characters as heroes..." is what YOU wrote. Anyone with any understanding of allegory, or exploring scary things (and BTW - finding that they aren't as scary as you thought, and might actually turn out to be "friendly") would NOT have summed up the book or the movie made from it with the dismissive phrase you used.

That is what it has to do with it, and why I wondered whether you had any understanding of these common literary/artistic devices.

[redqueen]

188. I wasn't referring to the book or the movie. Did you read the OP?

He describes his apprecition for Mickey as a hero... and points out appreciatively that Mickey did cruel things to Minnie.

[DWilliamsamh]

189. Yes I did, But forget it... You have a nice one now.

[fascisthunter]

48. sending one's kid to Church to learn about Jesus being Nailed to a Cross

now that's scary... I know, I was one those kids. Especially looking at a statue of Jesus nailed to the cross, with a crown of thorns digging into his forehead while blood trickles down.... creepy

[datasuspect]

72. up until i was about 10 years old

i felt personally responsible for the jesus' crucifixion. it did make me want to be good though.

[seabeyond]

52. because it is just so much better, being an ass, than to be civil. ass. rollin eyes, lol. nt

[zoff]

58. It's so scary that Sendak's playscape at the Metreon ...

... in San Francisco attracted so many kids the day we were there. Until the corporatists took it over.

Metreon's shattered dreams

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/24/BUGSVHDITS1.DTL

I'm glad my son had the opportunity to see it before it was replaced with retail shops.

[musicblind]

59. As a child who was easily frightened by a lot of films, I still have to say that I AGREE with Sendak

I was 12 or 13 before I saw my first R rated movie because I was very easily frightened by films. I had panic disorder as a child, and still have it today (though it manifests in vastly different ways). My first major panic attack happened when I was 4 years old after seeing an episode of "You Can't Do That On Television" and I ended up in the hospital from it because I couldn't stop vomiting from the fear. But it was NOT the fault of Nickelodeon for showing the episode, and it was not the fault of my parents for letting me watch Nickelodeon. It was NO ONE's fault. Who could have predicted I would have such a reaction to a scene where children were fed "poison" burgers. It was just life, and things like that happen in life.

As a child, the movie "Witches" terrified me so much I couldn't finish watching it while my YOUNGER brother loved it!

I would never say that "You Can't Do That On Television" and "Witches" were too scary for kids. They were too scary for ME at a certain age (4 yrs and 9 yrs I believe) but guess what, I'm not the standard bearer for what other people should and should not be allowed to enjoy.

My favorite childhood movie of all time was The Neverending Story and yet I know people who claim they were terrified of that film when they were children. Why did Witches scare me but the killer wolf, and the deadly "nothing" in The Neverending Story didn't even phase me? Because everyone is unique and reacts differently to different stimuli.

Where The Wild Things Are is a brilliant movie, and a great work of art. I've been to see it twice so far and if I had a child, I believe that I would take that child to see it. It might scare them, and I'd try and evaluate how they'd respond to various parts, but in general I don't believe it is too scary for children. It is a lot less terrifying than "Witches" or "The Neverending Story" ... I think the scariest part of the film is how it displays children as having strong, deep, meaningful emotions on the same level as adults.

But I don't think that last part scares children. I think it scares adults.

[AngryOldDem]

60. Jeebus.

My two older kids totally wore out copies of that book before they started school.

Parents, let your kids LIVE, for Chrissakes.

[nolabear]

66. Has anyone else actually seen the movie? I saw it last night.

It is just brilliant. Scary? Sure, for a five year old, maybe some six year olds, but one reason it is is that it covers such deep emotional material for children. It's about a child's fear of and attempt to get control of his own emotions, some of which are very frightening to him. It manages to flesh out the book without being stereotypical. The "monsters" depict Max's uot-of-control feelings and the brilliant observation that parents can help their children by loving them anyway. It's beautiful.

Is it Disney Fairy Precious Sanitized Land? HELL no. That's it's strongest point. Disney doesnn't have the guts it once had to face situations that really are on kids' minds, fear of abandonment, living in a world in which they are helpless and dependent. Just because the adults are afraid to face them doesn't mean the kids don't have them, it just means they don't get to be afraid and have parents be there to help them through it.

Mind you, I'm not for gratuitous frightening of kids at all. But in a world where they're taking playground equipment out of playgrounds for fear someone will get hurt, how on earth are children supposed to feel the joy of overcoming REAL, and not safe, virtual challenges? Given that young parents these days (Oh God I sound old) were raised in the early years of sanitizing, they may be showing their own lack of ability to cope and reassure.

Okay, I'm on a tear. But the movie is bloody fabulous.

[Mrs. Overall]

73. Your post is insightful and you actually saw the film--thank you!

[debbierlus]

92. Sendak was ridiculously hostile to the observation that the film might not be appropriate for young

Kids.....

Like the five year old you mentioned...that is ALL that was said.

Period. No one attacked the film. No one said he should make a different film. No one criticized the film He was just asked about the film being too scary for young kids and he told the parents to go to hell or let the kids wet their pants. Why the hell was that necessary?

It was rude, arrogant, and obnoxious.

So, parents might not want to take very young kids to see it? They should be condemned for that.

I don't even understand this thread.

[nolabear]

122. Actually it has been attacked. And it has a PG rating.

He's grouchier than I would be but I understand the sentiment given the number of very voiciferous people who have either condemned it without seeing it or thrown out the baby with the bathwater...metaphorically speaking, of course. To actually do that would be harmful and I don't mean to infer that one should actually throw a real baby out with real bathwater.

[SidDithers]

79. Good for him...

it's not his job to be parent to every child in the world.

Sid

[redqueen]

80. Just curious... who said it was?

Parents are advising other parents that the film is too scary for kids.

Disagree or not... how does that translate to expecting him to parent every child in the world?

[oedura]

81. I agree...

My parents took me to see Jaws when I was 5 or 6 years old. It didn't scar me at all. I loved it and developed a serious interest in sharks.

Another time, I woke up one night at about the same age and walked into the living room just in time to see the tail end of Trilogy of Terror (think screaming, knife-wielding Zuni fetish doll). I had a few bad dreams, but still, no permanent emotional scars.

If a kid can't handle Where the Wild Things are, there's something seriously wrong with them.

[Bette Noir]

83. I adore Maurice Sendak and his work.

[TwilightGardener]

88. For a children's author, he seems strangely hostile to children--"wet their pants"? WTF?

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. The hostility is to the parents who are afraid to let their children be afraid.

Fear is healthy. Experiencing fear in a safe environment, whether it is in a book or a movie or an amusement park, allows a child to grow and learn to control his fear. People who are shielded from fear never learn how to deal with it if it should ever manifest in a real danger situation. Those are the people who freeze up in terror instead of act to save their own lives or the lives of others.

'My Little Pony' doesn't offer real life lessons to anyone. 'Hansel and Gretel', OTOH, was the original 'stranger danger' story in a setting of parental abandonment and it is a fucking SCARY story. Do kids need to be protected from it?

[TwilightGardener]

98. I think that's reading too much into it. I don't really care about his book or movie

or how scary or non-scary it is to children. I just think it's shitty that he would tell well-meaning parents to "go to hell", or that he'd dismiss children with "go home, wet your pants". That sounds like an edge of contempt to me... or perhaps it's annoyance from the possibility of losing revenue from rumors of the movie being a little scary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. To me, what is contemptible is a parent telling OTHER parents not

to take their children to a movie that their kids might like just because THEY are so insecure about how to talk to their own children about emotions like anger or fear. Which is, of course, the whole point of the movie itself - the disconnected parents, the inability to deal with Max's anger and tantrums, Max's desperation to be noticed in any way, even negatively, just to acknowledge that he is there. It is as much about parental avoidance behavior as about childrens' tantrums.

Sendak's reaction is entirely appropriate, considering the theme of the book and movie.

[TwilightGardener]

102. Wow. Again, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the movie.

Or about the book, or the author. I just detect a strange hostility toward parents and children--unless, presumably, they drop 8 bucks per person and come out of the theater with a big thumbs-up. He probably feels kindly toward THOSE parents and kids.

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. What the fuck? The discussion is about the movie, the book, and

the author. What the fuck are you talking about if not about the subject of the original article that started the whole thing?

Do you really think that the author (who you don't give a rat's ass about) would tell ANYBODY they can "go to hell" if his only concern was his bottom line?

Admit it. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[TwilightGardener]

105. No, the discussion is about the specific quotes from a guy

who writes children's books and turned one into a movie. That's why "Go to hell" is in the thread title. If you want to discuss the contents and merits of the book/film, knock yourself out. I'm commenting on his choice of words and his attitude toward his potential audience.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. This 'potential audience' that he said 'go to hell' to are the people

saying they WON'T see his movie and are telling others NOT to see his movie.

I'd call that the potential non-audience. They are exactly the same as the 'christians' who rallied people to not see 'Last Temptation of Christ' without having seen it themselves. They are taking it upon themselves to judge his work for other people, and he is entirely justified in telling them, and any who listen to them, to go to hell. People should make up their own minds.

[Wanet]

129. I agree with you

He seems hostile and angry toward both children and their parents. He could have said "Parents will need to decide if the film is appropriate for their own children; that's not my job." Does he even like children? It seems like that would be necessary to write children's literature, but maybe it isn't.

[nolabear]

120. Lord SAVE me from "probably."

[nashville_brook]

147. he's sticking up for the integrity of his work, and he's likely been fighting hammer and tongs since

the movie was in concept phase. this is completely at odds with any sort of revenue consciousness. if he gave a whit about "revenue" he'd have made a different movie... made the monsters all fluffy and happy and been done with it. instead he's taken the high road and whoever doesn't like doesn't have to go see it. fin.

[Release The Hounds]

93. I have a 6 year old and 3 year old ((Spoilers))

Both love the book but took only the 6 year old to see the movie. She liked it but covered her eyes during the scene near the end when Carol was chasing after Max. Other than that, I didn't think it was too bad for a child. I didn't take my 3 year old for the simple fact it was live action as compared to animation, so I didn't think she would sit through a regular 1.5 hour movie. A cartoon she may have. So in my opinion that since it is live action, the movie is thereofre geared toward somewhat 'older' children.

[DinahMoeHum]

101. I recommend Richard Louv's book "Last Child In The Woods"

for further discussion on this problem of parents letting kids discover things for themselves:
www.richardlouv.com


Salon-dot-com also has a blog entry on Maurice Sendak's comment:
http://open.salon.com/blog/fingerlakeswanderer/2009/10/20/maurice_sendak_tells_parents_to_go_to_hell

The letters in response are well worth reading, IMO.

[DinahMoeHum]

133. on edit. . .the problem is with too many parents NOT letting kids

BE kids and discover things for themselves. The hovering helicopter mentality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. Thanks for the links -

but no thanks for the links - I should have gone to bed an hour and a half ago. You made tomorrow miserable for me.

:hangover: :hi:

[sasquatch]

103. Wow, me and Sendak have a lot in common

[Hekate]

107. My grandkid adores it. He runs around the living room when the Wild Rumpus begins!

I really want to take him to the movie.

Hekate

[supernova]

109. MS is a cranky old SOB who also

writes fantastic children's books.

Hard to reconcile, innit?

FWIW, when I was a child, I preferred the darker material in a way that I could understand. MS does just that. I hated, HATED art and music that was too sanitized for kids even then. I didn't recognize it then, I just knew when a certain piece was too sugary sweet to be believable.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. what is it rated?

Is the movie rated G or PG? G means it is good for all ages. PG usually means parents should be cautious.

[LanternWaste]

113. Harry Potter was too damn stupid for my kids...

Harry Potter was too damn stupid for my kids. Well, I don't have kids, but the sentiment is all the same. But I'm not calling for a ban of the stupid Harry Potter movies-- because stupid movies keeps stupid people off the streets for 97 minutes, plus coming attractions... :evilgrin:

[musicblind]

146. Aw, the books were really good and clever

:(

or at least I thought so. Oh, and I LOVED Where The Wild Things Are. It's likely in my top 25 favorite films. (Personal favorites not most influential, important, classic, or even "best" ever.) As a former film student, I've seen a ton of films and rarely have I cried like I did with this one. It seemed to strike such an emotional core that felt as though it were speaking about my own childhood.


oh, anyway, Harry Potter rulezzz! :P

[LanternWaste]

171. To be honest...

To be honest, I haven't seen any of the HP films, nor read any of the books. I'm sure that one day it will happen, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I just had to poke fun at the glitterati on the thread taking a movie, an author, his opinions, and parents opinions with such a severity of passion.

[LanternWaste]

114. oops-- repost

oops-- repost

[Norrin Radd]

115. People have been howling at Sendak about his book (and now movie)

since the early 60's. What part of "Wild Things" don't people get?

And people have been indeed attacking the movie before and after seeing it -- go read message boards for a sample:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/19/parents.wild.things.are/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-10-19-wild-things-controversy_N.htm


Sendak has always had this brusque personality. It's not his duty to be cute and cuddly.


This review describes perfectly what people expect, demand, of kids' movies in this day and age; farting, lame topical jokes, and Smashmouth songs:

Vern's WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE review 'monsterpiece'!!!!
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42677

[omega minimo]

117. Sendak sends memo to helicopter parents to go to hell. His book is a classic. More power to him.

[Blue_In_AK]

121. I think I like this guy.

:)

I've noticed that many of the fairy tales and fables that I learned as a kid - even some of the Little Golden Books - got watered down as the years went by, which to my mind defeats the whole purpose. For an example, it's far more educational to have the two foolish pigs get eaten by the wolf, as they did in the story when I learned it, than to have them be saved by their wiser brother which is the Disneyfied way. Maybe not politically correct, but it does teach a more valuable lesson.

Is that too "Ayn Rand" of me. :evilgrin:

[Vidar]

124. Good for Sendak.

[mzmolly]

127. Is he talking about the book vs. movie?

Loved the book, I've not seen the film.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. Remember when you were a kid?

You'd make some new friend at school? And he or she was just a blast to play with at school during recess?

So then you'd go over to the kid's house on the weekend, or after school, or whatever. You'd hang out there for awhile and have a lot of fun, but eventually get bored. Then you'd have an idea to ride your bikes down to the park, or watch a certain TV show, or go swimming at the lake, or see a movie, or go over to your neighbors house and play with his toys, or play a certain video game, or what ever it was that the two of you thought would be really to do, something that you do all the time and was totally age appropriate for you and all the other kids your age. And then when you and your friend would ask his or her mom for permission, she'd say no. Often this mom was ridiculously sheltered, over-protective, and some kind of weird Christian fundamentalist. The kind that does a lot of needlepoint and things fun is sinful. She lived vicariously through her kid's lack of life. And you realize then and there, at 7 or 8 or 9 years old that you're more mature and level-headed then this crazy ass bitch your buddy has for a mom.

Yeah, I think a lot of DUers are that kid's mom.

[Anakin Skywalker]

134. Hey, I Like This Guy's Attitude!

LOL.

[2Design]

135. Movie is not worth the money or time - it is scarey but it is a dud n/t

[DWilliamsamh]

137. Bravo for Maurice! I couldn't agree more.

We coddle children in this country far to much and for far too long. The world is can be a wondrous and scary place. If you can't let you kid start learning that in the safety of pages of a picture book (and the movie made from it), then you are seriously endangering your kids chances for success in this world. When are the little darlings supposed to start learning about the world (even through fantasy/fiction)? When they enter college?

I agree, those kinds of parents can go to hell.

[Withywindle]

144. Well said!

And very concise.

Exploring the uncomfortable in a safe way is what stories are FOR. That's why every human society that has ever existed on the planet has stories, including scary ones. The idea that children must be sheltered from ANYTHING that might upset them or influence them or challenge them -- until they turn 18, at which time we send them out into the big bad world with daddy's credit card and a drivers' license--is just fucking insane.

Pretty much from birth, we are curious creatures relentlessly intrigued by transgression, testing limits, rulebreaking, and knowledge of good and evil. (As cultural stories go, that's one of the very few parts of the Bible that really rings true psychologically.)

It's not the end of the world if a movie or book freaks a kid out. And Maurice Sendak -- who is 81 years old and so completely entitled to talk like a cranky old man--is completely right to give that, er, "interpretation" of his work the respect it deserves.

[woo me with science]

185. "Exploring the uncomfortable in a safe way is what stories are FOR. "

Your posts are the very best in this thread.

Thank you!

[The Animator]

138. One thing or another being too scary for a kid is a really subjective thing...

I used to work at a theme park... one of the most common questions was:

"Is this ride too scary for little Timmy?"

"Well this is the easiest ride in the entire park, it doesn't jerk you around at all. As long as he is physically capable of sitting up on his own, he'll be fine."

"But is it scary?"

"Well that depends.."

"On what?"

"On Timmy."

Seriously, if "Timmy" is a real fraidy-cat he's gonna be scared of everything... Unfamiliar sounds, Movement, a fuzzy little puppy... You name it. There is no telling what a kid is going to be afraid of.

Your his parent, you should have a better, hell damn near instinctive, understanding of what you kid will, and will not be afraid of. How the hell is some random guy standing in front of a theme park ride gonna be a better judge of what's going to scare your kid than you are? You live with the kid... you're raising the kid... you should just know.

Here's a thought, if your concerned about little Timmy getting traumatized, go to the library, borrow "Where the Wild Things Are." Sit down and read it too him... show him the pictures. When your done, talk to him. Say, Timmy, there is a movie coming out about this book. Do you want to see it? Show him the trailer online. Do you think you might get scared? If Timmy says it looks scary, don't take him. If Timmy looks excited, buy your tickets.

[nolabear]

142. Smart, smart response.

[LWolf]

143. That's in character for Sendak.

He's never been in favor of censoring things for kids. That's why I had to defend another of his books, "In The Night Kitchen," several times during the years I worked in school libraries.

I'm assuming, without more info, that this interview means he approves of the treatment given his book in the movie. At least, he doesn't say differently in this article. I'm glad to know that; I'll be more likely to enjoy the movie with my grandson.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

155. He looks like a really pissed off Walter Becker (n/m)

[eilen]

157. My favorite fairy tale as a child

was The Snow Queen. And I was a fairy tale kind of kid, I consumed them like the Cookie Monster ate cookies. Of course in the mid-sixties- early seventies parents weren't too worried about stories being scary. Real life was scary enough, what with Vietnam being replayed on tv after dinner every night. Body counts were scary.

[cherish44]

159. It's a PG movie

That should be a red flag that it's not all fuzzy critters frolicking the forest.

If I had any doubts about the appropriateness of a movie for my kids, we just didn't go to that one. Honestly, instead of bitching about the movie...just DON'T GO if you think your kid will get scared. It's that simple. If they whine not getting to go, too bad...life ain't fair sometimes.

[Romulox]

161. Maurice Sendak is a national treasure; I hope his detractors choke on a Doodlebop.

[woo me with science]

180. You BULLY!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[Marr]

167. I understood his point a little differently.

He's seeing this through the eyes of a creator, and is rightly annoyed by suggestions that anything should be "toned down" because the audience may not like it. He wrote a story. If people want to read it or see it on the screen, great. If they love it, great. If they hate it, great. What is *not* great is suggesting that it should be changed to suit their sensibilities, or watered down to make it more marketable.

That's the common thread of his comments. That's why Mickey was relevant, that's why the "hot vs. warm" fight was relevant.

"Go to hell" is the proper response.

[redqueen]

170. Who said it should be toned down?

He's not telling the producer or director (who may have said so) to go to hell.

He is saying this to parents, who are simply advising other parents that in their opinion it's too scary for young kids.


And he added the 'wet the bed' comment in there too, just for good measure. Also certainly not aimed at those who told him to tone it down.

[Marr]

175. Same difference.

That's the Mickey market. Parents who go around discouraging other parents from taking their children to see something they deem "too scary" are demanding childrens' entertainment be toned down.

Don't take *your* kids-- that's fine. But when you make the blanket statement that other people shouldn't take *their* children either, you are pulling Mickey's teeth, and demanding "hot" be changed to "warm".

[redqueen]

176. I think that's overreacting. People insist that parents should research things

in order to find out what's appropriate... what are they supposed to research, advertising?

Having the input of other parents is invaluable.

Also, as I said elsewhere in the thread... responsible parents know their kids. They know if their kids have a low tolerance for this stuff, and those are the ones looking for that kind of information. The parents whose kids don't have a low tolerance for that kind of thing wouldn't bother looking... or if they did and saw that advice, they'd just disregard it... knowing that they didn't need to be as cautious.

[alp227]

178. Good statement Sendak!

The same should also apply to the organized morons who say the same BS: The Parents Television Council, American Family Association, and other reactionary moralists who want all TV shows and movies to be rated G.