Cheaters

“He’s a great teacher”, “then what’s he doing here?” This exchange sets the tone for the entire film.  That it is hard to believe that the prestige of society would pay attention or give time to the marginalized or less privileged.  Cheaters tells the true story of the fall of 1994, where a teacher (Jeff Daniels) at Chicago's run-down Steinmetz High recruits seven students for an academic decathlon team. They work long hours, preparing for the February regional event, won for ten straight years by a privileged, preppy school. Steinmetz finishes just well enough to be invited to the state meet. When a team member steals a copy of the state test, the teacher and kids face a dilemma: to remain honest, or to cheat and score a victory for kids in underfunded schools.   The teacher decides to cheat along with all the students to make up for mistreatment and being victims of a system that continues to only allow the rich kids to succeed while the poor kids have to sit and watch.  When they do well, they must face a withering barrage of investigations, accusations, lawyers' lies, and reporters' intrusions.  To me, for a “true story” it seemed quite unrealistic or a massive disconnect in the story that a bunch of kids would be willing to sacrifice 2 hours before school and 5 hours after school every day for something they were never willing to do in the first place. The details may have seemed unrealistic but the way the story unfolds is very real. No one questions a good school when they do well, however it makes news when a poor school does well.

            Sure the story would be more inspiring and sprinkled if they had succeeded without cheating, but in this way the story paints the reality of life, that the system makes it so hard for the poor to succeed that it seems that the only way that they can succeed is by cheating. These kids are victims of social reproduction, as is the teacher as well (he can’t even make copies to rise above the richer programs in his school). If the privileged systems are the only ones that ever get a chance, there is a minimal chance of the marginalized to overcome the factors causing reproduction.  The film shadows the words of Bowles and Gintis in their book “Schooling in Capitalist America” who are famous for their words on this very subject and situation.  Social reproduction theory argues that schools are not institutions of equal opportunity but mechanisms for perpetuating social inequalities.  Bowles and Gintis acknowledge, just as Freire did, that some educators are extremely good hearted and well-meaning teachers who do indeed believe in meritocracy and try their best to deliver it. But, Bowles and Gintis argument tries to show that the fundamental structure of the school as a social institution is not this meritocratic institution, but a tool of shaping mindsets for capitalist purposes.  The school, on Bowles and Gintis' view is a secondary social institution. That is, there is a higher level of social institutions, the key one of which is the economy. The school is not an institution in its own right on their argument, rather it is a secondary institution which serves the interest and does the bidding of that higher level institution or prepare students to be dominated by the system of industrial capitalism. The authors argue that schooling has more to do with disciplining the workforce than it does with anything like critical thinking or creativity.  For example they say that as you continue to move up in schooling (Elementary to Jr. High and on to High school and University) the cultural capital and linguistic capital used (the language of the prestige) continues to change and become more and more privileged, thus making it almost impossible for the marginalized to rise above and in effect, become part of the system.  Also, that if say a student is somehow able to make it through these boundaries, there is an inflation of credentials in order to receive a degree or get hired in the workforce making it impossible to keep up with those that “have it good.”

            It is ironic to me that the teacher in “Cheaters” had the student’s trust and faith, yet he proves that he cannot be trusted by encouraging cheating. Then again the school board president also showed an irony (preached the importance of being honest and was guilty of tax evasion) in that everyone has been guilty of a lie or a cheat in their own lives; it is the extremity of the lie that convicts them.  It hit me though that initially I thought that it was unrealistic that these students would jump at the opportunity to dedicate this much time to the decathlon, but then I realized that by me doubting that such a thing could happen I was no more different that the system that doubted they could do well in the first place.

            The film presents an intense ambiguity about real life, in that the film does not ask as much about school and teaching as it does about when civil disobedience is okay and when is it not? Usually the only honorable acts of civil disobedience are those that actually played a part in affecting change. In the case of the “Cheaters” it would seem that their act didn’t change much at all, but rather was a bunch of kids and their teacher seeing how far they could scramble in their own lies. The film had a valuable spin on what occurred, but in actuality I doubt that their intentions in real life were nothing more than to win and nothing less than being afraid of getting caught.

 CONSENSUS

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 80% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 7/10.  Though it raises great questions about ethics and questions the schooling system itself, Cheaters falls short because of its many disconnects in storyline and amateur acting (aside from Jeff Daniels who makes up for a lot of it).  As a film it fails on many technical details, but as a movie meant to raise and elicit some critical thinking about the system that these students were victims of it is very much a success.

Masculinity portrayed in Disney Cartoons

Modern masculinity “shows men trying to find their place in the modern world, seeking help regarding how to behave in relationships, and advice on how to earn the attention, love and respect of women, and the friendship of other men” (p. 189).  In the typical Disney cartoon masculinity is represented in its male characters in what Mills (2001) defines as the four types of masculinity. 

            The first category, “hegemonic masculinity is the most valued form of masculinity in a patriarchal culture and is “constructed in relation to and against femininity and subordinated forms of masculinity.  The dominant masculine form is characterized by heterosexuality, power, authority, aggression and technical competence” (Mills, 2001, p.12). The Disney film Beauty and the Beast holds a character not unlike many others in Disney films with the “ideal” physical body and authoritative demeanor named Gaston.  Gaston sings lyrics about how strong he is, how “every last inch of [him] is covered with hair” (an over-manifestation of heterosexuality).  He sings about how everyone in the town idealizes him and as such is deserving of “the best.”  When making passes at the female protagonist Belle he explains to a friend that “she’s the prettiest and therefore she’s the best.”  Therefore in this way he not only is showing that as the typical muscular man he deserves the best, but also that beauty in a female is all that is required to be of any value to the ideal man.  Also in this film anyone without the ideal body type is not idealized but an outcast as seen in the character Lefou who is acting not as a sidekick but almost as Gaston’s slave who beckons at his every authoritative word.   In the conclusion of the film, Beast doesn’t fight back and therefore Gaston proclaims that he is “too kind and gentle to fight,” qualities that are not apparently typical to a man. Another example of this type of masculinity is represented in the film Mulan by the army of men that the female character Mulan is attempting to join. The army sings that they want “a girl worth fighting for.”   In this statement they make it clear that in order to get what you desire, especially in a woman, you have to prove your physical strength.  Also amongst this lyric are the misogynist ways that they describe their ideal woman being based either on looks or one soldier saying “it doesn’t matter what she looks like…only what she cooks like.”  Through actions and words such as these, Mulan learns quickly that to join the army and prove she is “a man,” she must first prove that she possesses the qualities that would prove her as such, physical prowess, strength.  In the film The Incredibles the villain in the film is seen as a weak pushover who finds no way to gain respect amongst his peers.  The villain grows up and becomes an evil super hero by acquiring abilities that represent “power, authority, aggression and technical competence” (Mills, 2001, p.12).  He is then quoted as saying later in the film to the one who’s respect he had been aiming for that “now [he] respect[s] [him] because [he’s] a threat!”  This physical alpha-male who gains automatic respect is repeated over and over again in Disney’s characters such as Hercules and Tarzan.  

The second form, “complicit masculinity…[deals with] men who do little to challenge the patriarchal order, thereby enjoying its many rewards.  Many boys and men experience this form of masculinity, for they do not act out the extremes of hegemonic masculinity, but they do very little to challenge the existing order and thereby reinforce it” (Mills, 2001, p.72).  Prince Charming in Sleeping Beauty among other male figures of royalty in Disney films are born into their roles as masculine authority figures.  They are not always the typical power-hungry alpha male, but at the same time they sit back and enjoy the rewards that come with being a prince or a male symbol of authority.  Another example is King Triton in The Little Mermaid loves his daughters very much, yet he expects them to obey him with no mention in the film of a mother or matriarchal figure in the daughter’s lives.  Woody from Toy Story does not possess the typical masculine physical structure but he is put in charge of all the other toys.  Once finding that everyone listens to him, he never does anything to challenge it, never putting a female in charge or letting up authority at all in that matter.  In fact, when the typical physically masculine male becomes part of the group (Buzz Lightyear) he finds it difficult to sacrifice his masculinity, refusing to share power or popularity with someone perhaps more masculine that he.  In the film The Emporer’s New Groove where Emperor Kuscko (also possessing not the typical physical stereotype) is a sexist royalty figure born into his role of authority who dismisses “ugly” girls by saying “let me guess you have a good personality” as if that’s all that someone unattractive can have of value.  Perhaps most importantly this form is taken on by Disney itself, the male owners of the company fully aware of the order of things, yet doing nothing to challenge its presence.   

The third category is that of “marginalized masculinities…Men of color and men with disabilities, the most traditionally marginalized masculinities” (Meyer, 2007, p. 458). In Beauty and the Beast Belle’s dad Maurice is seen as a “crazy old man” just because his truth is disagreeable to the hegemonic male’s (Gaston) beliefs.  As a result, Maurice’s masculinity is literally locked up and cast away to the side.  In this way representing that minority beliefs and religions are marginalized if not represented by the hegemonic male.  The Hunchback of Notre Dame perhaps exemplifies this form of masculinity best as the character Quasimodo marginalizes himself in a bell tower away from society, being oppressed and eventually picked on by the alpha-male in the film (hegemonic masculinity) who’s only explanation for the hunchback not being like him is that he must be “possessed.”  The hegemonic male is so fixated on his own image and authority that he commonly can’t explain a male being different than himself other than to explain it with an insult or not crediting this type as men at all, as seen in the next category.

The final type or category of masculinity is at the bottom end “of the hierarchy of masculinities are those identities deemed subordinate.  Subordinate masculinities include those that are perceived as antithetical to masculinity: effeminate and gay men.  Anti-gay and sexist language is often used to prove a man’s masculinity.  Men use power over other men to enforce this system and often act with violence toward individuals who are viewed as “traitors to masculinity.”  (Meyer, 2007, p. 458).   Disney films provide viewers with no openly gay characters in their films.  In this way they are reinforcing the hegemonic forms of men and suppressing any option of relation for young male viewers, even limiting relation for female viewers for that matter. 

This hierarchy of masculinity leaves boys feeling physically inadequate and emotionally detached causing what one theorist, Dan Kiley (1983) calls “Peter Pan syndrome.”  Disney’s Peter Pan is perhaps the most real and adequate representation of the unfortunate state of the male today.  “Studies show that society holds basic generalities about young boys. Boys receive tools, bats, fishing rods, trucks and cars. They are cuddled less, and taught to repress their vulnerable feelings. Boys are encouraged to express aggression and expected to succeed in a profession, never admitting to any need for dependence” (Dickstein, 1988).  Disney films are reinforcing this syndrome in that when a boy watches a film he is either seen as a blundering idiot (Lefou) or the ultimate and unattainable symbol of heterosexuality.  With these absolute polarized options being the typical representations in media and film to turn to, boys cannot help but feel a fear of growing up as either way, they are destined to fail.

            These four types of masculinity and how they are represented, or misrepresented in Disney cartoons provide to be a useful guide for “understanding how hegemonic masculinity is reinforced through reiteration of this hierarchy” (Meyer, 2007, p. 459).  It is through these depictions of masculinity that one can provide insight into the various effects such depictions can have on boys who eventually become men and are forced to reconcile their actions according to how they were raised.  Unfortunately Disney films play an important part in many boys’ youth as they grow-up attempting to define themselves as men.  It is unfortunate because their definition of masculinity can only come from what they are told represents a man and what Disney has more than proven is that, similar to Peter Pan it is no wonder why boys should fear the stereotypes of growing up.

Shutter Island

Shutter Island was terribly unoriginal. (SPOILER ALERT) This "twist ending" was nothing new. The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, Beautiful Mind, Secret Window, Identity...the list goes on and on. The schizophrenia ending to a film is played out. The only play on this twist is that he becomes cured and walks knowingly into the lobotomy choosing to live in ignorance to his tragic past rather than living free "as a monster" in it (knowing that he killed his wife).  When I saw Shutter Island I was dying for Leo's character to please be right and the world around him convincing him to be crazy. Unfortunately Scorsese became a victim of conformity and couldn't push the envelope like he usually is known for. One critic was very right when they said that "Director Martin Scorsese channels his inner M. Night Shyamalan" in this film. To me this film was no better, nor worse than a Shyamalan film (which is not great).

CONSENSUS

Rotten Tomatoes gives this movie a 66%.

I will AGREE with this rating. Not to discredit the amazing directing skills of Scorsese, the film was impressive, yet terribly unoriginal. As one fellow critic put it best, the film was a "Fair psychological thriller that probably would barely get noticed if it wasn't directed by Martin Scorsese and starred Leonardo DiCaprio."

Forrest Gump

The film has been praised for many reasons, and criticized for being "overly sentimental."  I would like to comment on the two main characters in the film and by explaining their roles, also reveal how great of a film it really is.

The film shows us the world through 2 different perspectives:

1)      Forrest – seeing the world through someone challenged such as Forrest, allows us to see the events that we grew up in as a spectator, naïve to the gruesome and horrible ways not only the world has treated each other (the brutal and unnecessary event called the Vietnam war, assassination of many famous figures such as John Lennon and JFK for no apparent reason according to Gump).  Allowing us to view the world in the way Gump does allows us to see the unnecessary ways the world treats itself, which seemingly is for no reason, or as Gump says “no good reason at all.”  Not only do we see the world as it treats itself globally and politically but at a very human level as well.  Gump never understands why he is picked on, not fully anyway, nor why people do the things they do (abuse Jenny, throw rocks, and call him dumb).  When we see the world through Forrest's eyes, we see that the things we do are never really for any good reason (when Forrest runs across the country no one can understand why he would do it for no reason).  Ultimately the only thing that makes sense to him or motivates Forrest is his love for family (his mom) and Jenny.  Seeing the world and people in this way makes the viewer leave with a perspective that no other film I recall pulls off at such a vicarious and poignant level.  We feel as Forrest feels, that our troubles and quarrels are just as unnecessary as he sees them, yet they still exist and will continue to exist beyond our control, like how Jenny and his mother die.  

2)      Jenny – This perspective is paired with Forrest’s, juxtaposed and presented as the opposite view of the world.  Not ignorant at all but very much alive and attempting to understand every journey and take advantage of every dangerous path presented, if only to feel the true world as it is presented to her without ignorance (drugs, protest groups, playboy model, strip clubs, poverty, hitchhiking).  Even from a very young age (sexual and physical abuse) she is very much the opposite of Forrest in knowing the harshness or realities of life.  Jenny is the antithesis of Forrest, she is polarized in every way from gender to attitude.  When Forrest proposes to her, she refuses, insisting that he "doesn't want to marry [her]."  In this way she is insisting that Forrest doesn't want to become aware, or lose his innocence, for it is his innocence that makes him pure, successful and desirable.  Yet somehow, the two end up together in the end as she realizes that knowing the world for what it really is, is not how she wishes to see it at all.  The realities of the world are harsh and terrifying and for Jenny, they were the source of her death.  She chooses to end her life with Forrest, giving her prosperity to him.  She gives the most innocent part of her (her son) to Forrest in hopes that this will be a rebirth or a new life for herself, a life without knowing the real world and re-entering the innocence of a pure and happy life.  In other words, she proves that being ignorant to the world’s true, explored ways are how she not only wishes she saw it, but how she wishes her son to see it as well.  

Forrest Gump provides the viewer with a unique perspective of the world, a perspective of innocence and ignorance.  It’s ironic that Forrest overcomes the difficulties of challenges by being challenged himself.  It is his ignorance to pressures of life and innocence to the world that cause him to be successful.  He is so naïve to the things that Jenny knows and has experienced that his character becomes the enviable one.  Though “stupid is as stupid does,” Forrest proves not to be “stupid” at all, but the one character in the film that Jenny and the viewer wishes to be like and see the world as.

CONSENSUS

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 72% rating

Zoom In Analysis will  DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 9/10.  It's near perfect, one of the greatest films of all time.

My Life as a Dog (Mitt liv som hund)

           A solid 100 percent on RottenTomatoes.com, winner of Best foreign film at the Golden Globes and nominated for an Oscar (1985), this is the story of Ingemar, who lives with his brother and terminally ill mother. He feels ignored and bullied and constantly is comparing (narrating) himself to the hard times of others.  At least for example his life isn't as bad as as Laika - the Russian dog sent into space who died without food or water, just floating away.  He relates to this dog in many ways however as he too gets sent away to stay with relatives for the summer, while his mother hopefully recovers. While there, he meets various strange characters, giving him experiences that will affect him for the rest of his life.

             Written and directed by Lasse Hallström (Chocolat, Cider House Rules, What's Eating Gilbert Grape), this tells the true (based on an autobiography) story of Ingemar, who is a child that finds himself in a comparative pedagogical relation to all the adults around him.  He can't help but find ways to mimic their actions.  His rash and unpredictable behaviours can be attributed to the unpredictability these adults.  His uncle taking him in to dinner then asking him to move in with Mrs. Arvidson, the doctor taking him in then suddenly arguing with his wife about throwing him out on the street, his uncle playing around with Ingemar pretending to be dogs then the next moment unexpectedly closing the door on him, the trapeze cyclist Fransson pretending to be dead then suddenly awaking, Mr. Arvidson one moment asking Ingemar to read to him then quickly taking the magazine away, most of all his mother's sickness and her moods seem to go back and forth and ultimately the unpredictability of her death.  This unpredictability in these pedagogical models intrigues Ingemar so much that he imitates it.  How can he not be expected to do something rash like run away when asked to move out when the question of him moving out was rash and unexpected in the first place?  Why shouldn’t he close his hands over his ears to shut out a distraction or close the door to his ranting mother when numerous times his mother asks him to close the book and stop or when he sees his uncle close the summer house door on his wife yelling, the uncle again closing the door on Ingemar when playing dog?  In light of these models, of course Ingemar would shut his ears, the door on his mother and the door on his uncle to spend a night alone.  Ultimately though through mimicking the unpredictable behaviours around him, he is acting childish but unlike the adults, he has an excuse for acting this way being that he is a child. The irony of it all however is that even though the actions of Ingemar are childish and immature he is mimicking these behaviours from grown-ups.          
           The theme of unpredictability is set from the very start as Ingemar's innocence is presented under a tunnel which is closed off from the outside world that Ingemar hides under.  He cuts his thumb and shares the blood with a female friend, proclaiming that in this way they are now married.  This innocence and moment of naivety is interrupted by an abrupt, sudden shot of a noisy train crushing overtop of the once peaceful tunnel.  I believe the director used this suddenness as a tool to foreshadow that Ingemar's innocence as a child is going to be interrupted by the unpredictability of his surroundings or in other words the unpredictability of the pedagogical relations he has with the adults around him.
            Ingemar is constantly comparing the unpredictability of life to other's experiences and other adults.  When he describes events such as a man with a kidney dying in Chicago, a railcar death, a track and field star getting killed with a javelin, a daredevil motorcycle jumper crashing and dying, or something as simple as him barely able to get to page 30 but his mother finishing the book quickly, Ingemar can’t help but compare himself to those around him and relate to the unpredictability of their events and circumstance.  The example he most frequently refers to however, because it was what he can relate to most is the example of the dog that was sent up to space with no food and died floating in loneliness.  He reflects on this example as he is sent away calling the dog's mission an example of "human progress" as he sees his being sent away to his uncle's a way of human progress for him and his mother to get better.  The summer play house is where he chooses to spend the night and lock his uncle out, the house that he wanted his dog to stay in.  It is in this house that he shuts the door and shuts out the world like he continually shuts his ears off to the world wishing to be oblivious like a dog would be.  Unlike the dog's trip however, Ingemar's space trip comes in a model spaceship on a play zip line built by a local grandfather that glides to a crash on earth.  Instead of drifting away and dying like the dog did, Ingemar finds his home in the comfort of his friends, oblivious to the noise of the town's celebrations from a boxing match and more importantly oblivious to the distractions of his life being treated as a dog. 

CONSENSUS

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 100% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and go for an 8/10."Hallström acknowledges that the film is his best work, the one he compares all his other films to" (About.com).  I don't doubt that this is his best film, and beautifully crafted at that, but a perfect ten seems over the top. Don't let that discredit your motivation for seeing the film however as Axman stated it is "One of the greatest and most sensitive films about children and the turbulence of childhood."  Any educator that deals with children needs to see this film to truly understand or become re-acquainted with what it means to be a child and how a child thinks to everyday situations.

The Browning Version

The Browning Version is a film that aptly reveals pedagogical themes of in loco parentis, modeling and the pedagogical relation. Firstly the film takes place at a private school where, not only do the teachers have to supervise the kids throughout the day, but the school holds responsibility for them throughout the night as well. In this vein, the film reveals the parallels between a teacher and parent being very close as its is proven that the children’s parents seem to be cheating on each other at home as well it is ironic that the teachers cheat on each other at the school. In loco parentis is meant to infer positive actions, however in this case the teachers cannot seem to understand the proper behavior and gravity of their responsibility being “in the place of” the parent. If the teachers are to be models for the children, they need to show it in their personal affairs as well. Van Manen (1991) states that as educators “with respect to a child or children, we must be able to analyze, grasp, and understand the child’s situation [and]…act with respect to the child’s situation in terms of our own situated relation to the child” (p.72). In The Browning Version Mr. Crocker-Harris cannot possibly be expected to relate to his students and understand their situation if he cannot come to grips with his own.

In regards to the theme of modeling, Bollnow states that “The child is forming him or herself according to the picture the educator has about the child and according to his or her trust in it.” In other words, treat a child as he is and he remain that way, treat a child as he can become and he will become it. The main character Mr. Andrew Crocker-Harris treats his students in an authoritative, demeaning way and of course because of this they treat him in a similar way behind his back. The science teacher, Frank is mean to Taplow, immediately dismissing him and discluding him from his class, and so the children also follow and pick on Taplow. Conversely, it could be argued that the teacher copies the kids to gain their appeal, picking on Taplow is his way of gaining more clout with the students, in this way it reveals a pedagogical relationship taking on both forms, teachers modeling and learning from students and visa versa from the hidden curriculum.

The film is full of character full of paradox, in fact the central theme of the film to me is character and situational paradox. For example, Laura the wife of Andrew is bored in life yet she has a secret affair. She is in love with someone who doesn’t love her and who favors the husband she is cheating on more than herself. She puts up a façade that she doesn’t care and yet is the most emotional character of all (for example she pretends she doesn’t care about Andrew and yet can’t resist leaving or missing his speech). The headmaster of a scholarly school stresses sport throughout the film. The science teacher Frank lacks disciple and emotion yet he is the only one who can show sympathy. The main character Andrew is full of the most paradox of all however. From the very beginning Andrew calls his marriage an “incompatible marriage,” an oxymoron. Andrew is continually seen as a wimp or one with extreme humility, yet his persona as a teacher is the complete opposite or a façade as a prideful authoritarian. He can speak many languages, yet is a man of few words. He demands respect but he doesn’t seem to show much for his students. Andrew wants to help his student’s lives but can’t help nor fix his own. Bollnow continually speaks of the virtues of an educator, qualities such as love, hope, trust and patience. Andrew is seen to have all of these qualities throughout the film necessary to be a “good” teacher, but he fails to reveal them in his teaching. In the end, he feels he has failed his students but it is the people around him that are failures in their interactions with each other. Andrew concludes the movie being the only one who actually sheds his façade (symbolically when he removes his master’s gown in the final shot) because he shows humility in front of his students and stands up to the headmaster requesting to speak last. Only when he reveals himself do the children translate him and understand their relationship.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 80% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating. The film is more deserving of a 7ish/10 I feel, because of its appeal to a slimmer audience. 8 out of 10 people I don't think would enjoy the film, whereas 7 out of 10 would respect its message, the terrific acting by Alfred Finney and its revelations about the personal lives and realities of being a teacher.

The Truman Show: Part Two

Theorist Jean Baudrillard (1998) describes the “simulacrum” or the “representation [that] tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation.” It is a concept that describes the false realities that society presents itself with not only though various forms of media but the facades of our own personas and representations of ourselves as we take on various roles and images we project in our own lives. Baudrillard (1998) goes on to say that “these would be the successive phases of the image: 1 It is the reflection of a basic reality. 2 It masks and perverts a basic reality. 3 It masks the absence of a basic reality. 4 It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.” It is the simulation of truth through various proxies that we encounter every day. Through these proxies we are presented with illusions of reality that neither speak truth nor give us reality, rather a hyper reality is created. In Peter Weir’s The Truman Show the character Truman is unaware that he is under constant surveillance by the world’s largest TV studio, a purely simulated experience that, as will be described in this response, is not too different from the world we live in.

Millions of viewers tune in to watch Truman’s life, who is not acting but simply living his life. In this vein Zizek (2001) argues that in “the falsity of the "reality TV shows" (even if these shows are "for real,") people still act in them - they simply play themselves.” To Truman, he is acting out the routines of his life with ignorance to the fact that everyone around him is an actor. Similarly, little do we know that we are actors in the false realities of our own lives interacting with the falseness presented by the people or actors around us. The realities or false realities presented by reality TV, like a simulated environment of being marooned on Mark Burnett’s Survivor, or fictionalized reality shows like the Truman Show, or the increasing trend of actors playing themselves in TV shows like Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm are all not far off as they act out their lives different from the simulacrum we encounter in our own. The situations may be different, but the simulation of reality and illusion of what is real is very much the same. The simulacrum that Baudrillard (1998) describes is this false plane of illusion just described or “When the real is no longer what it used to be [and] nostalgia assumes its full meaning. There is a proliferation of myths of origin and signs of reality; of second-hand truth, objectivity and authenticity…This is how simulation appears in the phase that concerns us: a strategy of the real, neo-real and hyperreal, whose universal double is a strategy of deterrence.”

Herein does The Truman Show offer us a metaphor for our own situation. “The fake landscape Truman lives in is our own media landscape in which news, politics, advertising and public affairs are increasingly made up of theatrical illusions” (Transparency Now). Similar to Plato’s allegory of The Cave, we interact with shadows on the wall, nothing more (a reflection of reality, never reality itself). If Truman were ever to make it out of the TV set (or the cave) he wouldn’t recognize reality and might even want to return to ignorance. Our own cave is similar to this scenario in that everything from the media landscape we can’t help but be engrossed in its “lifelike simulations and story lines, [similar to Truman’s] high-tech facsimile of a sun that benevolently beams down on Truman [or] the mock sincerity of the actor he mistakenly believes is his best friend.” Similar interactions occur in our own lives as we are surrounded by fake personalities, representations and different versions of ourselves (similar to Caden in Kaufman’s Synecdoche, New York). These versions, like a teacher-student relationship are fabricated for the stage of a school setting, for example. The teacher is not nearly acting as they would prefer (posing a power relation dictating actions of authority) towards the student (who is taught to be submissive and disciplined and hard working). Neither of these “actors” is performing in their preferred motions; however the simulacrum of life’s “stages” creates these positions of hyper reality.

There are different ways we can react to the simulacrum we are presented with. Either we fully absorb it and accept its forms for whatever they are. This position can either be intentional or complete ignorance, neither of which are necessarily dishonorable but rather tools that the simulacrum uses and fuels upon to exacerbate hyper reality upon others. The lifelikeness and seamlessness of media fabrications and the fact that they are willing to go at great lengths, often bending the truth helps (Transparency Now). The second way we can react to the simulacrum is distance ourselves from it all or in other words “examine its meaning and try to understand the intentions of its authors. This second attitude is what makes criticism -- and freedom -- possible.” In this position we try to distance ourselves from hyper reality as much as possible. We try to leave the world we are presented in. The media awareness website Transparency Now describes the moment of when Truman begins to contemplate the second approach described above, or leave the hyper reality he finds himself living in.

Truman's fear of leaving this invented world, once he realizes it is a fraud, is similarly like our own reluctance to break our symbiotic relationship with media. His growing suspicion that what he is seeing is staged for his benefit is our own suspicions as the media-fabricated illusions around us begin to break down. And the producer-director of this stage-set world, who blocks Truman's effort to escape, is the giant media companies, news organizations, and media-politicians that have a stake in keeping us surrounded by falsehood, and are prepared to lure us with rewards as they block efforts at reforming the system.

Jean Baudrillard (1998) compares the hyper reality of life and the fabrications resting across the simulacrum to Disneyland. Disneyland is not far off at all from Truman’s world in that “Disneyland is a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulation…You park outside, queue up inside, and are totally abandoned at the exit. In this imaginary world the only phantasmagoria is in the inherent warmth and affection of the crowd, and in that aufficiently excessive number of gadgets used there to specifically maintain the multitudinous affect.” Truman is completely engrossed in a world of simulation; everything is staged from his relationships to the weather. When his behaviors begin to be unpredictable, it can be argued that he is still an actor only now he is reacting to the simulacrum or illusions of reality just as we can choose to react in different ways to the reality or hyper reality we are presented with. Like Truman’s world or our world, Baudrillard (1998) argues that “Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and of simulation. It is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology), but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle.”

The Truman Show raises questions about the reality we are presented with and imprisoned under. It can be related to Baudrillard’s writings about an absorbing simulacrum, and as outlined above the various actors and stages that we are forced to pose as and encounter in our everyday relationships and interactions with a hyper reality or our own individual “Truman Show’s.”

See the first Truman show review for consensus and rating

Salaam Bombay! and Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire was one of my favorite films, until I saw Salaam Bombay!. Life is not a fairy tale as it seems to be in the Oscar winner for Best Picture. Hollywood embraced it's uplifting, unique story where happiness is not only found in love but as the film was made by a Westerner the story is depicted through the lens of American values, including capitalism. So it doesn't hurt that the "slumdog" won a ton of money either. This seems to be the icing on the cake in American cinema, if one can avoid the world of poverty they are considered to have a happy ending. Slumdog Millionaire's title of course is an oxymoron, which is not the only contradiction in the film's world of overwhelming paradox. The film was criticized by Indian audiences for depicting a too-true image of the realities of what it is like to be categorized as "street children" and Indian poverty. However, the real truth is that there is no reality in the story at all. Of course there is value in showing how street children survive, but the happiness in the ending is defined by Western objectives. Hollywood reciprocates the notion over and over again that in order to achieve happiness, love and money are all you need. The fact that the film won an Academy Award for Best Picture proves that when you mix a little bit of reality with the falseness of idealism, people begin to deceive themselves into thinking what they just saw was good because it was "real." If anyone walked out of Slumdog Millionaire (myself included) thinking that they just saw "what it's really like" or "how it is for 'them'," was deceived by the masterful paradox's of Slumdog Millionaire's Hollywood guise. Both films used real street kids as the actors, but something is to be said about the Westerner "using" the child under the lens of the camera as a microscope for his project in Slumdog Millionaire where after the project is completed, similar to neocolonial projects, the subject is abandoned.  Unlike in Salaam Bombay where the children were adopted by crew and helped set up centers around India for similar street kids after the project was complete.  Why is it that the poor are studied and subjected by the rich, why do the poor never have the opportunity to study the rich?  Salaam Bombay had children that were not under study or under a microscope, but they were in it together, along with the director who was also poor, in fact they all shared an empty flat and the director allowed them to sleep in it during filming.  If you were under the impression that when you saw Slumdog Millionaire you were seeing a foreign film (which I know people who have) you are gravely mistaken. If you want to see that foreign film with everything that you thought Slumdog Millionaire was supposed to bring you, or that you thought DID bring you, see Salaam Bombay!.

Salaam Bombay! is a Bollywood film which attempted the same quest to depict "what's it's really like." It was the first film ever in Bollywood to have a kiss on screen, never before due to cultural taboos. As an example of the director's attempt to depict reality, this kiss was nothing magical, or romanticized, it was a kiss of a prostitute submitting to her husband, who happens to be her pimp as well. From director Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding), this film "burst onto the Indian cinema scene with the force of a tornado" (Time Out London). Winner of the Caméra d'Or at the 1988 Cannes Film Festival and nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film Oscar® in 1989, this riveting look at life on the hardened streets of Bombay went on to accumulate accolades and awards across the globe. Ebert said of the film that the director "has been able to make a film that has the everyday, unforced reality of documentary, and yet the emotional power of great drama." The film just feels so genuine that Ebert is correct that you genuinely feel as if you are watching a documentary.

Forced to leave his family at a very young age, Krishna lives on the streets with pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts and other homeless children. He earns very little money – but it's more than most – delivering tea so he can return home to his family. "But his honest plan is foiled when his hard-earned money is stolen by his closest friend, forcing Krishna to follow in the footsteps of so many street children of Bombay…by turning to a life of crime" (Amazon).

It has been argued that street children have a better experience of growing up than those with parents because of the heavy detrimental influence that each parent makes, even unintentionally. This, of course is an outlandish claim as seen in the film Salaam Bombay. To be a child is not to be ignored and forced to be self reliant. Self reliance must be developed naturally in stages over time, not forced upon an incapable human being with no maturity and less intellect than a fully developed adult. If not developing dependency on parents, the parental role is fulfilled by other mediums such as a pimp, drugs, and even a prostitute in the case of the film. In Edmonton these roles are similar but places like Youth Emergency Shelter and other NGO's across the globe try and monitor children in ways the parents didn't. The role of a parent is crucial and vital in a child's development in becoming self reliant.

Not to discredit the fact that being on their own, these children are learning valuable lessons, street intelligence or "street sense" and depending on how you look at it they develop courage and a lack of fear. For example, the children are hired as caterers at a wedding and one ends up slapping a rich kid, who then runs to his mother. The kids later demand more cash and show no shyness to authority throughout the film because of their freedom from the oppression of authority figures such as teachers and parents. But this is not Summerhill school, the "freedom" they are given holds a great difference, the rich kid can run to his mother when he is afraid, when the street kid is in trouble or experiences fear he has only his pimp, pusher or master to run to for help. All in all, even if we say that these children have no parents, it is entirely false. Everyone has a parent, the parent is just fulfilled by a different role or person who abuses the responsibility to a varying extremity or degree. It is the degree of abuse that determines a "good" parent over a "bad" one. After all, a biological parent could even be worse than the street as a parent.

In the case of Manju, she had parents and still felt that the role was unfulfilled, when her parents visited her in the child center it became apparent that her mother needed Manju more than she needed her mother as the role of father and mother had been abandoned long before she became lost in the literal sense. Manju had found a parent role in the orphan center and perhaps in her friends as well. In the film it seems that trustworthy friends are the best possible parent that a street kid can hope for. Of course I do not attempt to criticize mother's parenting skills attempt to even relate to her situation. It is difficult to critique the parents in the film, that are not unlike characters in real life when we don't understand the societal, historical and cultural circumstances that caused their situation to begin with. Nor am I fully capable of judging their situation when I can only help but see it through a Western lens, not from a perspective which is more capable of resolving the issues of why street children exist historically in the first place. Too often do we fall into the situation or conversation of using terms such as "us" and "them." One thing is for certain however, Manju had become a child of the state or the public street long before her mother realized it.

Throughout the entire film, Krishna is searching to "go home" in the literal sense, but really he is searching for it figuratively as well, anything he can call "home." When he finally has an opportunity to have a structured life in the orphan center, he escapes knowing that this home is unfamiliar. The role of home and parent has been replaced for so long that he only recognizes both as the street itself. His new home and family is represented in the final shot of the film, where he is presented alone on a dreary street without a person in sight. The director has achieved here that reality of this story is the same for almost all street children in the world, that no person will become Krishna's home or his parent, Krishna has only one place to go, the only place he is familiar with to call his home is the street.

CONSENSUS

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 92% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and go for a respectable 8.5/10. Though it's a phenomenal film I shouln't claim to be ignorant to the fact that I, myself am a Westerner and I value the entertainment in Western films more, not understanding many cultural references and themes presented in this film (I should make it clear that I still love Slumdog Millionare, but it will remain a PERFECT example of a Western filmmaker trying to depict a non-Western life and culture, or neo-colonialism at work). This film was "an honest and haunting portrait " of reality in India, made by someone who can relate and is more capable of understanding the issues and truthful conclusion that most street kids are forced to face. Trust me, after seeing this film it will stay with you, the ending is depressing and hard to digest.

Daybreakers

We only need to look at the Twilight saga (a teenager torn in her love between necrophilia and bestiality) to see what’s wrong with vampire flicks these days. As a fluffy teen romance movie with vampires, there’s no real horror. If you really want a vampire flick with just the true, originally (Ossenfelder, Rymer or Bram Stoker versions) intended fear of vampires, you’ll have a world full of them in Daybreakers. Not only that but you get a political undertone to boot in this film. As a bonus no one in this film falls in love with werewolves, or are you left wondering, "if these vampires are immortal, and they can live forever and go anywhere they want, why would they waste their time going to high school?" No, none of that, instead these vampires come complete with fangs, fear of sunlight, a need to feed, and even possess the ability to morph into gigantic bats.
In the near future, all of humanity will turn into vampires. And unlike the bloodsuckers in Twilight, these vampires must feed on human blood, and only human blood. Of course, the end of the world as we know it is about to happen when human beings are hunted to extinction. Without any blood to sustain them, the economy will tank, civilisation will collapse, and the vampires will all turn into feral giant bats. Scary!
When you zoom-in at what's really being told here, Daybreakers is actually a metaphor for the oil crisis worldwide in a worst case scenario. Like the oil corporations in the real world, Sam Neil’s pharmaceutical company races against time to develop alternate blood resources. Ethan Hawke plays the chief scientist who, when he finally does find a cure, the company head states that they don't want a cure, they want to compete! Oil companies don't want a cure or alternative sources of energy, or they are out of a job. It is the vampire company's greed that leads to their ultimate destruction (as the power struggles and fight for oil leads to war and ultimately as the film states, the world's destruction). It makes the case for global warming as well as the only cure to become human from vampire is the sun. The sun being the ultimate alternative or cure for dependency on oil (solar energy).

One critic stated that "This would be a really dreary, preachy allegory about corporate greed and monstrosity – and not a vampire flick at all – without Willem Dafoe, who saves the movie as The Dude with a Crossbow." Personally I think Dafoe is overrated, he comes across as overbearing, try hard and not an action hero. His work in Boondock Saints makes that cult classic an overrated piece of work and he ruined green goblin for me.

The Spierig brothers are more competent than most directors in this genre, and succeed in drawing out the horror and even metaphysical aspects of their vampire flick. That being said, to me, the film was mildly entertaining, a lot of stuff I saw in the preview (aside from the massive blood baths). I felt this way until the last 20 minutes, where the twist comes into play. Without spoiling it, let's just say that the sun isn't the only thing that can cure the vampires. This event made the movie for me, it engulfs a very strong conclusion to the film. It is a wild finish that left me more excited than the first half of the film which I thought was just so-so. I have yet to speak to someone that did NOT enjoy this film.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 66% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating. The film's allegory about oil seemed to be a bit overarching, and at times it seemed a bit low budget, but that did not hide the fact that it was oddly unique in a market full of way too many vampire movies. Not spectacular by any means but not a waste of my time either.

Milk: Part Two (after thoughts)

I posted a fairly long argument after my MILK review regarding gays, gay rights and gay marriage. I have something in follow-up to say regarding the issue:

At the end of the post I proposed a solution to the issue:

The solution: give both sides complete civil rights and take nothing away. Give the homosexual community all the civil rights of a marriage. A loved one or a partner should be able to visit someone in the hospital when they are ill, without this civil right they arn’t considered family and therefore are denied aspects that a married couple would. Simply give them all the civil rights that a married couple would and then don’t deny rights to the other side. When blacks or women got civil liberties, nothing was taken away from other races of gender.

The LDS church has recently undertaken action to support the solution-in-principle, the following link is something I found comforting, if you haven't seen it already. It actually was a big moment, gave me a lot of comfort to see for a lot of reasons, people can't possibly say that the church is against gays, after seeing this article, we can officially say that the church doesn't oppose gay rights, in fact the LDS church has gone out of its way to support them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/salt-lake-city-oks-gay-ri_n_353399.html

When someone says why is YOUR church against gay marriage, it is obtuse to conform that approach due to the fact that the LDS church is a small, tiny fraction of the population, a population that is predominantly christian, Muslim or any other faith which opposes its sanctions. Moreover, to say YOUR church is not the issue at hand, in fact there is more credibility to flip it the other way and argue why do YOU not believe in it, the population is more than in your favor to do so...it is so easy for people to pick on certain faiths as the odd one out, when in fact they are by millions upon millions of people. When someone poses this argument I feel that the best thing to say is, no matter what there are going to be ideas that conflict with what is "right" and what is "wrong" no matter the church there will always be opposition, however the only solution is to promote RIGHTS themselves....the right to be homosexual is an equally important right to practicing your religion.

There should be no hindrance in promoting quality of life because of who you are and the best part of this is, the church has gone out of its way to promote the fact that the two can co exist. The church proclaimed its support to abolish the discrimination of gays, so the important question is: why then do the gay rights communities continue to discriminate the churches? One thing to remind someone too is that the members of the church are not under obligation to subscribe to any political ideology and are free to believe and vote according to their own wishes no matter the issue:
The church released this statement regarding politics:

As citizens we have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects our communities and nation today and in the future.
Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.

Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.
The Church affirms its neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates. The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.
Sincerely, The First Presidency

The above statement in mind, it is important to remember that no matter the issue, or conflicting ideology to the church that someone pins on you or stereotypes you as, the LDS church clearly states that the individual reserves the right to vote or advocate what they choose politically.

Finally, "I believe" arguments are credible and something I have learned to value recently is that they cannot be and shouldn't be pushed down. There is no way to argue with someone that begins their argument with "I believe" because it is simply that, their belief. I have to respect the fact that you have a belief that you feel makes you stronger. The same goes for anyone that holds strong beliefs in anything, even homosexuality or freedom of religion. They both have a belief that they should be accepted for who they are, and so we, as citizens amongst them have a duty to accept them for who they are. Having said this, I should also say that even though you have a belief does in no way give you the excuse to be stubborn. People need to have an open mind with all issues, without critical thought and openmindedness, society has no growth, it will remain static.

In conclusion, I think the cooperative approach should go both ways: while supporters of same-sex marriage disagree with religious groups on various issues, they can (and should) recognize the right of religious groups and individuals to believe and teach religious principles that may include opposition to homosexuality. For the past few years it has appeared that the gay rights movement and religious liberties were on a collision course, but cooperation like that in Salt Lake is a good reminder that the conflict is both unnecessary and avoidable.

My motto on the issue is simple regarding gay marriage, It's not the right thing to do, but it's their right to do it.

"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."

Where the Wild Things Are

Spike Jonze has been known for some memorable pieces in his career (the best Weezer and Tenacious D videos, Jackass, Being John Malkovich and a Co-director on a film I have always wanted to review but haven't felt like I could give a worthy description of: The Fall). His 2009 film, based on my favorite children's book of all time "Where the Wild Things Are" aims to please a range of viewers. On the one hand you have a children's classic, with lovable characters of make-believe fabricated in the main character's mind (Max). On the other hand, each character, as the adult viewer catches onto throughout the film, represents a different manifestation of Max's emotions that he is feeling on the surface. My mom used to read the book to me at bedtime and I recall such vivid images of Max's bedroom page by page slowly turning into a new world, the far-off land of the wild things, and those creatures with their yellowy eyes. It was oddly scary and comforting at the same time to hear that story each night. That's probably why I was curious to see what director Spike Jonze would do with the big screen adaptation.

A little background on the film, it was actually supposed to come out a year ago, but in a test screening to a children audience, there were children leaving the theater in tears after being scared of the monsters. The film still does contain dark themes (hints of cannibalism, and witchcraft for example) however the faces of each beast were reanimated with CGI, as per studio's request to appeal to a wider audience inclusive of children. The film also was directed using natural lighting, which is a remarkable achievement that seems to be common to Jonze's style. In fact many parts of the film reminded me of his Weezer video "Island in the Sun."

Max is a burdened child, not feeling anything extraordinary from most kids, but they are exceptional emotions to him with no one that seems to relate to what he is feeling around him. The film does an exceptional job of portraying the assumptions adolescents make from problems that everyone seems to grow out of, but shouldn't be seen as juvenile just because it is a child that experiences them. Often grownups (I think the film argues) downplay the emotions of a child just because they are just that, childish. However, the film strives to give a deeper meaning to the common experiences of what children go through. As one critic put it, "It's less ABOUT a kid and more about BEING a kid." For example, Max's school teacher describes what the end of the world would look like, starting with the death of the sun and the slow widdling away of life throughout the universe. Max, as a boy, cannot grasp any type of long-term vision around the fact and starts to become scared, assuming that the death of the sun will happen inevitably and soon. Max tries to find solace and companionship in his mother and sister, who cannot seem to relate or take the time to calm down his rash, immediate assertions. It is at this point that he runs away from it all and creates a world in his mind that he can call his own and build. Within this world he creates "wild things" that each represent a piece of his torn emotions. These emotions are vivid and obvious parallels that become fun to pick out and identify over the course of the film.

Now, Jonze decided to stray away from the book at this point. Of course you have to give him a little slack as some critics refuse to, I mean, the book is about 30 pages long with 2-4 lines per page, you have to stray a little bit. For example, the Max in the book is a garrulous young boy of about six years old. He is sent to his room without his supper. The Max of the movie is deeply disturbed and much older and he ends up running away from home. The problem here is not that Jonze decided to stray from the book, its that this straying created serious convolution of character and plot.

The characters become dealt with one at a time and introduced in the same manner. The main monster, Carol becomes the main character that Max speaks with. First of all, assigning very common, human names to the beasts gives it away that Max is tagging very human qualities to the manifestations of his imagination. Carol is the main monster that Max deals with, because he is the representation of the central emotion that Max is dealing with in real life. There could be nothing clearer to give this away then when Max first meets Carol he is wrecking and destroying pieces of his friend's houses, just as Max did in frustration with his sister's room earlier in the day. Carol is dealing with his best friend neglecting him for other friends, friends that Carol refuses to let into his life. This friend is KW who represents Max's sister in real life or the emotion of desired companionship. Carol finds himself neglected and lonely, above all he is constantly worried and insecure. These are the emotions that are at the forefront of Max's life as he experiences a lack of friendship and neglecting from his mother and sister. Max also confronts other emotions throughout his make believe journey, for example the beast named Douglas is always ignored, even bullied. Max sits down with Douglas and tells him that no one ever listens to him. After comforting Douglas into thinking that even though no one seems to notice it doesn't mean that no one cares. Every single confrontation and words of comfort that Max expresses to his beast friends are the conflicts or the words he needed to confront and hear in real life. The words he expresses to them in comfort are ironically the very words he needed to hear for himself. As the tag line of the movie says "there is one in all of us" (a wild thing), this refers to the fact that we all have an emotional burden inside each of us screaming to be let out just as each wild thing, and Max learn to howl and scream their way into exposure. He even comes to piece with the one beast that has only the one line in the entire film, but is silent the entire time. The bull tells Max he is going to miss him, finally speaking this is Max's shy side that has finally decided to come out and expose his emotions. It is after confronting each of these emotions (or beasts) that he decided it is time to go home. This part of the film is surprisingly emotional and satisfying as the film is admittedly and exhausting 2 hours long. There are definitely times when watching that you are waiting for Jonze to wrap it up.

In regards to interpreting the meaning of the Things or Beasts, one critic wrote:

"The Things are potent symbols that refuse to yield to a single interpretation. Carol blends Max’s angry, destructive impulses and anxieties with Max’s mother’s concern and, dimly, the reassuring voice of the father who isn’t there. It’s not hard to see where Carol and KW’s quarrels come from, and KW’s absences are the flip side of Carol’s surrogate fatherhood, but Max’s sister is also in KW, off cavorting with her new friends and leaving Carol, and thus Max, in the lurch.
Among the most revelatory moments are an outburst from Judith (the rhino-nosed one, voiced by Catherine O’Hara), the harshest and most cynical of the Wild Things, following a taunting match with Max. "You’re not supposed to yell back at me!” she screams. “You have to just listen and love me anyway, because that’s your job!” It is his own voice, uttering his own unspoken plea to his mother. In another scene, Max flings at Carol the very words his mother yelled at him: “You’re out of control!”
The movie is full of wonderful visions, from the burying of Max beneath a heap of Things (perhaps the most sadness-shielding moment in the film) to Carol’s tabletop model-building and the large-scale fortress the Things set about building, both of which have a nest-like textured look that evokes Sendak’s crosshatching pen-and-ink work. Max Records is ideal as Max, one of the most unaffected child actor performances since E.T.
Like E.T., which explicitly referenced Peter Pan, Where the Wild Things Are is indebted to J. M. Barrie’s classic tale. The realm of the Wild Things is wondrous but unsettling and sad, and at one point Max tells KW, “I wish you all had a mother,” just as Neverland is a heartless place because there are no mothers there.
Watching the film, at times I wished for something closer to Sendak, something simpler and less talky, with more attention to the book's most striking images: not just the missing bedroom scene, but the sea-monster Thing that greets Max before he makes land; the Things swinging through the treetops like monkey bars during the Wild Rumpus; the sweater-striped Thing (Carol) bowing in courtly fashion to the newly crowned Max. Yet put the book aside and watch the film as a Thing unto itself, as a better cousin of Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal, or a Muppet-ier cousin of E.T., and I think it is something rather wonderful.
In a word, the great difference between Sendak’s book and Jonze’s film is that the book is about anger, while the film is as much about sadness. Here is a film broken-hearted over the messiness of the world. It is sad, and beautiful, and true."


In the end, Max realizes and comes the the conclusion that each monster (or emotion) can't survive without their mother (as he fulfilled the motherly role himself). Or in other words, every piece of our childhood needs to be nurtured, not tortured or run away from as Max did.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 70% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating. Though the film provides a deeper insight into emotions that we strive to keep but our lack of innocence has detached ourselves from, it makes no effort to entertain the child inside of us. In other words, I think many of us went to the film expecting to feel like a child again, but instead we were put through a lesson on how to relate to them. Even though the studio made great effort to make it appeal more to kids, it is not wiping out the scary elements that they needed to focus on as it is the length of the film. 2 hours seemed a little too long for the kids in the theater with me, and even I was growing impatient. Through it still provided moments of nostalgia and provided plenty of elements of humor and aesthetics, the film cannot possibly be put in a category of excellence.