Maurice Sendak tells parents worried by Wild Things to 'go to hell'

B

Bramus

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
397
Reaction score
0
Maurice Sendak tells parents worried by Wild Things to 'go to hell' | Books | guardian.co.uk

Parents who think the new film of Maurice Sendak's picture book Where the Wild Things Are is too frightening for children can "go to hell", the author has said.

Telling the story of a naughty little boy, Max, who is sent to bed without his supper only to journey by boat to a land where wild monsters live, Sendak's classic tale was first published in 1963 and has captured children's imaginations ever since. With a film version adapted by Dave Eggers and Spike Jonze out later this year, Sendak told this week's edition of Newsweek that he would "not tolerate" parental concerns about the book being too scary.

"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'."
Click to expand...
 
Almost everyone I know is dying to see this movie... myself included. It looks fantastic and therefore should be appreciated as a translation of a great children's book.

The author should've been a bit more .. nicer about telling parents not to worry instead of going to hell.... that is if he wants sales of his book to go up.
 
I'm not going to see it because the trailer looks boring. I'll reconsider if people tell me that it's good.
 
I agree.

If people think that Where the Wild Things Are is bad, look at Disney! A lot of their movies involve death... especially with loved ones and relatives... and some as gruesome!

Bambi's mom is shot... in Bambi.

Simba's father is killed when he's clawed by Scar (Simba's uncle)... in Lion King.

Ursula is impaled... in Little Mermaid.

Clayton (a hunter) is hung (vines around his neck) as he falls... in Tarzan.

Gaston (Beast's enemy) is impaled on a bunch of spikes... in Beauty & the Beast.

Syndrome is sucked into a huge airplane engine... in The Incredibles.

... and many more.
 
I wouldn't want my children to read or watch something by a man who displays such disrespect for the parents.
 
Reba said:
I wouldn't want my children to read or watch something by a man who displays such disrespect for the parents.
Click to expand...

Same thing when a friend of mine whose parent's has strict rules about certain activities that they don't approve of and when a teacher find out about it, tries to encourage the student to rebel against their parent's wishes, he went home and told his parents about it.

The teacher ended up getting the flack for it from not only the kid's parents, but also from every parent that found out about it and became very angry that a teacher is encouraging kids to circumvent their parental authority.

So they all called the PTA's office and demanded a meeting. After the board members get an earful from the parents, the teacher was then fired.

So, moral point of the story is, don't screw with the parents or you'll get the horns.

Yiz
 
There is a big difference here, is he is not forcing parents to make their kids watch it and we as tax payers did not pay him to write the book. What your saying for comparison makes no sence. One has nothing to do with the other. He is merely defending his book from over protective and over bearing parents who should keep there opinions to themselves. If you don't like it, don't watch it and STFU! I just feel sorry for their kids because they are missing out.
 
Reba said:
I wouldn't want my children to read or watch something by a man who displays such disrespect for the parents.
Click to expand...

Well the parents started it by bad mouthing and trying to turn something good into something bad. So in other words they did the disrespecting first and if you don't like it don't start it.
 
cdaigle430 said:
There is a big difference here, is he is not forcing parents to make their kids watch it and we as tax payers did not pay him to write the book. What your saying for comparison makes no sence. One has nothing to do with the other. He is merely defending his book from over protective and over bearing parents who should keep there opinions to themselves. If you don't like it, don't watch it and STFU! I just feel sorry for their kids because they are missing out.
Click to expand...

Wow, parentless much?

Yiz
 
DeafCaver said:
Almost everyone I know is dying to see this movie... myself included. It looks fantastic and therefore should be appreciated as a translation of a great children's book.

The author should've been a bit more .. nicer about telling parents not to worry instead of going to hell.... that is if he wants sales of his book to go up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Jack and the Beanstalk is a pretty darned frightening story, but few parents will object to their child being read classic fairy tales. Hansel and Gretel has cannabilism as it's primary theme...parents read it to their kids every day, and have for any number of years. I could go on and on with examples that shows the hypocricy of some of these parents.:roll:

But, yeah, he could have been a bit more diplomatic in his statement. But I agree with his sentiment. I'd like to think that there are enough logical and free thinking parents in this country that the film won't suffer in attendance at all.

Get real, people. If your child is that frightened by the concept, don't take them to see it. Don't take a 3 year old to see it. Don't take a child that has difficulty separating fantasy from reality to see it. Don't take a child prone to nightmares to see it. But just because it might not be appropriate for a small group of children doesn't mean that it is not appropriate for others.:cool2:
 
yizuman said:
Wow, parentless much?

Yiz
Click to expand...

Overprotective, much?

I saw Jurassic Park when it came out in 1993 (I was 5 or 6 at the time). I even saw the movie Alien when I was 4, 5, 6. I was obsessive with the movie ET (which mom had to replace the VHS for three times). I loved the Brave Little Toaster and Secret of NIMH when I was a toddler as well. All of these films, including the cartoons, are not recommended for little kids.

It's a free country. Either you go and see it, or you don't. No need to force your opinions on everyone else.
 
souggy said:
Overprotective, much?

I saw Jurassic Park when it came out in 1993 (I was 5 or 6 at the time). I even saw the movie Alien when I was 4, 5, 6. I was obsessive with the movie ET (which mom had to replace the VHS for three times). I loved the Brave Little Toaster and Secret of NIMH when I was a toddler as well. All of these films, including the cartoons, are not recommended for little kids.

It's a free country. Either you go and see it, or you don't. No need to force your opinions on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Some kids can handle films like that, some can't. My son was like you. I know other kids that couldn't handle those films at a young age. One of the important things for parents to do is to process what the child has just seen after seeing the film with the kid. Few take the time to do that, and kids walk away with all kinds if misperceptions as a result.

It is all about parental responsibility. Discuss things with your kids. Correct their misperceptions. Talk about the difference between fantasy and reality. You will have a well adjusted kid as a result. Or, you can not do those things, have a kid that is scared of his own shadow, and is overly dependent as a result.
 
I volunteer at my kid's school library. The librarian showed the trailer to the kids. Many of the children have read the book and are interested in the movie.

My 8 YO kid went to the last Harry Potter movie without any difficulty. I told him that it might have scary parts and he wanted to go. I tend to follow my kid's lead because he knows what he can handle. I want him to have confidence in his own decisions. Not R-rated movies obviously because they are not appropriate for children.
 
sallylou said:
I volunteer at my kid's school library. The librarian showed the trailer to the kids. Many of the children have read the book and are interested in the movie.

My 8 YO kid went to the last Harry Potter movie without any difficulty. I told him that it might have scary parts and he wanted to go. I tend to follow my kid's lead because he knows what he can handle. I want him to have confidence in his own decisions. Not R-rated movies obviously because they are not appropriate for children.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The vast majority of children will let you know what they can handle and what they can't. The problem is, too many don't listen, or don't give the kid any credibility. They find it easier to censor based on their own fears and insecurities.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Some kids can handle films like that, some can't. My son was like you. I know other kids that couldn't handle those films at a young age. One of the important things for parents to do is to process what the child has just seen after seeing the film with the kid. Few take the time to do that, and kids walk away with all kinds if misperceptions as a result.

It is all about parental responsibility. Discuss things with your kids. Correct their misperceptions. Talk about the difference between fantasy and reality. You will have a well adjusted kid as a result. Or, you can not do those things, have a kid that is scared of his own shadow, and is overly dependent as a result.
Click to expand...

Right. Mom never really got why people were against Harry Potter and such, or other things... or the whole big deal about the double-inneundos in Cat in the Hat movie. She knew that kids view the world differently from adults.

Like... I was able to handle R-rated monster films, sci-fi, and some of the advanced cartoons-- however I wasn't able, and still not able, to deal with the concept of conceding your bodily control (ie. Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, Larenzo's Oil, Stephen Hawkings documentaries and so on) and being a prisoner in your own body. So I wasn't "allowed" to watch anything I wanted, there was a limit.
 
cdaigle430 said:
Well the parents started it by bad mouthing and trying to turn something good into something bad. So in other words they did the disrespecting first and if you don't like it don't start it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
cdaigle430 said:
There is a big difference here, is he is not forcing parents to make their kids watch it and we as tax payers did not pay him to write the book. What your saying for comparison makes no sence. One has nothing to do with the other. He is merely defending his book from over protective and over bearing parents who should keep there opinions to themselves. If you don't like it, don't watch it and STFU! I just feel sorry for their kids because they are missing out.
Click to expand...
Where did the article say that the parents were overbearing or over protective? All they did was state an opinion. Since when do people have to keep their opinions to themselves just because they are parents and not famous authors?

I don't think their kids will grow up deprived just because they didn't watch a movie.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. The vast majority of children will let you know what they can handle and what they can't. The problem is, too many don't listen, or don't give the kid any credibility. They find it easier to censor based on their own fears and insecurities.
Click to expand...
:gpost:


I remember getting the Terminator VHS boxset from a family friend for my 4th bday. It was always the first of the two that scared me and my mom, not exactly thrilled at the gift, only told me not to watch it if i couldn't take it and I was never able to watch it till I was six. Unfortunately, not everyone allows their children to make even minor decisions such as this.

I don't think their kids will grow up deprived just because they didn't watch a movie.
Click to expand...

Definitely not deprived but I think baby steps towards autonomy are pretty important in development.
 
Back
Top