"Where the Wild Things Are" Is Here

Last night I did what I said I was going to do. I went to see the movie "Where the Wild Things Are." I must admit I came away a little confused.
Confused because I felt it deviated from the story, and the book is such a pure thing that I almost feel it shouldn't have been messed with.
This morning I watched a video of Bill Moyers' interview in 2004 with Maurice Sendak and learned why Sendak wrote the story. Themes in a lot of his books are about innocence and evil. "Where the Wild Things Are" is no different.
The movie portrayed the little boy, Max, as an unhappy, alienated and extremely lonely child of a single mom, who is trying to balance a job, life with her children (Max has a teenaged sister), and a boyfriend. I guess I didn't get that image when I read the
book.
In both the book and the movie, Max is seemingly disturbed and mischievous. I mean, after all, he does run around the house screaming and terrorizing the dog with a fork!
In the book, when he defies his mother, he is sent to bed without supper. In the movie, he isn't sent to bed.
In the movie, he terrorizes his sister's teenage friends with snowballs and is devastated when they destroy his snowmade igloo with him inside. Afterwards, in a fit of rage, he destroys his sister's room. And in another fit (jealousy this time) of his mother's boyfriend, he climbs up on the kitchen counter while she's making supper and demands she feed him. In a struggle to get him off the kitchen counter, Max bites his mother's shoulder, then runs from the house with his mother following in her stocking feet. I guess I didn't get that image when I read the book.
In the book Max creates a magical world in his own room. In the movie he runs until he finds a small sailboat and sails away to the magical land where all the wild things are.
The book is sparse and sweet with only ten sentences. The movie plot is expanded so much that it brings about a different feeling than the book.
Granted, in both book and movie Max is fed warm food by his mother, proving that he has someone who loves him and protects him.
I loved all the Jim Henson characters in the movie, taken from the pictures of the wild things in Sendak's book. It was amazing to watch their eyes blink, slow smiles creep across their faces, and their funny little fannies wiggle as they walked away from you.
I think the book is far more magical. The film was made for adults, not kids. But then, when the book was published, the same thing was said about it. I suppose since Sendak liked the movie, I shouldn't complain.
Maybe you should read the book yourself, then go see the movie. Come up with your own conclusion. Just like we all did with "The Time Traveler's Wife" and "Topaz."