La stanza delle meraviglie

This was almost exactly what I expected based on the average reviews. Definitely a significant downgrade from Carol. I appreciated its ambition and some of its visuals, cinematography, and music is really good. But that screenplay is kind of a huge mess, and such a big missed opportunity. I don't see why this film would get much dislike, but I also don't see why it would get much love either. It's almost the complete opposite of mother!, which is probably the worst spot to be in. As soon as it was over I had forgotten it and felt so much apathy towards it. Not terrible or even bad, but not all that good either.

This film was positively wonderful. I am dumbstruck at it's IMDB rating. For crying out loud it's a magical children's tale with a soundtrack that includes Brian Eno/Robert Fripp and 70s soul jams. It's disability-positive, the way the sound is done to convey deaf children navigating NYC is extremely creative and well done. The art and scenes are what I worshipped as a child - my greatest fantasy was to find a secret room in a museum and stay the night! And the dioramas and the incredible way they wove them into the storytelling! The people saying "nothing dramatic happens" are seriously off their rockers - a kid loses his hearing!!! two deaf children run away to NYC!!! how on Earth is that not dramatic? This film made me cry and laugh and feel like a child again. It's beautiful. If you have a child, watch it with them. If you don't, like me, watch it and feel like a kid again.

Unbelievably dull. Turned it off. Don't bother. Nothing positive to say. Save your time and money.

Greetings again from the darkness. If you know an adolescent who is ready to step up from comic book movies, this would be a terrific introduction to more emotionally dramatic and narrative-driven cinema. That's certainly not meant to imply that director Todd Haynes' latest is only for kids, or even that it's aimed at that demographic. Instead, it's the rare opportunity to follow two intersecting story lines over two different time periods with kids as the main focus, and have some very interesting post-movie discussions related to characters, eras, and filmmaking techniques.

We follow the stories of two kids who are separated by 50 years. Although the time boundary exists, the similarities between their journeys are many. Each is running away from home in search of their roots and identity. They are both hearing-impaired and living in less than ideal family environments. Additionally, their footsteps cross many of the same places in New York City as two museums play key roles.

Ben (Oakes Fegley, PETE'S DRAGON) is a 12 year old living in Gunflint, Minnesota. It's 1977 when his mother (Michelle Williams) dies unexpectedly and a freak accident takes his hearing. Convinced an odd bookmark is a clue to finding the father he's never met, Ben sets off for New York City. Rose (remarkable first time actress Millicent Simmonds) lives in 1927 Hoboken, New Jersey and is obsessed with silent screen star Lillian Mayhew (Julianne Moore in a dual role). Rose is an artistic child whose domineering dad has little time for her, so she hops aboard the ferry and heads to the big city to track down an idol - who may be more closely tied than we first imagine.

Brian Selznick adapted the screenplay from his own novel (he also wrote "The Invention of Hugo Cabret", which was the basis for Scorcese's HUGO), and some may find the two story lines muddled or difficult to follow. However, for those who connect with the characters and their adventures, it's a fascinating and entertaining ride. Director Todd Haynes (FAR FROM HEAVEN, CAROL) has established his expertise in visual stylings, and here he gets to present two distinct looks for the separate eras. Ben's 1977 world is filled with the polyester and neon colors of that era and it's even given the washed-out look of 1970's cinema. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Rose's 1927 world is presented in black and white as a silent movie. The lack of dialogue allows us to focus on her facial expressions and body language, which tell us what we need to know.

The American Museum of Natural History plays a significant role in both stories, and the Queens Museum is central to the finale which ties up the two pieces for us. The contrasts of the two eras are as vital as the similarities. Along the way, each of the kids gets a bit of help. Ben befriends Jamie (Jaden Michael) whose connection to the museum and the city provides Ben a boost, while Rose's much older brother Walter (Cory Michael Smith) also has a connection to the museum and helps put Rose on the right track. The distinct photographic styles help us easily switch between eras, and much credit goes to cinematographer (and frequent Haynes collaborator) Edward Lachman and editor Affonso Goncalves.

Oscar Wilde's quote, "We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars", takes its shot as the theme for the two stories, and really it's a heartfelt film with interesting storytelling and unusual cinematic effects. The set design is terrific throughout, and especially vital during the silent movie segments of Rose's story. Carter Burwell's prominent score also effectively shifts styles between stories and eras. The ties that bind us – a core need to understand our roots – do so regardless of age and time period. This is a nifty little film that provides much to discuss and consider.

...but it is far from a failure.

Usually, I refrain from commenting on films which I have been fortunate enough to see prior to release, but in this case, I am making an exception.

The early reviews I have seen, including the two posted here, realize that the work product is indeed problematic, and, while they don't say so, they ought to understand that it should have been reworked before the final edit. What they clearly DON'T understand is that Wonderstruck is a fantasy, not a melodrama. Are the two children real? Hardly. All the capers and coincidences and similarities are unbelievable for any realistic narrative. That doesn't matter. Wonderstruck is not credible story; it isn't supposed to be. In music, a composition like this would be "a fantasy on" some composition. We would hear identifiable themes set in a very expansive framework, creating a very different impression of a familiar setting. That's what Wonderstruck intends to do - establish a real world in which the deaf find themselves contained. It's not set up to accommodate them, so they adapt their own reality to exist in it. Is their reality real? To those of us who are not deaf, we can never know what it is to them. So how much of Wonderstruck is real and how much is fantasy, we will never really know. That's the point.

Now, having said that, the film does have problems, not the least of which is that the book's author, Brian Selznick, wrote the screenplay, rarely a good idea without at least having an uninvolved writing partner. He had two problems, both of which handicapped him. He was faced with adapting a 600+ page book into a 2-hour film. A lot of stuff had to be excised, and the original author is the entirely wrong person to be doing it. Author Brian Seltzer knows the material too intimately and is not prepared to inform us of basic information which he has long ago accepted as obvious. Moreover, book structure - and screenwriter Brian Seltzer seems to have adhered closely to it in this case - rarely work for films. Books move slowly. Books let the reader consume the information at his/her own pace, even allowing for back-reference for clarity. Movies dictate our comprehension and understanding. Few novelists get this, and it was Seltzer's main problem.

In the theatre, plays and musicals go "out-of-town" to "try out", the whole purpose being that the show can be viewed in action. The problems can become obvious, and the writers can get to work on fixing them. Films don't have this luxury. True, the final edit can be exhibited for test audiences, but these viewers are very aware of their exceptional status, and they are rarely a good cross section of the viewing public. Wonderstruck could have benefited from an "out-of-town" tryout - even several of them. Unfortunately, this is not a financial expenditure available to most films. Moreover, it would probably lay the film open to reviewers - both professional and amateur - who would delight in their chance to make a difference. (Don't believe it? How credible is Rotten Tomatoes?) Several reviewers have disparaged the talents of the child actors. These commentators have very little credibility in this respect. The intent of the author is that the kids be very ordinary, very everyday. Regular kids are as diverse as adults, but they are not adults; they are still learning how to be adults. They may go off on some adventure that seems quite obvious to them while appearing unacceptable, even ridiculous, to adults. The young actors here were often handicapped by unspeakable dialogue, especially for 12-year-olds. They did everything they could with it because it was not their job to change it or object to it. A good dialogue writer - even a good director - would have realized this and made the changes. (And it is amazing that a director of Todd Haynes' quality missed it - or at least didn't do something about it.) While Millicent Simmonds (Young Rose) is deaf, Oakes Fegley (Ben) presumably has no hearing disability. As an actor he had to convey the confusion he must feel at suddenly being unable to hear but still being able to speak - and within a few months time at that. He obviously had access to a qualified "coach", but he had to replicate a young boy suddenly faced with a life changing disability. I wonder if they were able to find a 12-year-old boy - suddenly deaf - who could have helped him. Probably not. So his reactions were probably his own, and for a young boy in those circumstances, his portrayal was probably as accurate as any. (Interestingly, the boy - Ben - in the book is born deaf in one ear, who suddenly becomes totally deaf. Had that been the film's character, perhaps the actor's task would have been much different.) In summary, Wonderstruck is not a bad film, just not quite ready for prime time. It is quite enjoyable on its own terms.