Even Curious George Can Be Scary

From the Editors: "Where the Wild Things Are," a film based on Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book, hit theaters on Friday. The book is loved by 4- and 5-year-olds, but this PG-rated movie may well be too scary for them.

Child development experts debate whether, when it comes to the big screen, live-action films are easier for preschoolers to identify with and enjoy than complex animation. But the live-action G-rated movie seems increasingly rare these days.

What is the best type of "first movie" for young children? Why are filmmakers disinclined to cater to this young audience?

Lisa Guernsey:

The more critical question is: Live action of what? Are we talking about scenes of Kit, the character in the American Girl movie, having heartwarming talks with her mother? Or are we talking about live-action shots of something that could be seriously troubling to young children, like a dog attack, a father separated from his son or a man's chest suddenly bulging outward, as he transforms into the Incredible Hulk?

That last example comes from research by one my fellow participants here, Joanne Cantor at the University of Wisconsin. In the 1980s, she surveyed parents about what on TV most frightened their children. The Incredible Hulk won hands down. According to Professor Cantor, based on theories of children's cognitive development, preschoolers get upset when they see something "real" transform into something utterly outside the realm of reality. It scrambles everything they've come to understand about their world so far.

But that idea hasn't been proven in controlled experiments, and there is so much we don't know. When it comes to advice on first-time movie experiences, I wish I could say that there is solid evidence to point parents in exactly the right direction. Alas, we don't have anything close. I do not know of any airtight evidence that live-action film is better than animation for young children.

What scientists have found are several signs that even 2- and 3-year olds can learn words and behaviors from what they see, especially when the action on screen is tailored to be understandable to them. Some of this evidence comes from controlled experiments with “Sesame Street” (live action), “Dragon Tales” (animation) and “Teletubbies” (what would you call that anyway?).

I will never forget taking my oldest daughter to see the Curious George movie when it came out in 2006. It was supposed to be a treat — she had just turned 4. Many of my friends had taken their children to the movie theater when they were 3. Surely, I thought, by age 4 my daughter would be ready. And Curious George, what a cutie. Nothing could be tamer, right?

The result was a debacle. She clung to me, begged to sit in my lap and wouldn’t stop whimpering. We left the theater. To this day I’ve wondered what was going through her mind. All kids are different, and I’ve come to understand that my daughter doesn’t do so well during moments of suspense. That sensitivity probably played a role. But I also see now, having spent many years researching media and children’s development, that it wasn’t just what was on screen that mattered. Sitting in the dark, amid strangers, in a cavernous theater, with thunderous noises echoing from every direction — that had a big impact too.

Research abounds on whether on-screen violence has a negative effect on children, and I’ve read enough to want to keep my kids away from it until they are older. But comparatively little research exists on what “scary” media means to them and whether it has any lasting impact. At this point, parents have to tune into their children, do some research on the movie beforehand, and conduct a serious gut check about what seems right. I also recommend the reviews on Common Sense Meida; they suggest that "Where the Wild Things Are" is best for ages 9 and up.

Read the entire debate.