Runtime: PG-13
Rating: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Director: Stephen Chbosky
Quick Impressions:
How often does a novelist get the opportunity not only to adapt his book for the screen but to direct the movie? Off the top of my head, I can think of no other novelist directors, so while I’m sure I’m overlooking lots of people, novelist directors must be a rare breed. Back in March, I thought Suzanne Collins was fortunate to get to work on the screenplay for The Hunger Games. (Viewers were fortunate, too. Why novelists don’t get input in screen adaptations of their work more often, I’ll never know.) But to direct, too? Stephen Chbosky is incredibly lucky.
He’s also incredibly gifted!
The novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower probably has almost as many fans as The Catcher in the Rye (and certainly far more than Dostoevsky’s The Adolescent, my own personal preferences notwithstanding). But I’ve never read it. I first got interested in the movie when I heard Emma Watson’s name attached to the project. Then when I saw the first preview, I immediately ran home and checked the cast list to see who was playing Patrick. I knew I had seen him somewhere before, and in fact, he was the same Ezra Miller who had so impressed me with his performance as Tilda Swinton’s sociopathic son in We Need to Talk About Kevin. For Miller’s sake (and a little bit for Watson’s) I’ve been very excited to see the film ever since.
The Good:
What a well written story with such believable characters! Early on, freshman protagonist Charlie (Logan Lerman) writes in a letter to an unnamed recipient that he feels happy and sad at the same time which he doesn’t know how to make his reader understand.
Well, Stephen Chbosky knows exactly how to make us understand. The movie replicates Charlie’s paradoxical mood perfectly and draws us in completely. Besides being a proven novelist, Chboksy is obviously also a gifted director.
I’m not sure I’ve ever been drawn in to a more realistic recreation of what it’s like to be in high school. In my family, my younger sister was the freshman who made best friends with offbeat seniors. I went to three high schools, so my experience was a bit different from Charlie’s, but still, I really got him. And as I watched them all dropping acid and dressing like my old yearbook photos, I thought, This must take place back when I was in high school. (Sure enough, the movie takes place in 1991-92, making Charlie just two years older than I am.) Knowing that, it seems pretty natural that I think I “get” him.
But here’s the cool part. Just after the lights went down during our screening, three giddy teenagers—making a conspicuous commotion—entered the auditorium, using the light from their smart phones to find empty seats (even though there were maybe ten people in the theater, tops). When the movie ended, all three counted in unison under their breaths and then shot up at once, cheering wildly. Then as the credits rolled, I noticed movement out of the corner of my eye and spotted two of them crawling stealthily up the far aisle on their hands and knees. I couldn’t figure out what they were up to until my husband whispered knowingly, “Their friend went the other way. They’re going to scare her.” It was pretty funny when they did, but it made me feel old. But then in the ladies’ room, I overheard all three of them gushing about how they loved the movie. It was just like the book, and “just like my life!” One of them exclaimed that the final scene had made her cry because “I feel exactly like that. I’ve had that same thought about being infinite!” Another said, “And his life is just like mine. I moved here and I didn’t know anybody, and then I met you!” Squeals all around! Cue group hug!
What’s remarkable about that (apart from the fact that on most Tuesday nights, my husband and I are easily the youngest in the audience by like thirty years)? Well, I mean, obviously it doesn’t matter when you went to high school, fifteen years ago or right now. Stephen Chobsky gets high school. He really understands. And he knows how to make the audience understand that. It’s a remarkable achievement.
The movie is so satisfying, too. As we walked to our car, my husband noted that even though the movie has a heavy ending, you leave feeling so uplifted. Isn’t it amazing how adolescence is almost always traumatic and exhilarating simultaneously? Life sucks, but, oh you feel so alive! Nothing ever works out, but oh if only it did and someday when it does…!
All three principles give outstanding performances. Going into the film, I felt excited about Miller, intrigued about Watson, and…well…not really very much of anything about Logan Lerman who until now was probably most notable for not playing Spiderman. (He also played Percy Jackson in what has to be the worst movie adaptation of a book ever. Forget about assigning screenwriting duties to the author of the book! I don’t think whoever wrote the The Lightning Thief screenplay even read the book!)
(I’m actually serious about that, but since I know nothing about it, I could easily be wrong.)
Anyway, Logan Lerman has made an impression on me now. He’s great as Charlie, and it’s a difficult role because the character is so quiet and introspective. He handles it really well. Unfortunately, Best Actor is pretty much the most competitive category at the Oscars, so he has no chance of a nomination there. But he does a great job of inhabiting a complex character, providing the emotional anchor of the film, and proving he can more than handle a leading role.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment (Ezra Miller):
Of the three principals, only Ezra Miller has a shot at an Oscar nomination. For one thing, he plays one of the most outspoken and ostentatious characters. Also Miller brings tremendous charisma and screen presence to any role. I can now add versatility to his talents, too. Even though I’ve only seen him in two films, malevolent sociopath Kevin and compassionate personality Patrick are alike only in charisma. Since I’ve already seen some really strong supporting male performances this year (especially Dwight Henry and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and know more are coming (they do every winter, just like Christmas), I’d guess that Miller’s chance at a nomination is slim. He may get some help, however, from the fact that he plays an openly gay teen who is comfortable with his sexuality and a positive role model for a younger teen. Patrick is definitely a force for good in Charlie’s life, and the way he handles bullying is both commendable and eventually probably more realistic than what we usually see in movies. Since the current mood of the nation is emphatically anti-bullying and hesitantly pro-gay, social politics may help Miller’s chances for a nomination quite a bit.
He’s captivating from the moment he appears. Patrick’s performance in shop class is pretty great. His delivery of the line, “Slut and the Falcon,” is entertaining even out of context in the preview. There’s not a scene he’s in he doesn’t own.
But probably his strongest moment comes in the park after the incident in the cafeteria. I don’t want to spoil it, but he’s really good there (and so is Lerman). Patrick is such a theatrical character, yet Miller plays his scenes of deep emotion with amazing restraint. He deserves a nomination. (The trouble is, there are always more than five deserving people.)
Best Stepping out of the Shadow of Harry Potter:
When you’re a young actress who has starred as the same character in eight movies over the course of a decade—well, you’re Emma Watson, aren’t you? It’s quite possible that no one else has ever done that. (Even Myrna Loy didn’t play Nora Charles that often back in the forties.) Certainly nobody else has done it recently.
Who can forget Hermione Granger? She’s in practically every scene of all the Harry Potter movies, and she talks constantly. And who hasn’t seen Harry Potter? (I’m a fan of the books and the movies, but I’d imagine even people who hate the series haven’t managed to avoid theatrical previews and promotional spots on TV.)
For ten years, only Emma Watson played Hermione Granger, and Emma Watson only played Hermione Granger. (Well, okay, she did some voice work in the easily avoidable Tale of Despereaux. And I see now that she was also in a British TV movie.) But basically she was only Hermione.
It’s pretty hard to escape from a high profile legacy like that. (I mean, Daniel Radcliffe was good in The Woman in Black, but while you watch it, you never forget that he’s Harry Potter. He’s a good actor, but he’s going to have to make about a thousand movies before anybody sees him and doesn’t think Harry Potter is playing the lead character.)
So I have to say, up against a handicap like that, Watson is magnificent. After the first couple of scenes, I totally forgot that she was Hermione Granger (something I could not manage during her fleeting scenes in My Week with Marilyn last year). In fact, by the time the movie hit its stride, I had totally forgotten that she’s Emma Watson. I was completely engrossed in the developing story, eager to see how the relationship between Charlie and Sam played out. I’m not sure if that happened because of Watson’s skill or Chbosky’s.
(Charlie sounds a lot like Chbosky, doesn’t it?)
I do remember reading that Watson was extremely worried about her accent, determined to sound convincingly American. I thought she pulled that off really well. Her delivery of the line, “Welcome to the island of the misfit toys,” is odd, but she doesn’t sound British when she says it, just weird.
The Other Performances:
By the other performances, I guess I basically mean Mae Whitman. (I never see that poor girl without hearing Jason Bateman saying with deranged energy, “She’s the belle of the ball!” That’s so unfair because unlike Emma Watson, she’s been in everything under the sun.) She’s very good as Mary Elizabeth, particularly in the truth-or-dare scene. Every time her character was on screen, I thought of Jordan Baker in The Great Gatsby (the book I mean).
Oh, also! Joan Cusack is in this movie. I’m not sure why. I was surprised to see her name in the opening credits, and I kept waiting and waiting for her. Surely either she’s a Chbosky fan, or Chbosky’s a Joan Cusack fan. I mean, she’s good in her part, but it’s an awfully small part.
Oh, and I almost forgot Paul Rudd! He’s so understated here, that’s probably why. Most of the time, I don’t like Paul Rudd as much as I feel he believes I should. (I did love him in Clueless.) This is probably one of my favorite of his performances. He’s quietly effective as Charlie’s English teacher. He does have a lovely voice.
Best Scene:
After the Secret Santa gift swap, Charlie and Sam have an even more significant exchange in her bedroom. The raw emotional power of the connection between the actors in this scene just blew me away. The one I’m most impressed with is Chbosky, honestly. This tender, tense moment between Charlie and Sam clearly illustrates that he’s both a gifted writer and a capable director.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment (Stephen Chbosky):
The final scene in the movie is marvelous. The voice over narration is fantastic and makes me want to read the book. (Obviously it made a positive impression on the three teen besties in the audience, too.) I realize the competition is stiff, but I think Chbosky should get a screenplay nomination for this. Frankly as a novelist, I’m envious of his opportunities and in awe of his talent.
Funniest Scene:
Our introduction to Patrick in the shop class is pretty funny, but I love Charlie’s first party. (Really this is further evidence that Chbosky deserves Oscar recognition.) The brownie, the carpet, the milkshake—this is all funny in a very realistic (like we’ve all experienced it as someone in the scene) way. But then you get what Charlie says to Sam in the kitchen. Emma Watson deserves recognition for great work here, too. Her reaction is perfect. (But another thing that’s perfect is the way moments like these keep echoing one another as the story goes on. Unexpected confession, pain in the eyes of the listener—the movie delivers that time after time, better than any other film I’ve recently seen.)
In the truth or dare game later in the movie, we get a similar moment. It’s funny. When Charlie chooses truth, we laugh in horror at his answer. Then when we realize what’s really happening, we think, “Well, what could be worse?” But man is it worse! (Come back to this paragraph after seeing the movie, and it will make more sense.)
The Negatives:
The Aunt Helen storyline is handled in a really odd way. I suspected the outcome all along but kept doubting myself thinking I’m exceptionally suspicious. My husband, on the other hand, never suspected until almost the end of the movie. I’m not saying this is bad, but if there’s fault to be found in this film, somebody could probably find some here. I personally would have liked a clearer statement of what exactly is wrong with Charlie. (Is it only trauma? Obviously something runs in the family.) That’s not really a flaw with the film, just a preference.
The real question I have is why bring in Joan Cusack so late in the story. Is there an allusion I’m missing? Did she play a part in some other film that makes this one meaningful? It seems odd. She’s a pretty big name for such a small part.
Another thing I thought was funny—the English teacher is supposed to be a failed writer, yet he comes up with what may be the best line in the entire movie (what was the best line in my husband’s opinion). (That’s not a real criticism, either. I have a hard time finding fault with this film. I liked it so much.)
I am surprised the movie didn’t get an R. Usually teen drug use gets an R, especially when presented in a basically positive light. I’m not complaining. But I am surprised.
Overall:
My husband decided The Perks of Being a Wallflower may be the best movie we’ve seen all year. It’s definitely one of the best. We’re both eager to read the book now, and I’m a little in awe of Stephen Chbosky. Unless you’re my mother, you should enjoy this film. (She doesn’t usually like movies about high school, but maybe this one will be the exception. It’s awfully good.) My husband and I both left the theater feeling uplifted (and amused by the girls crawling through the aisle).