It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a teenager who is fairly introverted will go through a lengthy awkward phase when transitioning from middle school to high school, and thus must be in want of some friends. From personal experience, the transition is hardly easy, but for Charlie in the novel and film adaptation of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, it was even worse. Written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999, I fell in love with the young adult novel, told in a delicate epistolary form, in my freshman year of high school and a friend told me the protagonist reminded her of me. Its author went on to write the screenplay and direct the feature film adaptation, and what he presents is a satisfying adaptation that is nuanced enough to make a difference in the plethora of teen films, changing the story a little bit. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a different teen film because of its refreshing approach to the pains of adolescence.
Perks tells the story of a young man who enters his freshman year of high school and has, well, a lot to deal with. Charlie (Logan Lerman) has spent some time in a mental institution after his best friend committed suicide, and his introverted nature makes the transition far harder. He stands by the side and observes. He “doesn’t think anybody noticed” him. The focus here is not finding him the perfect girlfriend, but finding him a perfect band of misfits; people who will be there for him. Because, unlike the myriad of films in the teen canon, high school is not all about finding the perfect girlfriend or boyfriend: it’s about finding the people who help you find who you are. Perks, as trite as it can be, presents this very aspect of learning well.
As someone who was deeply attached to the novel, I, of course, was hesitant as to the film adaptation’s treatment of the material, both from a standpoint in terms of accuracy as well as to framework and content. So, I was naturally surprised to learn that the man behind the novel wrote and directed the film. If he’s happy with this, then it will be his vision. But rather than spend my time comparing the book and the film constantly, I’ll only go over a few things and their translation onto the screen.
Part of the uniqueness of the book, I suppose, is its epistolary format, with Charlie writing to someone we never meet. This is retained to some extent as the initial framework, but, more importantly, the narration is not a constant. This gives the film a slightly more objective look than the book, but completely. Much of the film’s events and experiences are still presented subjectively, one particular scene almost reminiscent of Roman Polanski’s Chinatown.
One of the highlights of the films is its occasional subtlety. Although the film may at times feel heavy handed, which may partly be responsible due to both the general “genre” the film falls in as well as the current atmosphere amongst teenagers. The novel handled certain questionable and dramatic subject matter and content very well, and its translation to the screen often thrives fluidly. The issues that Charlie has dealt with, as well as the subject of Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his sexuality, are handled almost in an elegant manner. Charlie’s problems are never dressed so directly that they seem redundant, and Patrick is never overtly mentioned as gay. Both character are as they are.
That said, some of the subtlety, as brisk and well allocated as it may be, over compensates for itself in certain moments. Character development is sometimes sacrificed at trying to either be subtle or completely avoid subjects. Thus, for novel loyalists, certain scenes involving Charlie and Patrick are mentioned one moment, but never exactly elaborated upon. It is almost as if the thought was incomplete. These mistakes seem somewhat infantile, almost as much as some of the heavy handedness of certain scenes, but I suppose they are forgivable for a first time director.
The choices made, though, manage to be wise. The cinematography in the film, in particular, is one of the small beauties of the film. Soft focus and soft lighting make the film look almost misty and romantic, and fits at moments because the image will become as misty as your eyes. This small beauty of the film manages to accentuate much of the emotion in the film, perhaps setting it apart from many teen films. There is, therefore, equal balance and focus on the look of the film (which is distinctly 1990s) and the story of the film.
That said, the way the film portrays its story is, for the most part, successful. Aside from the strides of too much subtlety or too much heavy handedness (You have to admit that Chbosky’s dialogue hasn’t exactly aged well), the film nicely takes a different route regarding adolescent angst. There is far more reliance on Charlie being able to find a support system in the form of honest to God, true friends. His romantic fixation on Sam (Emma Watson) or with anyone else is not nearly as important as his ability to make friends with people.
The performances are one of the best things the film has to offer, with Lerman, Watson, and Miller giving extraordinary performances. Lerman presents himself as awkward and self-conscious without giving way to becoming Michael Cera or Jesse Eisenberg. There’s a beautiful vulnerability and lucidity that Lerman gives that makes him Charlie. More than I could have imagined (I was a skeptic early on), Lerman renders one of the best performances in this kind of film, looking like a more sympathetic Jean-Pierre Leaud in The 400 Blows. And in a lot of ways, the best parts of the film owe a lot to Francois Truffaut’s angsty masterpiece. It may be the 400 Blows for “my generation” (as much as I hate using that phrase). Emma Watson continues to expand her repertoire as Sam, also providing a lovely vulnerability. (A note on her accent: It’s convincing and merely sounds like she’s been living in the United States for a few years.) Everyone is lauding Miller for his role, and, sure, he was great. I was not as mesmerized as everyone else (I was more satisfied with Lerman’s performance), but Miller was undoubtedly good.
Stephen Chbosky’s successful young adult novel translates to the screen as a successful teen film. Its uniqueness in approach, concentrating on the protagonist’s issues with acquiring a support system, and does so well enough that it deserves to sit next to any John Hughes film on the teen canon. Its refined look and subtlety make it, in some respects, a Truffaut-esque film (perhaps similar to the also lovely, if underseen Submarine). What Perks does best is simply be itself, much like its characters. Subtle and sweeping, Perks observes the innocuous anomalies in teen life without to succumbing to too much trite material. To be completely reductive and a little corny, somewhat like the film, Perks works.
111. Tokyo Drifter (1966) | Directed by Seijun Suzuki – B+
112. Branded to Kill (1967) | Directed by Seijun Suzuk – B
113. Alien3: Work Print Cut (1992) | Directed by David Fincher – B+
114. Tiny Furniture (2008) | Directed by Lena Dunham – B-
115. Alien3: Theatrical Cut (1992) | Directed by David Fincher – C
116. Alien: Resurrection (1997) | Directed by Jean-Pierre jeunet – C+
118. The Seventh Seal (1957) | Directed by Ingmar Bergman – A
119. Cinema Verite (2011) | Directed by Shari Springer Berman & Robert Pulcini – C
121. America Graffiti (1973) | Directed by George Lucas – A
122. Fatal Attraction (1987) | Directed by Adrian Lyne – A-
123. Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) | Directed by Charles Reisner – A-
124. The Last Metro (1980) Directed by François Truffaut – A
125. Spy Kids (2001) | Directed by Robert Rodriguez – B
126. Help! (1965) | Directed by Richard Lester – D+
127. Smiles of a Summer Night (1955) | Directed by Ingmar Bergman – A-
128. The Terminator (1984) | Directed by James Cameron – B
129. Our Hospitality (1923) | Directed by John G. Blystone and Buster Keaton – A-
130. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) | Directed by Robert Wiene – A
131. Secret Sunshine (2007) | Directed by Lee Chang-dong – A
132. Mary and Max (2007) | Directed by Adam Eliot – B
133. Submarine (2010) | Directed by Richard Ayoade – B+
134. I Am Legend (2007) | Directed by Francis Lawrence – B
135. Mouse Hunt (1997) | Directed by Gore Verbinski – B+
137. An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (1962) | Directed Robert Enrico – B
138. Citizen Kane (1941) | Directed by Orson Welles – A
139. The People vs. George Lucas (2010) | Directed by Alexandre O. Philippe – B
140. Outrage (2009) | Directed by Kirby Dick – B
141. The Lady Eve (1941) | Directed by Preston Sturgess – B+
143. Dancer in the Dark (2000) | Directed by Lars con Trier – A+
144. Jules and Jim (1962) | Directed by François Truffaut – B+
145. The Exterminating Angel (1962) | Directed by Luis Buñuel – B+
146. Friends with Benefits (2011) | Directed by Will Gluck – C+
148. FreeDogme (2000) | Directed by Roger Narbonne – B
149. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) | Directed by Joe Johnston – C
150. Blue Valentine (2010) | Directed by Derek Cianfrance – A
151. The Element of Crime (1984) | Directed by Lars von Trier – A-
152. Tranceformer: A Potrait of Lars von Trier (1997) | Directed by Stig Bjorkman – B+
153. Epidemic (1987) | Directed by Lars von Trier – D
154. Europa (1991) | Directed by Lars von Trier – A-
155. Do the Right Thing (1989) | Directed by Spike Lee – B
156. Heavenly Creatures (1994) | Directed by Peter Jackson – A-
157. Delicatessen (1991) | Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet – A-
158. An Andalusian Dog (1929) | Directed by Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí – B+
159. Zéro de Conduite (1933) | Directed by Jean Vigo – B+
160. The Navigator (1924) | Directed by Donald Crisp and Buster Keaton – A