Skip to main content

You see things and you understand. You're a wallflower.


The Perks of Being a Wallflower
(2012)

Any movie, in particular a teen movie, that has a tagline as pretentious as “We are infinite” is asking for a bruising. But it becomes difficult to malign one that also tackles its central theme as sensitively as this one does, and which grants us a trio of lead performances that are so accomplished.

Being wholly unfamiliar with Stephen Chobsky’s cult novel (which he adapts and directs), I can nevertheless see why – if the film is indicative – it garnered a following. It ticks all the requisite boxes of teen dysfunction and alienation while giving its main protagonist a very real and aberrant issue to deal with. It’s the latter that really separates this from the likes of a John Hughes picture, where the average teen’s inflated sense of their own torments lacks perspective.

Which is not to say that much of Chobsky’s film isn’t informed by the same full-blown romanticising of the coming-of-age experience as Hughes’ films (it’s setting too, in the early ‘90s, lends it a certain kinship to those ‘80s movies). I suspect the average, unremarkable teenager will look at the world and experiences that Logan Lerman’s Charlie is invited to partake of and think “if only”.

It isn’t long before he’s experiencing magical musical, pharmaceutical and romantic discoveries; his initial social reticence proves no barrier to this. And his new-found friends are worryingly enlightened and sensitive to the point where you’re reminded that many of Hughes’ films had actors well into their 20s playing teens (here, the performers are more age-appropriate). One wonders what he will have left to learn and discover when he eventually goes to university, as he has seen it all and done it all. He’ll just have to become a writer and spend the rest of his days writing about being a writer.

One might suggest it’s rather manipulative to hinge the film’s twist revelation on the murky past experience of Charlie, although this sort of thing isn’t exactly new. Redford’s Ordinary People comes to mind, albeit the problems of the Timothy Hutton character there were interrogated directly. Here, Chobsky could almost have gotten away with never making the reveal and just allowing Charlie to remain somewhat shy and inscrutable.

There are problems with some of the implications of the narrative choices; Charlie’s blackouts and consequent violence take on a heroic function at one point, and serve to mend the bridges he had managed to burn with his friends. It also seems unlikely that, however enraged, diminutive Charlie could inflict punishment on a room full of jocks. Unless he was channelling Percy Jackson. Still, if only the average weedy geek could use extreme violence to protect the oppressed and make friends; wouldn’t that be a great message to send youngsters?

I’ll admit that I was uncertain when the film was set at first (I must have glazed over if there was any cue card or introductory voiceover explaining the period). While the presence of The Smiths (snorts derisively) and cassette tapes were fairly evidential, this was compounded by the inexplicable cluelessness of the main characters not just in being unable to identify Heroes but in not knowing that David Bowie was singing it. I mean, really.

Logan Lerman, Emma Watson and We Need to Talk About Kevin's Ezra Miller are all laudable. If Lerman has the Andrew McCarthy role, Miller has Judd Nelson one (I suppose Watson is more the Demi Moore in St Elmo’s Fire type, he says, struggling for further ‘80s parallels). He and Watson play stepsiblings who are so flamboyantly with-it they regularly perform in Rocky Horror retinues. You can see that within the next year or so Miller will be one of the most in-demand young actors around. He has charisma coming out the wazoo and is as warm and hyperbolic here as he was cold and icily sinister in Kevin.

The supporting turns are all appealingly unshowy. Paul Rudd makes a believable teacher, of the unbelievably “best and most understanding ever” variety. Effects wizard Tom Savini is amusingly cast as a woodwork teacher.

Chobsky allows the story to lead for the most part, and wisely so; it is “big” enough already, without any attention-grabbing technical flourishes (a good example is the Heroes scene, depicting the giddy heights of nostalgic teen dream reminiscence).

I’m sure The Perks of Being a Wallflower will take its place as a perennial teen classic but, in its own way, it is as much of a fantasy version of teen angst as The Breakfast Club (maybe this is why none of these kids sit around watching Pretty in Pink – more likely they’re all much too highbrow for that sort of thing); indeed, the use of Heroes is a little to redolent of that film’s Don’t You (Forget About Me)

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery (2017)
(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

How many galoshes died to make that little number?

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
(SPOILERS) Looney Tunes: Back in Action proved a far from joyful experience for director Joe Dante, who referred to the production as the longest year-and-a-half of his life. He had to deal with a studio that – insanely – didn’t know their most beloved characters and didn’t know what they wanted, except that they didn’t like what they saw. Nevertheless, despite Dante’s personal dissatisfaction with the finished picture, there’s much to enjoy in his “anti-Space Jam”. Undoubtedly, at times his criticism that it’s “the kind of movie that I don’t like” is valid, moving as it does so hyperactively that its already gone on to the next thing by the time you’ve realised you don’t like what you’re seeing at any given moment. But the flipside of this downside is, there’s more than enough of the movie Dante was trying to make, where you do like what you’re seeing.

Dante commented of Larry Doyle’s screenplay (as interviewed in Joe Dante, edited by Nil Baskar and G…