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

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for