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

Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.