I had not intended to go to Perks of Being A Wallflower originally, until I heard that the cast was absolutely stellar (can’t really go wrong with Melanie Lynskey) and the film itself was really good.
Only one of those is true.
And you can probably guess which by my comment in parentheses.
It’s not that the film doesn’t try. It ticks all the boxes of the coming of age drama, with a loner boy, Charlie, meeting a group of misfits which includes the girl of his dreams, and, to a hip soundtrack, he slowly comes to terms with himself and dealing with his traumas in a very quick and deliberately “shocking” way. School consists of one class, in which Charlie excels, and this is run by the one teacher who just “gets” him – and it was about this stage (admittedly about 15 minutes into the film) that I told myself, “This is just like Donnie Darko! Except… not as good”.
The problem is, everything about the film just tries too hard. The writer of the book on which the film is based is the screenwriter, and the script flows like (in the words of my fellow movie watcher) an unedited slice of life story. The aforementioned teacher, highly influential in the Donnie Darko story, has absolutely no relevance to anything else going on in the film, except to point out that Charlie is bright and likes books. That’s it. The story itself seems set in the 80s purely to allow the film to utilise an 80s soundtrack and namecheck “cool” bands from the era – in almost every other instance (except for the liberal use of mixed tapes), it could be set in the “now” without too much trouble.
Charlie’s brother is, for no reason, a star footballer and his absence and return are of no relevance to anything; Charlie’s sister is completely uneven in tone, her character (and dress sense) varying wildly between star cheerleader (well, she is played by Nina Dobrev) and 1950s Mad Men housewife, hoop skirt and headband and all. Meanwhile, Charlie’s parents are, I think, meant to be strict but fair people, though Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh are given very few things to do and seem to be told “act grim” for the most part.
Charlie’s friends, given a lot more screen time, are a lot more well-rounded. Ezra Miller, as poor student and completely out Patrick, has the best part and plays his role with gusto (was he really the psycho kid in We Need To Talk About Kevin? Yes, he was! Wow!), and Emma Watson puts on a not always unconvincing American accent to play the gorgeous but not cool object of Charlie’s affection. Charlie himself, played rather well by Logan Lerman, is a bundle of nerves and awkwardness, but he never really convinces as being a different year from his compatriots, has flawless skin (as do they all) and (SPOILER ALERT) completely fails to convey what was so “shocking” about a fight in which he becomes involved – other than the fact he participated, there was nothing about the fight that I imagine would have caused everyone to suddenly stop.
But as mentioned, the cast is impressive, and I imagine that they were all lured onto the project by the prospect of being in a film as “profound” and “socially aware” as Donnie Darko (where even minor characters deserved a huge amount of kudos – remember Noah Wylie and Drew Barrymore in there? I think Melanie Lynskey’s brief appearance as Charlie’s aunt is the only one deserving that much credit here). It’s just a shame the film is nowhere near that good.
And there are shocks. The traumas in Charlie’s life are pretty heavy, though the film seems wary of actually dealing with them or drawing too much attention to them. They are there to be revealed at storyline-relevant moments and to draw gasps from the audience, not really to be issues that Charlie needs to discuss with others or that we need to see being addressed.
There is also a closing monologue before the end credits, which feels very Breakfast Club and really fails to bring things together. Has Charlie made any friends in his own year? Was he put on suspension for getting into a fight, and were his parents ever told? What did happen to Patrick and Brad’s relationship? None of these plot points seem to matter at the end, leaving the “depth” of Charlie’s final speech more paddling pool profound than oceanic.
Of course, it could just have been me. Some in the audience cried out at any shock the storyline threw at them. However, one row of youngsters (teens or early 20s) in front of us discussed with heat some of the storyline points, and not in a positive way. I think it was a sign of the poor writing that people discussed how it failed to all hang together rather than any of the “themes” it was trying to raise.
Verdict: Perks of Being a Wall Flower is a try hard Catcher in the Rye (my learned colleague told me). While the main characters are given a lot of screen time and make a good job of the rather derivative script, the background characters (Joan Cusack!) are there to look serious and get their own Donnie Darko moment – which (except for Melanie Lynskey) never comes. 6 perks out of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment