Director: Stephen Chbosky
Genre: Drama, Romance
Rating: A
"And in this moment I swear, we are infinite."
Charlie (Lerman) is a wallflower. About to start his first day of high school he begins writing letters to an unknown "friend," unleashing his fears and worries, most of which can be summed up with the revelation that the only people he's spoken to all summer are his family. In addition to being a wallflower, Charlie is also a person with no friends. That all changes when Charlie meets two seniors, Patrick (Miller) and Sam (Watson), who invite him into their group of friends. Each member, like Charlie, is eccentric and has their own slew of issues, with The Perks of Being a Wallflower detailing the way in which they come to deal with at least some of them.
Perks is so much more than your typical coming of age drama or teen romance. It's a dark film, based on a dark book, and nicely handles the many themes present within it. I don't really want to go into the details too much, because I think if I did I would risk spoiling the movie, but I will say that while Perks deals with typical high school issues - school, fitting in, first love, etc - it also deals with much more adult issues - death and abuse being the big ones. Each of the younger characters is struggling to figure themselves out, be they a major character or a more minor one. At first it's a bit hard to realize this, that even the "popular" kids - portrayed primarily through Charlie's elder sister, Candace (Nina Dobrev), and football player Brad (Johnny Simmons) - are struggling to figure themselves out, but by the end of the movie it's clear that they're all in the same position, even if they haven't all been through the same things.
The thing that really makes this movie great, however, is the acting in itself. There's kind of two divisions in this movie; the group that gets more focus and the group that is more sidelined - this can also be seen as Charlie's friends versus Charlie's family. Lerman portrays his role absolutely perfectly. I read an interview of Chbosky's where he said "It’s such a tricky part [Charlie], because if you go just two degrees to the left, let’s say, he’s a depressing character. You go two degrees to the right, then there are no stakes. And he [Lerman] so understood that." I have to agree completely; Charlie could have been a complete disaster and there were points when the character really does make you cringe with the social awkwardness, but all in all he's just absolutely perfect. I've seen Lerman in other roles before, but none that captivated me so perfectly as Charlie did.
Miller and Watson were also perfect. Miller's performance was on the surface really far from being subtle, but at the same time really nicely conveys the many more subtle issues that surround Patrick. He is this flamboyant and outgoing character who appears to reek of self confidence, and yet on a deeper level he's just as insecure and afraid as Lerman, or any of the other characters in Perks. Much like Lerman, Miller's performance could have easily gone a degree or two in any direction and completely ruined the film, but it didn't. Watson's role was, I think, in many ways a lot less tricky. The character of Sam is a lot more how it appears; she's not all that confident and while she tries to pretend otherwise it's not hard to see that. I loved her reactions to things throughout the movie, especially to Charlie. One of my favourite moments in the entire movie is when Charlie gets stoned and Sam takes care of him. It was a bit that had me both laughing and crying and was just perfectly handled. It's an awkward moment and I thought Watson's very subtle reaction to what Charlie was saying was absolutely perfect. Kind of rounding out this group is Mae Whitman's character, Mary Elizabeth. Where Patrick and Sam are subtle, Mary Elizabeth is in your face and angry and I thought Mae Whitman did a superb job at this. The pairing of her and Charlie is kind of a stroke of genius, just because they're such great opposites.
However subtle those performances are, or are not, they're a lot more in your face and predominant. The other thing that got me about this movie was the sheer superbness of the roles that were a lot more minor, namely Charlie's family. I think I could count on one hand just how many scenes Charlie's parents, played by Kate Walsh and Dylan McDermott, have, and yet I was as wowed by them as I was any other character in the film. Walsh doesn't say much in this movie but her reactions to the things that are being said are absolutely perfect. There's one moment near the end where she's being told something and you don't need to actually hear what's being said, her reaction says it all. I can't go into saying all that I want to about Walsh and McDermott's performances, or Dobrev's for that matter, without really spoiling some of the movie so I'll leave that there.
There were two things that I didn't particularly like about this movie. One was the dating. I spent about half the movie trying to figure out just when Perks is set, which was in itself rather annoying. The issues that Perks encompasses could have easily been dealt with in a modern setting, with the possibly exception of the subplot of the tunnel song, so it didn't really need to be set during the early nineties. That being said, however, setting a film at that time isn't a big issue - so long as your viewer realizes that it's set then. Until I figured out that it wasn't set in the modern day I spent too much time questioning the costume choices, and once I did figure it out I spent a lot of time trying to figure out just when the movie was supposed to be set - time that could have been better used simply enjoying the film. This could have easily been handled, even without having it scroll across the bottom at some point. Charlie starts the movie by writing a letter to his "friend", it could have been dated. Likewise, early on he has a class that could have easily had a date written on the board - we discovered that Paul Rudd's character was named Mr. Anderson through such a tactic, so I don't see why we couldn't have figured out the date as well. The other criticism is the use of Paul Rudd and Joan Cusack. While I think both are stellar actors and enjoyed what they did I didn't think either role was properly utilized.
The thing that really makes this movie great, however, is the acting in itself. There's kind of two divisions in this movie; the group that gets more focus and the group that is more sidelined - this can also be seen as Charlie's friends versus Charlie's family. Lerman portrays his role absolutely perfectly. I read an interview of Chbosky's where he said "It’s such a tricky part [Charlie], because if you go just two degrees to the left, let’s say, he’s a depressing character. You go two degrees to the right, then there are no stakes. And he [Lerman] so understood that." I have to agree completely; Charlie could have been a complete disaster and there were points when the character really does make you cringe with the social awkwardness, but all in all he's just absolutely perfect. I've seen Lerman in other roles before, but none that captivated me so perfectly as Charlie did.
Miller and Watson were also perfect. Miller's performance was on the surface really far from being subtle, but at the same time really nicely conveys the many more subtle issues that surround Patrick. He is this flamboyant and outgoing character who appears to reek of self confidence, and yet on a deeper level he's just as insecure and afraid as Lerman, or any of the other characters in Perks. Much like Lerman, Miller's performance could have easily gone a degree or two in any direction and completely ruined the film, but it didn't. Watson's role was, I think, in many ways a lot less tricky. The character of Sam is a lot more how it appears; she's not all that confident and while she tries to pretend otherwise it's not hard to see that. I loved her reactions to things throughout the movie, especially to Charlie. One of my favourite moments in the entire movie is when Charlie gets stoned and Sam takes care of him. It was a bit that had me both laughing and crying and was just perfectly handled. It's an awkward moment and I thought Watson's very subtle reaction to what Charlie was saying was absolutely perfect. Kind of rounding out this group is Mae Whitman's character, Mary Elizabeth. Where Patrick and Sam are subtle, Mary Elizabeth is in your face and angry and I thought Mae Whitman did a superb job at this. The pairing of her and Charlie is kind of a stroke of genius, just because they're such great opposites.
However subtle those performances are, or are not, they're a lot more in your face and predominant. The other thing that got me about this movie was the sheer superbness of the roles that were a lot more minor, namely Charlie's family. I think I could count on one hand just how many scenes Charlie's parents, played by Kate Walsh and Dylan McDermott, have, and yet I was as wowed by them as I was any other character in the film. Walsh doesn't say much in this movie but her reactions to the things that are being said are absolutely perfect. There's one moment near the end where she's being told something and you don't need to actually hear what's being said, her reaction says it all. I can't go into saying all that I want to about Walsh and McDermott's performances, or Dobrev's for that matter, without really spoiling some of the movie so I'll leave that there.
There were two things that I didn't particularly like about this movie. One was the dating. I spent about half the movie trying to figure out just when Perks is set, which was in itself rather annoying. The issues that Perks encompasses could have easily been dealt with in a modern setting, with the possibly exception of the subplot of the tunnel song, so it didn't really need to be set during the early nineties. That being said, however, setting a film at that time isn't a big issue - so long as your viewer realizes that it's set then. Until I figured out that it wasn't set in the modern day I spent too much time questioning the costume choices, and once I did figure it out I spent a lot of time trying to figure out just when the movie was supposed to be set - time that could have been better used simply enjoying the film. This could have easily been handled, even without having it scroll across the bottom at some point. Charlie starts the movie by writing a letter to his "friend", it could have been dated. Likewise, early on he has a class that could have easily had a date written on the board - we discovered that Paul Rudd's character was named Mr. Anderson through such a tactic, so I don't see why we couldn't have figured out the date as well. The other criticism is the use of Paul Rudd and Joan Cusack. While I think both are stellar actors and enjoyed what they did I didn't think either role was properly utilized.
No comments:
Post a Comment