Whether you call it the “high-school” or “teen film” genre, films about angsty outsider kids trying to fit in are about as ubiquitous in cinema as their romcom and dramedy genre counterparts. Maybe their success lies in the way teen films manage to combine the best of their genre competitors by distilling their complex narratives into the simplest “boy meets girl” essence. Simple, cliched films like “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “The Breakfast Club” and “Clueless” stand out from their competitors by being both kitsch and timeless. One can tell from Stephen Chbosky’s wannabe-Facebook-status dialogue that he was aiming “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” at the same mark. Unfortunately for Mr. Chbosky, who adapted and directed “Wallflower” from his own novel, I can’t see “#WEAREINFINITE” trending on Twitter anytime soon.
From the moment the first notes of its self-consciously retro soundtrack waft into the cinema, “Wallflower” force-feeds viewers an inferior, poorly made version of a beloved genre. The protagonist, Charlie (Logan Lerman), is a pretty ordinary suburban kid. He lives in upper-middle class middle-America so dull and charming that it might have been co-written by David Axelrod and Beth Myers. But (surprise, surprise) brewing not so deeply under this cozy neighborhood built of recycled American Beauty sets is a hotbed of repressed teen angst. Charlie is steeling himself for his first day of school by imagining it’s his last. Eventually, Charlie meets some nice friends, seniors Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson). Patrick is charismatic and gay. Sam is beautiful and screwed up because of a history of bad boyfriends — a personality trait the equally good-looking Paul Rudd, I mean, Mr. Anderson, tells us is due to the fact that we “expect the love we think we deserve.” Sam is a dame in need of saving, but does Charlie have the confidence in himself to do it? Presumably, we’ll get the answer when Chbosky reveals what the perks of being an angry, suicidal wallflower are.
By the 20-minute mark, “Wallflower” has all its pieces in play: the two good-guy friends, the messed-up protagonist, the unsympathetic parents and the suicide backstory. Cliche? Well, yes. But cliche isn’t what’s wrong with this movie. Cliches are the vocabulary of many of the greatest works of popular fiction. “Jurassic Park,” “Star Wars” and “Clueless” were all riddled with cliches, but where they diverge from “Wallflower” is in the respect for their audiences. It is not enough to update a genre by merely pushing the boat out by earnestly depicting homosexuality, drug use and domestic and sexual violence. As admirable as these may be, they’re surface glosses upon a tired and under-thought product. Chbosky gravely underestimates his audience if he thinks they can be fooled by bells and whistles — or rather, gays and drugs. High-schoolers who are shocked by gay kids are either attending school in 1912 or looking for careers as Todd Akin’s speechwriter.
The teen film is a trap for first-time filmmakers. While it may be derided for its unashamed entreaties to the masses, it is this very populism that fills the genre with pitfalls. It is almost like a great sports game in which every spectator knows the rules and is more than willing to call the players out on them. It was Chbosky’s challenge to craft something interesting and affecting within the confines of his genre. Instead, “Wallflower” feels slack and sloppy, and quite without perk. By the time the film drew to its much delayed close, the only hashtag I could think of was “#betterlucknexttime.”
Contact Thomas at [email protected]
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
interestingly, it is not about the perfection of the movie but the message itself and how/if it was conveyed well…. apparently you missed this . (but excellent job filling the role of “prentious Cal student-film-critic”, though i would only point out that you feel a little cliche, tired.)
Actually, it turns out you don’t have to go as far back as 1912. I can tell you for a certainty that as recently as the late 1980s, there were NO openly gay students at Berkeley High School, even though it was probably the most liberal high school in the country. In the all-white 1990s suburb where this story took place (clearly dated by the fact that people still made mix tapes for each other), I find it probable that Patrick would have experienced a lot of bullying, and that his boyfriend would be beaten up by his father for being gay. Given that gay kids are still bullied today, I disagree with your statement that “high-schoolers who are shocked by gay kids are either attending school in 1912…”. And this movie was not attempting to shock the viewers by his being gay, but by how difficult his classmates and teachers made his life because he was gay.
I loved this movie, though I do think there are also legitimate critiques that could be made (e.g., we do not live in an all-white society, surely). But your review seems to me to miss the point. Sam is not screwed up because of a history of bad boyfriends. She had a history of bad boyfriends BECAUSE she was screwed up– or, more specifically, because she had been molested as a child. Charlie does not have unsympathetic parents; he hides his struggles from them because he doesn’t want them to worry. In fact, he has hidden some of his struggles from himself. This is not a mainstream boy-meets-girl story of teen angst, and this film was not trying to be The Breakfast Club or Clueless. For one thing, those movies were not really about outsiders trying to fit in. I loved them, too, but this is a totally different genre. This is a story about being passive vs. active in life.
I think you were dissatisfied with the film because you went into it with the wrong expectations; if you wanted kitsch and irony, you were in the wrong cinema.
(this review was posted so long ago that I doubt anyone will read this, but I felt compelled to write anyway.)
excellent
thank you
From a journalist’s perspective, I think you should have quoted someone who, contrary to your opinion, really liked Perks and why it struck a chord within them. It’s good that you were able to share your views on a well-respected forum such as the Daily Cal, but it would have been better had you gotten some perspective from the other side. Incidentally, I happen to disagree; I think The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a timeless, universal movie that makes people feel that they are not alone. Not just teens, but grown-ups too (and if you don’t believe me, you should have gone to the movie theater I was in…30-year-olds were genuinely bawling and laughing their heads off at the same time). A movie that brings people together and gives meaning to life (in what I feel to be a realistic, if a bit idealized, fashion) is enough for me.
By the way, I realize my comment is a bit late…but I hope you still read it and hopefully see what I’m getting at. I do appreciate the Daily Cal – look forward to more A&E articles this year!
we ACCEPT the love we think we deserve. clearly you don’t get it
Damn, someone needs a hug and the cynicism sucked out of his veins.
meanest review ever