The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
Stephen Chbosky brings his much-loved coming-of-age novel to life
Director: Stephen
Chbosky
Cast: Logan
Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Paul Rudd
Plot: Lonely
freshman Charlie (Lerman) attends high school as a friendless, troubled,
aspiring writer. Haunted by ‘visions’ of traumatic past events, he soon finds
solace in an eccentric group of friends, including Sam (Watson) and Patrick (Miller).
FEW coming-of-age
films remember the 90s in such a favourable light. For the 80s, there was the
Breakfast Club. The 60s? Quadrophenia. Though arguably not as great as its
predecessors, The Perks of Being a
Wallflower depicts the 90s as a truly great decade in which to be young – combining
the swinging sixties with the spirit of subsequent decades, whilst exploring
individuality as freely as fraternity. What Perks
does at its best is communicate the complications faced by those youths of
the out- crowd, particularly Charlie, who suffers from an undisclosed condition
that can be repressed by getting busy ‘participating’ (as he describes) and
writing anonymous letters.
Perks’ strength
is in its script’s tenacity to entertain. At no point does it become tedious or
drab – even through its weaker moments. This is most likely the effect of
Chbosky’s input as writer (both novel and screenplay) and director, resulting
in a creative monopoly that drives the film towards its successes. The casting is
near-perfect, too. The talents of the main three actors breathe life into the
script – Lerman is ideally cast as the awkward 15 year old Charlie ambling
through high school, making friends with his English teacher on the first day,
Watson as the sweet, spirited but naïve music-lover Sam and Miller as Patrick, the
(standout) energetic, overly camp yet extremely likeable gay stepbrother of
Sam. Together, these elements form a very fruity cocktail which becomes the
essence of the film. So far, so good.
Later on, though, it becomes apparent that the film’s
pace is more akin to that of a rollercoaster, and though this is an inevitable
consequence of where the narrative has been heading from the start, you can’t
help but feel that it all comes on a little suddenly. At this point, a great script
that has made efficient use of its subtlety struggles to adapt to a narrative
U-turn. This is followed by an all too convenient outcome to one of the chief
character’s stories, falling in favour of another’s. But where Perks short-changes itself is in its
hypocrisy concerning deep philosophy – early on, a peripheral character is
asked if he writes poetry, his reply being “poetry writes me”. Intentionally ridiculous,
of course, yet then the tagline “we are infinite” creeps its way into the
dialogue. The film’s utilisation of depth has double standards, it seems.
It is saved ultimately by a decent script otherwise and
fabulous performances, and something useful lies within every character. Their
development, and the mystery surrounding Charlie in particular, keeps The Perks of Being a Wallflower viewers
curious enough to see it to its end.
Verdict: Great
performances all round and a thoughtful, well written script compensate for any
shortcomings. It is, however, an enjoyable film at its greatest moments. ★★★
