Using literature as inspiration for film has been a tactic used by filmmakers since the beginning era of film. The genres of detective fiction, horror, romance, and even Shakespearean plays have had their fair share of adaptations. In more recent years, the inspiration for many movies has come from the realm of Young Adult Fiction. Movies such as Twilight, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and The Fault in Our Stars were all contracted from their novel counterparts, have all been very successful in the box office, and have created large, loyal fan bases. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky is a novel-film combination that fits into this category, but in the adaptation there are multiple differences in characters, themes, and plot. Chbosky is both the author of the novel and the director of the film, a combination not frequently seen in film, and in my essay I want to explore the dynamic of how he uses the different mediums of novel and film to express the same story and why he makes the changes he does for the film adaptation.
The worlds of Young Adult Fiction and Teen Film are intertwined by similar themes and plots, such as love, rebellion, conformity, sexuality, and conflict with authority or parents. One big difference between the two, however, is the targeted age groups. According to Michael Cart in his article “From insider to outsider: The evolution of young adult literature,” the target audience for young adult fiction can range from twelve to twenty-five years old. The audience for teen films is similar but is typically intended to cut off at eighteen years old, the purpose being to keep the rating at PG-13 or below to encourage ticket sales. Though these novels and films are targeted towards younger audiences, a large percentage of the fanbase does end up being older, especially today with many hit films being based on young adult novels. John Green, another successful young adult novelist and author of the bestselling novel The Fault in Our Stars, wrote an article for Cosmopolitan Magazine about why he thinks adults love reading young adult fiction:
I've been a passionate adult reader of YA fiction for a decade, and what I find so compelling about the best YA fiction is its unironic emotional honesty. When you're a teenager, you're often doing so many important things for the first time — everything from falling in love to grappling with heartache and loss. You also begin to ask the big questions of humanness: What, if anything, is the meaning to all this? What are my responsibilities to myself and to others? (Green).
This idea of youth is something that Chbosky was aiming for with his film adaptation of his debut novel. In an interview with Vanity Fair Magazine, Chbosky said that he intended the film to be designed in such a way that is was both “inside and outside” the high school experience, stating “my hope was that if you were a teenager you would love [the film] because you were respected and the movie validated what you’re going through, but if you were that kid’s parent, you would love the film for the nostalgia of it. I wanted to straddle both worlds” (Handy). However, Chbosky did have to cut some major details from his novel in order to keep the adaptation appropriate for both older and younger audiences.
Stephen Chbosky is no stranger to film. His directorial debut, titled The Four Corners of Nowhere (Stephen Chbosky, 1995), premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, but ultimately wasn’t successful. He also wrote the screenplay for the film adaptation of the famous broadway musical Rent and was an executive producer for the television series Jericho (Chbosky). The Perks of Being a Wallflower is Chbosky’s debut novel, and it is written in epistolary form. The novel was published in 1999 and it follows Charlie, the narrator’s alias, through his first year of high school. The first letter Charlie writes to anonymous “Dear Friend” sets up the tone for the rest of the novel: he discusses how his friend had committed suicide in the spring and how his Aunt Helen, who he describes as his favorite person in the world, has also passed away. In the coming letters, Charlie talks about how his English professor, Bill, has encouraged him to “participate,” which motivates him to talk to a senior from his shop class, Patrick, and Patrick’s step-sister, Sam, for whom Charlie falls for hard. The novel then whirlwinds through the ups and downs of teenage life, mixing the typical coming of age story with mature topics such as drug abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, depression, abortion, homosexuality, and suicide. These topics are the reasons that the novel has appeared on American Library Association’s “Frequently Challenged Books of the Twenty-First Century List” at number 8 in both 2013 and 2014 (Missing: Find a Banned Book). However, the creation of the film adaptation gave the novel much more attention and boosted its sales to the point that it was on the New York Times Best Sellers List for multiple weeks in 2012 and 2013 (Best Sellers). The film adaptation by the same name, The Perks of Being a Wallflower (Stephen Chbosky, 2012), tones the controversial themes down notably, most likely to avoid an R rating, but in turn, it downplays the seriousness of the novel’s overall intended meaning.
In an interview with Complex magazine, Chbosky tells Tara Aquino that the idea for a film adaptation had always been on his mind: “It was always my plan. I thought of the title 21 years ago and I always envisioned this moment. I knew it was going to be a book and then I just had to make this movie because this is my lifelong dream” (Aquino). This information is interesting considering the way that Chbosky formatted his novel, in a series of letters. There has been some criticism of the underdevelopment of the concept of Charlie writing his letters to a person who remains anonymous in both the novel and the film, one critic saying that “there are some shaky transitions from page to screen...and the purpose behind the letters Charlie is writing to an unnamed friend remains a bit vague” (Ogle). However, even though it was his dream to see the novel turn into film, he says in the Complex interview that he never wanted to give away the rights to the film:
My agent said we would average a call a week, whether it was from producers optioning it or a writer or director wanting to adapt... there were many offers, but I couldn’t let it go. I don’t know how to sell something this personal. And especially what the book meant to the fans—I couldn’t let it go to anyone else. I owed the fans a movie that was worthy of their love for the book (Aquino).
This is what lead Chbosky to ultimately direct the movie himself: to keep it a somewhat faithful adaptation that would carry the same emotional weight that the novel does. The novel is a tragic, melancholy coming-of-age drama, so it is interesting, then, how many critics lump the film adaptation in with other Teen Films, often comparing it to The Breakfast Club (John Hughes, 1985), Heathers (Michael Lehmann, 1988), and Clueless (Amy Heckerling, 1995) instead of with more serious dramas, which the novel’s content would create.
So what went wrong? Both the novel and the film focus on Charlie and his struggles but the development of his character is handled in different ways. This change in character is what I think takes the adaptation from what could have been a serious drama to what IMDb labels a “comedy-drama with romance” (IMDb). Novel Charlie cries frequently, sees a therapist, and has moments where he is afraid of his own anger and strength. Film Charlie, played by actor Logan Lerman, most known for his title-role in the Percy Jackson films, is stronger emotionally, more socially adaptable, and speaks out at times when Novel Charlie does not. For example, towards the beginning of the film, Charlie’s English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd), says to him, “You know, I heard you had a tough time last year. But they say if you make one friend on your first day you're doing okay.” to which Charlie (Logan Lerman) replies, “Thank you, sir, but if my English teacher is the only friend I make today, that would be sorta depressing.” This outspokenness, sarcasm, and slight rudeness is something that Novel Charlie would never display, especially towards his English teacher, called Bill in the novel, who ends up being an important figure and friend in Charlie’s life. Charlie changes from a socially inept boy with deep emotional issues in the novel to a quirky, socially awkward type in the film. Chbosky has said in multiple interviews that The Perks of Being a Wallflower is somewhat autobiographical and that he feels he has a very personal connection with Charlie. In an interview with LA Youth Magazine, Chbosky says “I do see life the way Charlie does. Actually, it was writing the book that made me understand I had so many of these thoughts and feelings about people and the world” (Beisch). This could be one of the reasons that Charlie seems so different in the film than in the novel: in the film, we get to see Lerman act as Charlie in the way that Chbosky himself realized the character, rather than making up our own Charlie as readers. Also, Chbosky wrote Charlie’s character when he was 26 and started the movie when he was in his late 30’s. In his Vanity Fair interview, Chbosky says “When I wrote the novel I was, I felt, really close to those high-school years, that world of firsts… But later when I was writing the film, it was almost like Method acting work to go back and remember what it really felt like to be in high school” (Hardy). This time gap could have had a huge effect on the development of Charlie in the film, especially since Chbosky might have been looking at his character with less sympathetic, mature eyes, which would explain why Charlie is so tough emotionally for the majority of the film.
A big topic of criticism of the film is the choice in casting. Chbosky was involved firsthand with the casting of Charlie, as with Sam and Patrick and he claims in many interviews that he chose his characters based on if they seemed like the characters to him. It seems as though Chbosky choice these big name actors among the younger audiences in order to give his movie some attention. Lerman (Charlie) was just off of Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (Chris Columbus, 2010), in which he stole the hearts of much of the Percy Jackson book series’ fanbase and Ezra Miller (Patrick) was also becoming a notable actor for his title-role in the thriller We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay, 2011). The most notable star in the film however is Emma Watson (Sam), most known for her lead role in the Harry Potter film series. One criticism made by Jake Wilson in his review for The Age was that the leading trio were too attractive, saying “there’s something wrong with a film about misfits where everyone is good-looking and poised.” By making the characters themselves physically attractive, Chbosky incidentally makes the characters’ actions also attractive to the young audience that watches the film adaptation. By leaving out some of the character flaws seen in the novel (such as Sam and Patrick’s chain smoking habit and Charlie’s history with violent and depressive episodes) the characters become idealized “cool kids” that do whatever they want, whenever they want. Wilson goes on to say that “the script [for the film] is transparently fake at almost every moment, congratulating the gang on their non-conformity while soft-pedaling any aspect of adolescent behaviour - drug use, sex, profanity - that might upset the American mainstream.” Young, impressionable teenagers who watch this film suddenly think that it is “cool” and “edgy” to have depression or a history of sexual abuse because of the hip attitude that the characters’ display throughout the film, along with a lack of any real punishment or reparation for their behavior.
An interesting choice that Chbosky made was to change the ending of the film adaptation from the original ending in the novel. The novel begins to spiral downward when Charlie, while becoming intimate with Sam, starts to have uncomfortable feelings and visions of his Aunt Helen. Charlie tells Sam he isn’t ready and Sam can tell something is deeply disturbing Charlie so she offers him to stay on her couch for the night. During the night, Charlie has a dream about his Aunt Helen touching him the way Sam was touching him. The next morning Sam leaves for college and Charlie goes home and begins to have a mental breakdown. The story ends with an Epilogue of Charlie in the hospital having the realization that he was sexually molested by his Aunt as a child and he comes to terms with why people do what they do. The film changes this dynamic to a slightly more positive one. In the intimate scene with Sam (Watson), Charlie (Lerman) starts to feel off and Sam asks if he is okay. He says he is, they continue kissing, lay down on the bed (out of view of the camera angle), and the screen fades to black, with the next scene starting the morning Sam leaves. The way this scene is shot implies that Charlie and Sam went “all the way” or at least way farther than Novel Charlie and Sam. The next morning, before Sam leaves, she kisses Charlie on the lips when she hugs him goodbye, something that doesn’t happen in the novel. The movie also ends with Charlie standing up in the tunnel, a parallel to the tunnel scene in the beginning of the film, and when he leans down, him and Sam share another passionate kiss. Although both endings include the Aunt Helen reveal, the film uses the final reveal for a shocking emotional punchline without any previous hints, whereas the novel consistently drops clues that there is a history of abuse in Charlie’s life (his therapist consistently asking about his childhood, his father’s alcohol dependency, the backstory of Aunt Helen being physically abused by her father and husbands, and the rape Charlie witnesses as a young child). The film makes the reveal even more shocking, but by leaving out the other elements of abuse in Charlie’s life, in comparison, it makes the situation feel a lot less serious. Also, by changing Charlie’s ability to be with Sam sexually and forming a relationship between the two that wasn’t in the novel, Chbosky ends the film with a more hopeful ending than that of the novel.
Another change made between the novel and film is the song that plays in the famous “tunnel scene.” After leaving the homecoming dance, in the novel, the main trio of Charlie, Sam, and Patrick ride through a highway tunnel that leads to the downtown of their city. Sam stands in the back of the pickup truck as “Landslide” by Fleetwood Mac plays from the radio. He then delivers the most famous line of the novel, which he thinks but does not say aloud: “And in that moment, I swear we were infinite” (Chbosky 39). In the adaptation, “Heroes” by David Bowie is the song that plays from the radio and Charlie actually says the line “I feel infinite” aloud to Patrick who nods his head and turns up the volume. This change from the sorrowful “Landslide” to the upbeat, epic “Heroes” is a big unintended metaphor for the change in tone from the novel to the film adaptation. Chbosky uses these different mediums, of literary text and film, to express the same story but in different ways. We as the reader and audience still receive the coming-of-age story of Charlie and his struggles to come to terms with friends, relationships, and childhood abuse, but the tones of the two ultimately end up different. While the novel is more melancholy and depressive, the film is more whimsical and hopeful, and the basis for this change has to do most directly with Chbosky and his decision to direct the film himself and the choices and cuts he made while doing so.
No comments:
Post a Comment