Typewriter and Mixtapes:

Perks of Being a Wallflower and the nostalgia that comes along
by Cheeno Marlo Sayuno

We accept the love we think we deserve.

The movie adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s “Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a hard subject for a film review. The thing is, with Chbosky being the the screenwriter and director of the movie, the book was most likely followed. It is overall a good movie because the book is a good book that sends your emotion into a roller coaster ride, making you inspired then confused then hopeful then sympathetic then loved then nostalgic. It affects the reader, and if a book does so, then it is somehow a good one.

The only problem we usually encounter in book-adapted films is the tendency to not follow the major story line of the book. Except for very minor changes, it wasn’t at all this book’s problem (e.g., the part where Charlie was to read to everyone the poem was cut. I was expecting it to be a moment for him. Also, his siblings’ story lines were cut short, which was forgivable).

Chbosky tried as much as he can to incorporate a lot of parts from the book. His trick was the transitions that was creatively executed while moving through the story.

If you have read the book and felt goosebumps and nostalgia that comes from somewhere deep, you would feel in the movie just the same thing. In “Hunger Games,” the book was strictly followed in the film, but since I have read the book, the film was just OK for me. Good, it followed the book. Nothing more. But in “Perks of Being a Wallflower,” even if I have already read the book, I felt the emotion all over again. Thus, the movie was effective in itself that it doesn’t rely much on the book to induce the same effect. OK, you like the story, but it is just not the story that made you like it. You like the movie not because it was well played and did not try on adding more than what it is in the book or completely changing major story lines. You would like the film because it affects you. It affects you deep within.

The acting of Logan Lerman was very commendable because he embodied who Charlie is. He was naturally awkward and was outrageous when he had to act so, i.e., when high. He speaks intellectually like Charlie. There might be some parts where Lerman is acting out of character that he becomes more than what Charlie should be, but we can charge this to Charlie’s development as a character.

The portrayal of Sam was exactly how I saw her in the book (although Emma Watson’s major problem, if any, would be her accent that is still British in nature).

There are a lot of great scenes that it would be hard to choose. I like the parts when Charlie was starting to have his visions of Aunt Helen again after he sent San off. He was really in his moment and the scene was given justice, matching the camera level play and all the edits.

In the end, the film adaptation reminded me of a lot of things that we would learn from the book. We ought to participate in the world in front of us. If we don’t, we would sink into the background and no one will notice us. Love comes in packages that we least expect, but the love we give is not necessarily what will be received. We might think that we are doing things for the one we love by just letting them be happy, even when it means that you have to get out of the picture, but sometimes, we have to fight for our love if that’s what we really want. We have to treasure the moments that we have, no matter how big or small, because when they’re gone, we can never have them back except for the memories that we ought to keep close in our heart.

Above all, friendship and love in any degree are things that we should share with others. Do not treat others negatively just because of petty things, maybe because of what you hear from other people or what is seen in the outside. Know them deep inside, because we will never know what we are missing.