'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' vs 'The Fault in Our Stars'

Bothing coming of age stories based on popular young adult novels, with a similar three-person dynamic at its helm, and two first acts of relative lightheartedness with a rather solemn third act. Who wins this round?

Directing: 

Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower vs Josh Boone, The Fault in Our Stars

I like that the author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Mr Chbosky, got to adapt his own source material to the silver screen. Something like that is never a guarantee of success, but there's a certain comfort in the idea of an author having control over how he wants the fruits of his or her labours to translate to the cinematic form. Now from a directing perspective it's not perfect. Not everything in the novel translates to the silver screen, some of the humour in the novel is lost through the transition, some of the characters are diminished into caricatures, and there's not as naturalistic a feel as the original novel had. Nevertheless, these reservations are nitpicks as even upon re-watches, the film holds up as a very watchable, immersive and in many ways quite refreshing high school dramedy. The Fault in Our Stars, on the other hand, I have not read the original source material it was based upon, and based on the film I'm not overly keen on doing so. Josh Boone's direction is not exactly the biggest culprit in my lack of enjoyment of the film, but it certainly doesn't help the both drab and overblown nature of the material he's working with that his directorial touches are at best, workmanlike, and at worst sanctimonious in the wrong sort of way. Scenes like the Anne Frank House sequence would never have worked for me, no matter what, but a good young adult director like James Ponsoldt (whose The Spectacular Now features a much better similar storyline and a better Shailene Woodley performance) might've found a way around it.

Winner: Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower 

Our Lead:
Logan Lerman as Charlie Kelmeckis vs Shailene Woodley as Hazel Grace Lancaster

Woodley's performance is actually one of the best things about The Fault in Our Stars. She has a few iffy moments in the beginning and at the end when she's dealing with the more extreme emotional depths of the character, and it's not for lack of talent that I feel she flounders in these moments, but rather the script which demands way too much of her character at these points that she overacts quite a bit. Most of the time however, she's perfectly fine and engaging as our spunky and charismatic heroine Hazel fighting against terminal thyroid cancer. I particularly liked her final speech to Gus (Ansel Elgort) about their time spent together, and her conversations with her mother (Laura Dern), as she effectively conveys both the loving and joyous side of the young girl with the young woman haunted by her experiences and ailments, and the ailment of the love of her life. 

Having said that, she's got nothing against Lerman's near-flawless performance as Charlie. I'm no fan of Lerman in general, finding him to waste roles with potential in the likes of 3:10 to Yuma and Fury, and finding him a bit bland and awkward as an onscreen presence otherwise. These weaknesses may have actually played into the strength of his performance here. Lerman disappears into the quite, timid wallflower pretty well, and doesn't overplay the introversion of his character by making Charlie initially seem just like a nice kid who needs someone to help him open up. The gradual transition he undergoes into a more confident and happy young man is dealt with very subtly and realistically by the script and Lerman, as he never entirely loses that edge of awkwardness and shyness, but rather just begins to grow out of his shell through his friends while still being kind and somewhat naive. The most remarkable aspect of his work here, however, are his suggestions of his past trauma. The way the film reveals this aspect of his past isn't perfect and a bit over-the-top, but Lerman never is and makes his character's slow descent into a breakdown extremely harrowing and heartbreaking, and his subsequent slow recovery so affecting. It's a great performance I'd love to have put in my 2012 Best Actor ranking were it not already so competitive. 

Winner: Logan Lerman as Charlie Kelmeckis

The 'Manic Pixie ___':

Emma Watson as Sam vs Ansel Elgort as Augustus "Gus" Waters

Out of the central trio, Emma Watson's performance as Sam, the beautiful and kooky high school senior who becomes a very important part of Charlie's life and emits equal parts joy and sorrow from him, was one I didn't take to much first time round. I just didn't find her overly convincing in a role I felt sure should've gone to Imogen Poots, as she felt a bit miscast initially as the 'bad' girl turned good who likes to go wild and have a good time and 'good music'. Her performance has however, grown on me through re-watches. I still think she's a bit awkward in certain scenes, especially in terms of portraying Sam's somewhat more obnoxious and selfish character traits, or in any scene where Sam really lets loose. I do think she's great however, whenever the character and performance tones down a bit, especially in the scenes where she's alone with Charlie and reveals her innermost fears and neuroses. Watson as an actress I've always felt is weak when she 'tries' too hard, and makes too much of an 'effort' to express what her character is feeling. When she opts for a more naturalistic and charismatic performance like in many scenes here, she's actually really, really talented.

Anyway, even if I hadn't re-watched Watson recently, I'd still give the edge to her as Elgort is pretty bad as the young man supposed to infuse energy and fervour into the life of Hazel in The Fault in Our Stars. Elgort is probably the biggest black hole of charm in this sort of role that someone like a young Emile Hirsch, Anton Yelchin, heck even the limited Michael Cera would've made more of an impression with the character of Augustus. Now I'll grant the writing behind the character is terrible to start with, lines like 'I love it when you talk medical to me' could not be made to sound anything more than dumb even by Laurence Olivier, but at least Olivier would try to make it sound interesting. Elgort makes no attempt, and I'd say this is more a lazy and somewhat obnoxious performance more than anything. I don't know if Elgort has more up his sleeves in terms of talent, his future casting in Edgar Wright's Baby Driver would suggest perhaps so, but based on this performance whenever I see him onscreen, I immediately feel like shouting into the void, and that oblivion is inevitable, and that we're all doomed.

Winner: Emma Watson as Sam

The 'Pucky Comic Relief':

Ezra Miller as Patrick vs Nat Woolf as Isaac

One of the more sensitively handled parts of The Perks of Being a Wallflower were the homosexuality themes. It would've been very easy to hit us over the head with them, but as they were presented it felt naturally integrated into the plot. Ezra Miller is an actor I've only seen in his mixed bag of a performance in We Need to Talk About Kevin, and his cameos as The Flash in Batman vs Superman and Suicide Squad. I'm not entirely sure about whether he'll be a good Flash/Barry Allen or not, the trailer for Justice League didn't give away all that much, but it seems like he'll be doing his usual slightly comedic, fast-talking routine. Will it work in the DC Universe? That remains to be seen, but it certainly works very well in Perks as Patrick, who's actually a very tricky character to play and write. Patrick kind of has to be both the comedic relief of the film, but also a part of some of its darkest themes. Miller handles these two sides of his character very well. He's very sweet and charming as the extroverted side of Patrick, I particularly enjoy every one of his reactions to people calling him 'Nothing', his declarations that he is 'Below Average!!', and of course his chemistry with Watson and Lerman. In particular, the scene where he tries to approach Charlie only to be gently turned down is probably my favourite scene in the film. The serious moments of the film involving the bullying and his relationship with Brad (Johnny Simmons) are also well done, not nearly as remarkable but I thought he did a convincing enough job with those scenes.

Woolf, on the other hand, is not very good as Isaac, the comedic relief in a film seriously in need of some laughs. He's not nearly as bad as Elgort, and there are a few okay moments in his performance, like his funeral eulogy. Mostly however, he's quite forgettable and a bit obnoxious, which I also somewhat fault the writing behind the character, as it almost makes too much out of the character's blindness to provide ground for humour. Woolf would prove to be much better, though still somewhat overshadowed, as a more straightforward teen lead in Paper Towns, so he's not a bad actor, I'd just say this was a bad role and that he merely could not overcome it.

Winner: Ezra Miller as Patrick 

The Ensemble:

(deleted scene, I couldn't find any proper ones)

Here's finally an area where both films can be somewhat competitive. The Fault in Our Stars has two pretty decent supporting turns in the form of Laura Dern's Mrs Lancaster, and Willem Dafoe's cynical asshole author Peter van Houten. Neither gets a particularly good role to work with, van Houten in partiuclar is just a bag of drunken angry author cliches thrown into a bag. Dern is a very nice and comofrting presence and Dafoe is quite entertaining if one-note, playing his role almost satirically, and though the film doesn't build up his character's arc particularly well he's kind of affecting in his final scene showing a sobered changed man. Everyone else in the cast is kind of forgettable.

As for The Perks of Being a Wallflower, no one really stands out from the ensemble, nor should they, but everyone is perfectly fine. I particularly liked the casting of two Scott Pilgrim vs the World alumni in the form of Johnny Sims and Mae Whitman, and they made the paper-thin characters of jock and talkative punk girl more memorable than they'd have otherwise been. You also have Paul Rudd who's cast perfectly if very briefly as a rather swell English teacher who offers Charlie some solid quotable advice, in particular 'we accept the love we think we deserve'. Nina Dobrev as Charlie's sister is perhaps the best of the lot as in limited time she makes quite a nice dynamic with her onscreen brother, and I wish they'd left more of her original scenes in the film as her deleted subplot is actually pretty well done.

In this regard, I guess I'd have to give the edge to The Fault in Our Stars since overall Dafoe and Dern do make a bigger impression than the Perks supporting players.

Winner: The Fault in Our Stars

(note: in terms of cinematography, lighting, production design etc it's neither film's preoccupation, rightfully so I guess, and they're both fine enough).

Screenplay:

The screenplay to The Perks of Being a Wallflower is perhaps its strongest assets, since the novel is so good, and bar a few little missteps here and there it pretty much works perfectly for the film. I particularly like how Charlie's narration translated to the silver screen, and also how the zinger lines never feel like just zinger lines, but are built up to well by the storyline and other character's dialogues. One aspect of the script and novel that I've always loved is that the friendship between Charlie and his new squad isn't overly swift and forced, it's developed slowly from an initial awkwardness like all first encounters generally are, and into a very beautiful friendship that works its way into a lovely final scene, even if it does take significant suspension of belief to believe that such music-obsessed teens would take so long to find out who wrote and sang Heroes. The Fault in Our Stars on the other hand has a terrible screenplay. I've mentioned Gus' dumb seductive one-liners and his discussions about love, have I mentioned his unlit cigar metaphor? No? Less said about that the better. Most characters are very one-note and caricatured, and the story when you get down to it is kind of just Love Story but with both sides having illness, and it has none of the emotional heft of that original film. I never felt properly emotionally invested at any point of Gus and Hazel's relationship, whereas I remained fully immersed in the plot of The Perks of Being a Wallflower throughout due to the realistic and memorable dialogue, even though the plot itself is also quite routine.

Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Editing:

Perhaps the feeling's due more to me not caring for the film at all than actual editing, but most scenes in The Fault in Our Stars overstay their welcome. I hate to say it, but the ending drags on too long, a more succint emotional impact would have been made if it had been trimmed down a bit. Scenes that should develop character and dynamics like the egging scene just feel extraneous not only to the plot but the run-time. The Perks of Being a Wallflower has a few stretches that are oddly edited, Charlie's breakdown would have benefited from a little less flair and more focus on Lerman's performance. Overall, however, it's solidly edited, and I actually love the way the school prom scene and Charlie's defence of Patrick against school bullies, are handled.

Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Soundtrack:

No contest. The Fault in Our Stars has a few nice songs by good singers and artists like Ed Sheeran, Birdy, but The Perks of Being a Wallflower has good ol' 'Come on Eileen' (I love how the song matches when Charlie tentatively moves towards the dancefloor) and 'Heroes' which are PERFECTLY implemented into the tone of the film (although again, doubtful such musically informed teens would take so long to find out about David Bowie).

Winner: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Winner: 

The Perks of Being a Wallflower 7, The Fault in Our Stars 1