From Print to Screen

Stephen Chbosky’s novel The Perks of Being A Wallflower is one of my all time favorite books. Ever since I heard the rumors (circa 2010) that Emma Watson would be taking on the role of Sam, I was tremendously excited to see the film adaptation of the book. A few weeks ago I ventured to the second floor of the State theater (which, in my opinion, is the most suitable movie theater on the planet for this film) and was mesmerized by gorgeous cinematography, attractive people and a familiar storyline. However, despite these stellar qualities, the film does not barely compare to the book. As an epistolary, the novel’s strongest feature is the insight the reader gains into Charlie’s mind and soul. The narrator’s voice is of paramount importance, and although there is a narrator in the movie, it is much less present and has thus has far less of an effect. I remember reading it for the first time and empathizing with Charlie more so than I have with any other character in a book I’ve ever read. His simplicity- his brilliance- lies in his unique cognition. The language of his thoughts characterizes his genuinely warm heart and his profound struggles to make sense of his world. Without this technique, the film loses a considerable amount of impact.

The film did, however, have a few redeeming qualities the book lacks. The cinematography was impeccable; everything from the lighting to the costumes to the scene transitions was the perfect representation of the book. The pacing also frequently changed, allowing us to identify with Charlie’s scattered mindset. There is an amazing scene in which Charlie’s family is at Church on Christmas, and the scene switches from an up close shot of someone putting a communion cracker on his tongue, to an up close shot of two teenagers putting strips of LSD on their tongues. Visual effects such as this are (obviously) impossible to convey in a book, and thus brought the story to new dimensions. I was surprised to see how the setting changed from print to screen. The book never mentions in which city Charlie lives, but in the movie it is abundantly clear the setting is placed in Pittsburgh. Furthermore, the characters are all in the upper-middle class, as evidenced by their large, lavish homes and expensive parties. This fact is not presented in the book. I was also surprised at the way Patrick’s character evolved in the medium switch. In the movie, he is much more flamboyant, hilarious and charismatic than his character in the book.

There were many other smaller details that make me think the book is far superior to the movie. A quintessential characteristic of Charlie’s is how often he cries- it defines his emotional range and adds a unique element to his personality. However, in the movie Charlie only cries once, and it happens to be in one of the most important scenes of the movie. And the list continues. Too much time is spent on Mary Elizabeth. Charlie’s sister never gets pregnant or has an abortion. Charlie does not have his breakdown during his intimate night with Sam. The relationship between Charlie and his aunt is far too underdeveloped. Even more so, Bill is a minor character in the movie while he is a major, major presence in the book. The scene where Bill invites Charlie to his house at the end of the story is one of my favorites, and it does not exist in the film. Overall, while the movie is incredibly pleasing to watch, and is aesthetically wonderful, it lacks the emotional depth and profundity of the original.