Wallflower

The Perks of Being A Wallflower is a wonderful movie. I'm not just saying that because it has Emma Watson in it either, though she is amazing in it. I'm saying it because it is a genuinely good bildungsroman about high-school and growing up and all that complicated shit that occupies life. I went in expecting something comparative to The Dreamers, about a kid who meets up with two eccentric people older than him and learns to live life with them, but I got something different, something I hate to say better but definitely different.

The film is a traditional teen movie in that it does not have a plot, and takes place over the period of about a year, just showing normal life with theoretically 'normal' people. In all honestly it doesn't differ too much from the standard formula, though it has some deeper relationships than most of the crap out there. It is also a dark movie. It's not dark throughout, and there are many moments of comedy and just enjoying life but they often transition, rather abruptly, into moments of very serious discussion, like rape, abuse, and suicide. These are issues that pervade life but are often not talked about, but with an anthology of a year like this and many other films they can be brought up and discussed.

The film follows what seems to be a normal freshman boy, though he is significantly older than his peers because he was held back several years. He is bullied because he likes reading I guess, and often ends up alone in the lunchroom reading his books. To me it seems, not unbelievable, but a little cliche to have someone like this in this day and age; however the film is set in the early 90's, when it was more of the style. I guess it works okay, and doesn't last too long, but the establishing bits don't need to be quite so long.

Anyway we are introduced to the garish and flamboyant Patrick fairly early, who is also mocked and insulted, repeatably called Nothing by others at his school because of what a teacher said on the first day. He is the stepbrother of Sam, played by Emma Watson. Sam used to be a bit of a whore as she admits, though not in those words. She would have sex with people just because she could, and frequently abused her sexuality to get what she wanted. Unlike most films in Wallflower she is a protagonist, not necessarily giving up her life but trying to do something a little different.

The main play of the film is the dynamic between our shy, innocent, loner main character and these extroverts who like to shout out to the world who they are. At one point this is almost literal, as Sam stands atop a moving truck and shows herself to the world, awash in music and magic. Patrick slowly becomes closer to this, becoming indoctrinated to their way of life, even playing Rocky at one of the Rocky Horror Picture Show productions, as opposed to his earlier awkwardness watching the show.

This is not a new story, nor is it told in a particularly unique way but there is something that just grabs me personally about it. It reminds me more of Donnie Darko than anything else, though the delusions of the main character are much more grounded in reality, seeing flashbacks of his Aunt who was killed in a car crash and was later revealed to have molested him putting her actions and his love for her in an entirely different light. It might be these moments of light and dark that permeate all of the film that make it something more than the sum of its components, with all the shit, good and bad, that happens in life all lumped together and thrown at the audience.

Overall the film manages to stay true to its audience while showing that bad things happen, and when they do the only real thing to do is to get up and keep going. In one tragic scene at the end the protagonist, one could possibly call him eponymous, tries to commit suicide as all of his friends are going off to college and he will be left alone at high-school, counting down the days until he can go off and do something on his own. This is similar to many people's experiences with it, though magnified as films tend to do, because there is nothing more human than people, and their actions and beliefs and sheer presence is often enough to make all the difference, as shown by a wonderful scene at the end where he finally rides free in the truck like Sam, finally in the world of Do-What-You-Will, and no longer a wallflower, but infinite. That metaphor never really goes anywhere but the point stands, he transforms.

The Dreamers

An important scene about love

The Dreamers is a strange film about revolutions, both sexual and political, and one could say it is a bildungsroman, though in a very non-traditional sense. It follows the story of a teenage American boy who has recently moved to Paris who is attempting to fit in amongst some fellow cinephiles and ends up moving in with a brother in a sister, who have an incestuous relationship, this is incredibly awkward until he directly addresses it, then has a passionate love with the sister, though becomes embroiled in something much bigger than himself, the revolution talked about throughout the entire film, both metaphorically and literally. It is set in 1968, which really is the perfect time for the piece, and it is very much a period piece.

First a historical note. The film is set during the beginnings of one of the biggest protests ever. Over 11 million french people were on protest at one point, almost one quarter of the country. These riots involved peaceful demonstrations but quite quickly evolved into direct violence, and almost a sort of anarchy. It ended the contemporary government's reign, so it was effective in that sense, and also prefixed a lot of social changes that were so prevalent during the 60's. The most important for this film was the sexual revolution, as an era of freedom and expression began, and created the culture that is so relevant today.

The film begins with a fairly catchy tune, evocative of much of the soundtrack. The soundtrack is actually concurrent with the era, so it is all 1968 or before, which creates a very unique feel to the film, which is further evoked by the cars and technology of the era. The opening credits are set to a background image of the Eiffel Tower, which is inherently a symbol of change. We're then introduced to our protagonist and narrator, who is fairly likable even if I don't remember his name. He walks to a cinema built in a metaphorical palace, which looks like a truly magical place, fairy-tale like, which is what the film tries to evoke through much of the second and third acts.

Not my style, but still damn pretty

So at this he meets the initially domineering and dangerous Isabel in a beret, like Che Guevara, and then we see her in chains protesting the shutting down of the cinema. It is there that she invites him home, and we begin the journey down the rabbit hole, but we don't really see how deep it goes until the parents leave. But the film is not strictly about revolution against the parents, merely how without parents/authorities revolution is inevitable. When Isabel contemplates suicide at the end because her parents have found out about her relationship with her brother we realize how powerful this parental relationship can be, and what it can do to people to have their parents realize who they truly are, again a metaphor for government. The film is also about film.

When I say that I mean it is a tribute to an era of film-making, and music, and philosophy. It knows the time better than many pieces from the same time. In a way it can be compared to Tarantino's films, in that he knows the period he is referencing, and with his encyclopedic knowledge of films it shows. The difference here is Tarantino's references are implicit, and the Dreamers are explicit. The Dreamers shows the films it is referencing, names them, shows how the characters know them, and though more appreciation is gained for having watched the films a casual viewer, not that there really are any with this film, still can understand them. Tarantino's are more take it or leave it, if you get it good, if you don't well it's brief and unimportant. Different style of film-making, neither implicitly better or worse.

When I say it's a tribute to the philosophy of the time I mean it's about the revolutionaries that became so popular in the 60's, due in part to the Vietnam war and disillusionment and also because of the media which influenced people so. Films like Psycho that sought to break the social norms, and acknowledge the madness that lies outside, and others like To Kill a Mockingbird showing the racial injustices prevalent at the time and how god damn ubiquitous they were. These films revolted in small ways, and the riots in Paris at the time were simply a microcosm of what was happening around the world. The film shows this perfectly through its explicit imagery, through its dream-like state and the refusal to acknowledge the outside world, the issues of appearance versus reality and all that jazz.

No penises here

Now to talk about why the film got an NC-17 rating. It has full frontal nudity, like a lot. If you're offended by that, well this is not the film for you. It also has explicit masturbation by a male, incest in everything but the most technical sense, and several sex scenes, including one which is about five minutes long. There are a number of reasons for this, notably with sexual revolution as a predominant theme it had to include some nudity, because otherwise the point would be neutered, it helps to define the characters more than without it, and it's just the director's way. Just as Tarantino uses excessive violence, Bertolucci uses excessive sex. Both uses of the word excessive here are simply compared to the norm, and they really are not excessive to me, but simply to the censors.

The director, Betolucci, clearly loves the subject matter, and it is evident in all the choices made about the film. The philosophy in the film, evidenced by several different characters in different ways seems like it was someone's personal philosophy, about how every element of the universe works together to form a wholly together whole. A nice optimistic idea in a sense. Interestingly the film ends on quite a sorrow note, or even no note at all given how open the ending is. The brother and sister go off together, ignoring the protagonist's cry to break apart and to live their own lives. The film actually ends on a small fire burning, with police vans in the back after all the riot cops have run forward to intercept the virtual army of protestors.
On the whole I'm not sure if it is a comedy or a tragedy, using the classical terms. The ending is not wholly ambiguous, but leaves enough up to question, about the fates of the main characters as well as that of Paris as a whole. It is a lot like reality in that way, but only really the ending and beginning are. The rest of the film is so unreal, that it is less realistic than the likes of Star Wars, or for something more grounded in reality Donnie Darko. Films which thrive on their fictitious nature are more real than a film rooted so firmly in reality in terms of setting, but is so far apart in terms of characters and style. As I said, I don't know what to think, I'd say give it a watch if you're fine with explicit sex scenes, but be ready for something very unique, an entity unto itself.

I'm actually not sure if I'm done with this one, I feel like there is more to say on that theme of appearance versus reality, so stay tuned for a second part, maybe.

To add some class