There
are parts of Wallflower that wouldn't work as well without the film to
complement them; when you have two mediums of a story that have
different advantages in storytelling a lot of the blanks are filled in.
For example, in the book it seems a bit stretched that Charlie, the main
character, easily makes a group of friends, given how painfully shy and
awkward he is, but in the film this is shown a lot more naturally. If
you've seen the film first then problem solved, if you'd read the book
first it might seem to fall into place for him a little too easily.
Since I had to read Dangerous Liaisons at university (one of the most
boring experiences of my life) I've been a bit wary of epistolary
fiction, but Stephen Chbosky uses it to really get deep into the
character of Charlie and his confessions of being a horribly troubled
teen. But I'll still never know how much of my empathy for the character
would still exist if I couldn't picture the puppy-dog face of actor
Logan Lerman when I was reading about Charlie's heartbreaking troubles. I
suppose this is film messing with my ability to interpret the book as
an individual work, but my brain just doesn't have the power to take on
the might of Hollywood and its wicked ways. I loved the book, I loved
the film, and I loved all of the characters, even if in my head one of
them has magic powers and is friends with house elves and owls.
Sunday, 3 February 2013
The Perks of Imagining a Book Character as an Actor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment