As I sit here recalling what specifically about the book and movie have sat with me, there are a couple things that really rise to the surface. The first is me trying to grapple with what does the title really mean to me. Like if I am a wallflower like Charlie, what are the "perks" that come with that. I tried to think of them both in context of the "lessons" I would pull from the book and also what I've learned from my own experience. I do wonder how much my current frame of mind impacts my analysis. I am currently adjusting to the world being open but the pandemic still raging. I was definitely changed by my experiences since last March and I don't know if my struggles now to readjust are temporary, or if I am permanently a different person. Probably some of both. All I know is that "perks" seems like a pretty screwed up word to use to describe what I've been thinking about.
I cannot decide if I think the title is wrong or if it's trying to be ironic or tongue in cheek. The experience from the book and from my life demonstrate to me that being a wallflower, whether physically apart or just mentally, gives those people a different perspective. By standing outside of the action, we see it from a different view and get insight into things people miss when in the thick of everything. When I say mentally apart I don't really mean intellectually, although that could play a role, but I mean being in one's head thinking about things or making observations instead of mentally being present. I know I have plenty of experience being with people doing things but my mind is miles away, or at the very least watching it all more aloofly.
I like how in the end of the movie Charlie calls it like it is, instead of like in the book I had to put everything together myself. A big part of being a wallflower is seeing so much pain. In the book/movie Charlie ends up being a part of so many of his loved ones' painful moments because he's there in the quiet times. Those times when people let their guard down. There is something about being a quiet listener that makes people share things they may not otherwise share. It can be a great bonding experience, but sometimes it can be burdening - depends on how much the people know each other, probably.
Similarly, there is a lot of observing people. I don't know if being a wallflower makes us more observant, or being so aware of people drives the wallflower tendencies. They probably feed into each other. It's interesting to see behavior patterns, how past experiences, intergenerational dynamics, and societal expectations can play roles in how people behave. It's interesting to watch people, both in film and real life, and understand how things that happened outside of that moment are impacting even seemingly random moments. It's interesting seeing the aftermath of some great pain happening before your eyes in everyday of interactions and having the insight to feel that person weathered some raging storm in the past. Like I said, I think the book/movie taught me the biggest "perk" of being a wallflower is seeing so much more pain in the world, whether people share with you the details or not.
That's not to say pain is the only thing. Probably just where my mind seems to be focused lately. Being able to see more of the inner workings of people and the world means also a chance to seem more beauty. I think there is a lot of beauty in seeing how things work. I think there is a lot of beauty in connecting with art in a way that makes you feel connected with other people. Even a more observational, intellectually stimulating awareness of more of what is happening is a perk, even if it is emotionless. And even when seeing pain in the world, being able to see it when others can't means being there for others in ways they may not get otherwise. This is what happens when I spend over a year with too much alone time - I get way to melancholically philosophical. (Yes, I did just Google the adverb version of melancholy.)
The second thing I've been really thinking about is a thing in the book that made me really angry and was not present in the movie. Part of me wonders if it's just coincidence or if there was feedback to the author, who also wrote the screenplay, and it was intentional. Some plot points to understand what happens. Charlie, Sam and Patrick become friends. Sam starts dating this older guy Craig. Charlie has a crush on Sam that he writes about to his writing companion but doesn't do much about IRL. Near the end Sam breaks up with Craig.
The scene that bothers me is near the end with Sam and Charlie where Sam is talking to Charlie about why he didn't make a move on her when she broke up and then try to teach Charlie the lesson about how if he has feelings he has to do something about them, because she can't feel them if he keeps them inside. Great lesson that fits the story! The problem is, in the book, near the beginning, Sam tells Charlie she doesn't want him to have those kinds of feelings for her. Then later in the book she makes reference to that moment and Charlie refers to that too as he's struggling to comply. In this scene in the book, Charlie reminds Sam of this and she tells him basically that if he had feelings for her, he should have done something about it anyway, despite what she said, and that she wants a guy who goes after what he wants. Her saying not to have feelings for her does not happen in the movie and all those references were removed. And I think it's better for it. I have been able to synthesize why it makes me mad into three interrelated points.
Point 1 - from the perspectives of the characters, this is poor relationship management. I will say up front that while this did make me mad, since it's character focused, I can forgive it because these are teenagers not old enough to be as emotionally intelligent as me. What makes me mad is that she gave him a very clear boundary, one that was reiterated and acknowledged by both parties over time. It's unfair of her to want him to make a move when it's the exact opposite of what she said. Him doing so would disrespect their friendship and that boundary. (The truth or dare scene is a perfect example of Charlie violating that boundary and it having bad consequences for multiple relationships.) With a clear directive in his mind, how is he fairly supposed to know it's ok to disregard that without a just as direct statement the other way? He could have interpreted all sorts of ambiguous things many ways, but direct is direct. It would have been one thing in the book if she acknowledged she said that (and maybe showed some appreciation for him listening) and then say she changed her mind and asked him how he felt about that, how it changed things for him. But telling him she wanted him to do what he wanted without telling him how she actually felt about the situation feels hypocritical to me.
Point 2 - I think this aspect of this scene undermines the author's lesson of participating. In the movie I think the lesson is straightforward and felt. Charlie and Sam have been floating around each other the whole time, and while she's in this not great relationship, there's still a bond as friends being made that Charlie could be more vocal about, and that could blossom into more when the timing is right. But in the book by adding the bit about Sam wanting Charlie to ignore her direct statement about him developing feelings, I think it muddies the message. To me, participating is being in the moment, developing relationships, expressing yourself and your feelings. Participation doesn't mean doing whatever you want whenever you want, disregarding other people. I think Sam asking Charlie to express his feelings and not keep them inside, but she keeping her true thoughts and feelings about what she wants to herself, it undermines the message.
Point 3 - this one made me the maddest, but it was also the one that took me longer to pinpoint and articulate to myself. I think the book version does Sam wrong and promotes toxic ideas about women. You can boil that point in this Sam and Charlie scene to Sam saying in the past I don't want something but then her saying yes actually I did want it. And if you wanted it too, you should have taken it regardless of what I said. This is teaching the lesson that when a woman says no, she really means yes. And men have just keep being persistent until they get what they want, because the woman really wants it but just isn't saying that. That is so fucking bullshit. It's possible I am taking this a step too far, but I don't think so. It particularly irritates because it is established in the story that Sam was kissed at a young age by an adult non-consensually, and earlier in high school got drunk at party and did things that she was pressured into. So having a character that has been through trauma because of men taking what they want telling Charlie that's the kind of man she likes is horrible. Either the author doesn't understand how shitty that is because of having never lived something like that and did it mindlessly, or he purposefully created a messed character and used her to teach a muddied shitty lesson. While I haven't experienced what Sam has, as a woman I can sure as hell relate because that's the kind of stuff we're taught to fear our whole lives and know too many women who go through too many things. It's this point that makes me think this change could have been intentional for the movie b/c the book is from 1999 and the movie 2012, and I can see how more social awareness of women in movies would have made the desire for this change. And living in 2021 it really sticks out to me way more than it would have when the movie came out.
When I started writing this last night I thought that I had figured out all the things I wanted to write and had all the points figured out. But something else popped into my mind last night that I want to work through here. Part of me wants to say "bite me" to the whole lesson of teaching wallflowers to participate more. Yes, I can agree there is a need to make more wallflower like people more socialized. Maybe I never reached Charlie levels because my mom got to me young (or because I never experienced trauma like he did). A lot in my live growing up was driven by my mom's attempts to socialize me. I was never allowed to skip a grade because my mom wanted me to have social skills as well as intelligence. School was always easy for me, but socializing was not. I did activities as a kid to ensure I wasn't spending too much time alone. The summer before high school started my mom signed me up for a theater class at the high school so I could make some new friends before starting high school to help with the transition, which worked out great because I met some great friends and my favorite teacher that summer, so A+ work mom!!
But I don't think a wallflower should ever be "cured" of this. I also don't think that's possible, so people shouldn't try. It can be lonely sometimes and sad at times, but it is just a different way to be. There is value in being different and being yourself. It's important to keep the balance between growing as a person by building relationships and stepping outside the comfort zone, but also growing those introverted, internal skill sets that are special. So yeah, sometimes I am going to disconnect physically or mentally from the people I am around. And I may not always get all of my feelings out of my head into the world, but every year I gain more insights, open up a little more, pull back the curtain on the world and my mind a little more - it's a lifelong journey being and growing yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment