The Perks of Being a Wallflower - The Novel

After having seen the film twice, I decided to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chboski.  Originally published in 1999, I was amazed the slender work could be adapted into a two hour film.

The novel (novella?) consists of a series of letters written by Charlie, the protagonist, to an unknown "friend" over the course of one school year.  It is explicitly set in the 1991-92 academic year. The film starts with this epistolary plot device but abandons it until picking it back up for the epilogue.  In the book, the effect of the letters is to make fuzzy what was presented as facts in the film.  Since Charlie's subjective observations are the topic of his letters, the reader is left to wonder about his biases and as the novel continues, his mental state.  The film presents the events written about in Charlie's letters as gospel but there is some ambiguity in the novel.

Charlie's relationship with his sister is much deeper in the novel.  In the film, Ponytail Derek slaps her and Charlie keeps quiet.  She eventually dumps Derek and goes to the prom alone.  In the novel, Charlie reports the incident to his English teacher (Paul Rudd) who reports it to Charlie's parents.  This forces her to keep her relationship with Derek a secret because her parents insist she have nothing to do with him.  She continues to see him secretly (even having a "fake" boyfriend) and eventually becomes pregnant.  She tells Charlie who drives her to the abortion clinic.  This remains their secret throughout the novel.  She dumps Ponytail Derek (the character has no name in the book) because he denied being the father of the baby and has a new boyfriend by the time of the prom.

The tone of the novel is much darker than the film.  Charlie witnesses a rape and the dysfunctional family dynamics on both his maternal & paternal sides are explored through holiday visits and recounted stories.  Charlie's family has been through a lot going back at least two generations which legitimizes his illness and the concerns of his family.  Charlie is seeing a psychiatrist for most of the book whereas he only sees one after his nervous breakdown the film.

Oddly, the character of Mary Elizabeth goes to Cal Berkeley in the book instead of Harvard in the film.  There are other small discrepancies but the biggest difference was the humor or lack thereof.  I thought the film had moments of inspired comedy whereas the book focused more on Charlie's sadness and difficulties.

I've read that The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a cult favorite among a certain segment of the population.  I can understand that.  It reminded me a little of Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger.  If I had to provide a pithy quote, I'd say The Perks of Being a Wallflower is the MTV generation's Catcher in the Rye.  The odd thing about the film is the time it took to adapt the novel.  The "MTV generation" is in the 30s or even 40s now.  My quote isn't nearly as original as it may sound.  The Perks of Being a Wallflower was originally published MTV Books which I believe has been bought out by Simon & Schuster.

Game of Thrones

While visiting my father last week, I watched the first season of Game of Thrones on DVD.  Game of Thrones is an acclaimed HBO series.  I don't subscribe to HBO so I had never seen the series.  I was given the DVD set as an Xmas present and decided to watch it while with my father.  Consisting of 10 episodes (each approximately 60 minutes), I'd have a hard time setting aside 10 hours if I was at home. However, when with my father, I spend more time indoors.  My father doesn't have a DVD player; I don't either.  I had to watch the DVDs on his desktop computer.

Despite the less-than-ideal viewing conditions, I consumed the 10 hours of content in 12.5 hours.  The multi-layered, fictional story of Westeros is highly addictive.  Game of Thrones is primarily about the scheming and positioning for power among the royal families from the Seven Kingdoms.  Incorporating disparate historically based plot elements evoking medieval England and Mongol warriors, Game of Thrones creates an elaborate fictional universe which is at once realistic but also involves dragons, winters which can last for decades and zombie like creatures from the other side of a massive wall (Hadrian's Wall and The Great Wall of China seem the inspirations).

More familiar elements are at play such as illegitimate children, incest, honor, family bonds and royal court intrigue.  There is a goodly amount of nudity, sex & violence to keep one's attention.  Best known among the extremely large cast was Sean Bean & Peter Dinklage.

Although the time commitment was enormous, I can't image watching the series as it was originally broadcast - 10 consecutive weeks.  The plot is extremely intricate & characters meet and then double back and eventually discover one character knows another. I would imagine several plot details and nuances would be lost to memory if you saw the series over 2.5 months.

I know people who hole up for a weekend while watching television series like I did for Game of Thrones (on a TV though; not a PC).  There is something to be said for it.  I think watching it in extended sittings is the most efficient way to consume the product.  I had never watched so many DVDs in such a compressed time period.  I don't know how often I'll be doing it again but I have already looked for the Season 2 DVD set (coming out on February 19).

Lena Headey as the scheming Queen Cersei Lannister, Dinklage as her brother, Lord Tyrion Lannister (often drunk and in the company of whores)  and Emilia Clarke as the exiled Princess Daenerys Targaryen who is beginning to recognize her own powers particularly stood out among the large cast.

Alamo Drafthouse Inches Towards Reality

In last Saturday's SF Chronicle, I read that the Alamo Drafthouse's remodeling of the New Mission Theater was approved by the San Francisco City Planning Commission on January 9.  The $10 million project includes the theater remodel and a new 114 unit condo next door to the theater.

The final sentence of the Chronicle article states "Work on both developments could begin by summer."  In previous reports, Alamo Drafthouse CEO Tim League has stated the remodeling could be complete by the end of 2013.  It's unclear if they are still on schedule for a 2013 completion.  Also, completion of the remodeling is not the same as opening the theater for business.  In previous documents, theater renovations were estimated to take 10 to 12 months which would indicate a 2014 completion.

Regardless of the opening date, this news can only be considered progress towards the opening of the Alamo Drafthouse in SF.  The Planning Commission Draft Motion has some interesting artist renditions of what the property will look like as well as full design plans.  Interestingly the packet also includes letters from various organizations supporting the restoration and reopening of the New Mission Theater.  The Roxie supports the opening by stating "The Roxie Theater is in support of the restoration of The New Mission Theater.  The reopening of The New Mission Theater will allow San Francisco to experience more film gems that would not be seen without such venues."  I would think competition from Alamo Drafthouse would be detrimental to the Roxie but perhaps the programming will be different than what I was expecting.

In the Planning Commission motion, it states "The Project is located within .6 and 1.0 miles from other theaters, including the Roxie Theater at 3117 16th Street, Victoria Theater at 2961 16th Street, and the Castro Theater at 429 Castro Street. These three theaters are all independent theaters that do not directly compete with Alamo Drafthouse Cinemas, which typically shows first‐run, major motion pictures."

Comparing the designs for the New Mission vs. the New Parkway which has a similar food & beverage strategy, the Drafthouse design is terraced rows of seating with a long counter in front of each row for plates & glasses.  However, beer & wine service or the ability to eat food requiring a knife & fork during the film are not of foremost importance tor me.  Instead, the Drafthouse's policy of kicking people out of the theater for using their cell phones is something I truly relish.

Tristana

My first film of 2013 in San Francisco was Tristana at the Landmark Opera Plaza.

Tristana starring Catherine Deneuve, Fernando Rey & Franco Nero; directed by Luis Buñuel; Spanish with subtitles; (1970) - Official Website

I've seen four Franco Nero films in about a month.  He starred in Django, he had a cameo role in Django Unchained and he was a talking head interviewee in the documentary Eurocrime! The Italian Cop & Gangster Films That Ruled the '70s which I saw at Another Hole in the Head.  He had a supporting role in Tristana.

Tristana marked director Luis Buñuel's return to Spain after a long period of exile in Mexico.  The film is a dispassionate treatise on the relationship dynamics between Don Lope (Fernando Rey) and his ward, Tristana (Catherine Deneuve).  An quiet pas de deux occurs in the film.  First father figure, then seducer and finally quietly despised by Tristana, Lope and Tristana imperceptibly swap dominance, vitality & power between themselves as the years go by.

Tristana leaves the home of Don Lope with Franco Nero as her lover but a leg tumor (??) forces her to return to his home with her spirit missing as well as her right leg.  Lope, viewing his past actions more charitably than Tristana, takes her back and in short order marries the younger woman (she wears black at their wedding).  As he ages, Lope's health fails he relies on his young wife to care for him.  At a crucial moment, she exacts "revenge" which results in his death.

My plot description (melo)dramatizes the story considerably.  Tristana's transformation is quite subtle and easily attributable to her missing leg.  Small signs of her true feelings and resentments are revealed but the full extent was a quite a surprise to me.  Along the way, Buñuel lathers on the imagery with criticism of the Catholic Church and Tristana's long-standing dreams of Lope's severed head.

Catherine Deneuve looks beautiful if not slightly too old for the part.  Her performance is restrained but very memorable.  Fernando Rey's role requires more range but he doesn't overplay it.  Their chemistry (or their characters' lack thereof) is considerable.  I believe Deneuve's voice was dubbed as the entire film was in Spanish.  Lola Gaos as the stone-faced maid Saturna made a favorable impression on me as well.

Combined with Belle du Jour (1967), Deneuve & Buñuel were very successful in their collaborations. Conforming to a plot, Buñuel's Tristana (and Belle du Jour but not L'Age d'Or) were very much to my liking.

Django Unchained

My father & I saw a second film while I was visiting him in Las Vegas.

Django Unchained starring Jaime Foxx, Christoph Waltz & Leonardo DiCaprio; with Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington & Don Johnson; directed by Quentin Tarantino; (2012) - Official Website

It turns out my father is a bit of Tarantino fan.  I am too but I didn't think he was.  Django Unchained  was the only film he wanted to see while I was in town.  I dragged him to Lincoln.  It's hard to discuss films with my father.  He is getting older and conflates films.  He thinks certain scenes occur in one film but in fact they occur in another.  I can't believe my father is a fan of Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.  He has a hard time with non-linear storytelling.  Fortunately, the plots for Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained progress in linear fashion which are the only Tarantino films I have seen with him.

Django Unchained doesn't need much set up.  Django (Jaime Foxx), a former slave and now a bounty hunter, arrives at the plantation of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) to free his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington).  I thought I saw the character's name spelled Brunhilda on a bill of sale in the film but all the sources I see on the internet show the character's name as Broomhilda like the cartoon character.  Django is accompanied by his mentor & the man who freed him from slavery, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), also a bounty hunter.  Candie is capably assisted by his chief house slave, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson).

That is the story in a nutshell but Tarantino stretches this out to 2 hours, 45 minutes.  I noted to my father that Django was 15 minutes longer than Lincoln but he said it felt shorter.  There was never a point where I confused about the characters as I was in Lincoln at time, but there were stretches where I felt the film could have benefited from some editing.  That's quite damning from me as I don't recall feeling that way about any other Tarantino film.

If you asked me what I would take out, my quick suggestions would be some of the scenes in the mountains where Django learns his quick draw skills, most of the scene with the KKK predecessors and most of the scenes where Django escapes from his inexplicably Australian captors/miners which seemed mostly to be vanity scene for Tarantino, his long time collaborator Michael Parks and his stated favorite actor from Australia, John Jarratt (Picnic at Hanging Rock).  This might get it down to 2 hours, 30 minutes but the plot seems better suited to 1 hour, 50 minutes or so.

Of course, Tarantino can make me feel like a 2:30 film is as lean as can as was the case with Inglourious Basterds.  I guess that really gets to the heart of the matter.  I wanted to enjoy Django Unchained as much as Inglourious Basterds but I didn't.  That's not to say I didn't like Django Unchained; it just didn't meet my lofty expectations.  That's unfair to the film and ultimately myself but it is the truth.

What was there to like in Django Unchained?  Samuel L. Jackson in particular.  He looks like Uncle Ben but acts like Uncle Tom.  At times, Stephen addresses his master as if the roles were reversed but Jackson's portrayal is characterized by deep self-loathing of his race and the ruthlessness by which he wields power among the household slaves.  Matching him step-for-step is Leonardo DiCaprio as the Southern gentleman whose casual racism is to be expected in a film set in the Antebellum South.  However, his casual brutality & cruelty is likely more shocking to modern audiences.  Those two character, Stephen & Calvin Candie, are not exactly well developed by the plot but you can fill in their backstory without too much trouble.  They provide more than adequate villains for the two heroes (Django & Schultz).  However, Django & Schultz never really get the meaty scenes like the two villains (it's always the case, isn't it?).

Christoph Waltz has some nice scenes early on as he tracks down his bounty prey but as the film progresses, the focus shifts to Django who is more enigmatic.  Actually, how a German dentist came to be a bounty hunter in 1850s United States sounds like a good movie.  Regarding Django, other than Candie observing he is 1 in 10,000, there is little to explain Django's drive, courage and skills.

Unlike Inglourious Basterds, where Tarantino brought about a premature end to WWII, there is no indication that the Civil War would be averted in the semi-fictional Django Unchained universe.  The film is set in 1858/59.  I left the theater wondering what kind of life Django & Broomhilda would have as the buildup to and actual Civil War inflamed racial prejudices.  Django made a point taking Broomhilda's bill of sale and certificate of manumission making it clear that he felt he would need these documents as proof of her free status in the future.  I guess these types of historical conjectures don't belong when considering the merits of Django Unchained.

Some other observations:

The use of the word "nigger" is beyond ubiquitous.  For a film set in the time & location which Django Unchained is set, that is to be expected.  Curiously, my sensitivity to the word became dulled through repeated use.

When the slaves were fighting to the death, their movements reminded me a lot of MMA fighting.  It made me question the ethics of watching MMA.  I wonder if that was intentional on Tarantino's part.

Franco Nero showed up as the slave owner of the opponent of Candie's slave.  That's the scene where Django spells his name - "D-J-A-N-G-O; the D is silent."  Nero responds "I know."  I wonder how many in the audience realized Nero had played the title role in Django in the 1960s.

Several of the scenes involve white actors speaking with exaggerated Southern accents and acting in a depraved manner...and they eventually get their comeuppances.  As satisfying as that is, the repetition makes in tiring.

Jaime Foxx wearing a Little Boy Blue valet outfit more appropriate for 17th or 18th century is one of the most amusing moments of the film.

The opening theme song is from the original Django.

Lincoln

The first film I saw in 2013 was Lincoln while visiting my father in Las Vegas over the New Year's break.

Lincoln starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field & Tommy Lee Jones; directed by Steven Spielberg; (2012) - Official Website

Lincoln was partially based on the book Team of Rivals by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.  I read and greatly enjoyed that book.  Although the book covers Lincoln's entire presidency, the film concerns itself with the last four month's of his.  In particular, the film focuses on the Lincoln administrations efforts to get the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution passed by the House of Representatives (the Senate had already passed it).  Lincoln is racing the clock as a) the 38th Congress was lame duck after the November 1864 elections and b) the Civil War was winding down and Lincoln was concerned the end of the war would take away the motivation to pass the amendment.

The film spends time explaining the mood of the common man, the motivations of the Congressman and Lincoln's rationale for pushing the amendment while the 38th Congress was in session.  This bring me to the first problem with Lincoln.  It was too pedantic.  I consider myself to have an above average knowledge of US history and some of the items in the film were new or surprising to me.  That by itself isn't a bad thing but the film runs 2.5 hours and could have been shorter without losing much by selective editing.

There were many small detail I picked up on that didn't add much to the plot.  Lincoln's chief personal secretaries were John Nickolay and John Hay (a future Secretary of State).  They actually lived in the White House; sharing a bedroom.  In one scene, Lincoln goes to their bedroom to send a telegram I believe.  That must have seemed odd to some people that the President would go their rooming house or that they even lived together.  Hal Holbrook plays Preston Blair who, in the film, claims to be the founder of the Republican Party.  That claim is debatable but more interesting to me is that Blair lived on the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.  He had lived there since the Jackson administration to which he was an unofficial adviser.  That house, known as Blair House, is now owned by the federal government and is the official lodging for guest of the President.  During the Truman administration, the White House was being remodeled and Truman lived at Blair House.  In 1950, Puerto Rican separatists attempted to assassinate Truman at Blair House.

Spielberg also seemed to want as much historical accuracy as possible.  The results is a huge cast.  Some directors would have consolidated and eliminated characters but Spielberg seemed set to give many Congressman "speaking parts."  This made it difficult to keep track of the characters.

As the film progresses, Lincoln fades to the background.  By modern standards, Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) takes an unusually active role getting the amendment through the House.  He and Lincoln have to navigate three factions - the Copperhead Democrats who are opposed to the element, the Radical Republicans who want to push equal rights as far as they can and Conservative Republicans who were more concerned with ending the war and bringing the confederate states back into the Union.  Towards that end, the Conservative Republicans were worried the 13th Amendment would prolong the war or create a permanent wedge in the post-war Union.

The maneuvering of these various factions is shown in great detail.  Seward commissions an operative (James Spader) to work on lining up lame-duck Democrats to vote for the Amendment in exchange for government jobs.  All this is kind of interesting but it has the unintended effect of equating the issue of slavery (human bondage) with political gamesmanship.  We see the sausage being made...

Lincoln as played by Daniel Day-Lewis is full of stories which don't always make his point and put off those he is talking to.  Lincoln seems equally concerned with his political legacy and the inherent inhumanity of slavery.  The immorality of slavery is glossed over for long periods in Lincoln.  Indeed the most ardent advocate for the amendment is Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) who we learn has an African American housekeeper (S. Epatha Merkerson) whom he shares a bed with (in real life, the housekeeper was mixed race or mulatto to use the parlance of the day).  In fact, the most outlandish item in the film is when Stevens takes the official (and only) roll call of the amendment vote home with him to his housekeeper.  That strikes me as pure Spielberg hokum.

Although Lincoln is the most Oscar nominated film of 2012 and has the inside track for Best Picture, I wasn't quite as impressed.  The self-importance of the film didn't match the quality of the film.  Frankly, I think a different director would have made a better film.  Spielberg's inclination towards sentimentality and his power to resist edits or interference likely resulted in a film I found disappointing.  It's far from being a bad film but sometimes less is more.

2012 By the Numbers

I numerically summarize my 2012 film going experiences below.

I saw 436 "films" on a theater screen in 2012. This compares to 406 "films" in 2011 and 382 in 2010. For these purposes, a film is not just a feature length film but also includes programs (typically from film festivals) which consist of multiple short films. If it was categorized as a single program in a festival guide, it counts as one film entry on my list. Conversely, I saw several programs which consisted of a short film and a feature length film. For my counting purposes, those are counted as a single film entry.

§§§

The top 10 venues in which I saw films in 2012 were:

1) Roxie Theater (103 films) - primarily from four film festivals - 2012 SF Indiefest, I Wake Up Dreaming, Beauty of the Real & Not Necessarily Noir; also DocFest and Another Hole in the Head was at the Roxie

2) Castro Theater (70 films) - 36 films between 2012 Noir City and 2012 SF Silent Film Festival

3) Pacific Film Archive (49 films) - various PFA programs including Nikkatsu, Bellissima and French Cinema Classics series

4) Landmark Theaters (33 films) - 3 films from SFFS French Cinema Now series; the rest from individual programs; theater breakdown - Embarcadero Center (18 films), Opera Plaza (7), Lumiere (6) and Bridge (2)

5) New People/Viz/SFFS Film Center (31 films) - most films from 2012 SF International Asian American Film Festival (SFIAAFF), 2012 SF International Film Festival (SFIFF) and the SFFS Fall film series

6) Camera Cinemas (25 films) - most film from 2012 Cinequest and 2012 SFIAAFF

7) Kabuki Cinemas (23 films) - all films from 2012 SFIAFF and 2012 SFIFF

8) Stanford Theater (18 films) - no festivals, but loosely defined series

9) Vogue Theater (15 films) - all films from 2012 Mostly British Film Festival

10) California Theater (11 films) - all films from 2012 Cinequest; California Theater is referring to the theater located in downtown San Jose and not the Landmark operated theater of the same name in downtown Berkeley

Honorable mentions - San Jose Rep (8  films; all from 2012 Cinequest), Balboa Theater (7 films), YBCA (6 films), Smith Rafael Film Center (6 films; most from the 2012 Mill Valley Film Festival), 4 Star (6 films) and the Crest Theater (4 films; all from the 2012 Sacramento French Film Festival)

I also saw 8 films in Las Vegas while visiting my father throughout the year, but not at the same theater.

I went to a number of venues for the first time in 2012 - the Rialto Elmwood in Berkeley, the Crest in Sacramento, Oddball Films in the Mission District of SF, the New Parkway in Oakland and 142 Throckmorton in Mill Valley.

The top three venues (Castro, Roxie & PFA) have remained the same since 2010 although the order of the three has changed for each of the past three years.

§§§

On 252 days in 2012, I saw at least one film.  Of those 252 days, I saw:

1 film on 125 days
2 films on 87 days
3 films on 27 days
4 films on 9 days
5 films on 4 days

On Sunday, January 29, I saw five films at the Castro as part of Noir City.  Many of those films less than 70 minutes though.  On Sunday, March 4, I saw five films at Cinequest in San Jose.  I took a vacation day the next day and saw five more films at Cinequest.  On Sunday, March 11, I saw four films at the Encore Day at Cinequest and a fifth film at the Camera 3 which was not affiliated with Cinequest.

As much as I dislike seeing four, much less five, films in one day, I am going get my money's worth if I drive all the way to San Jose for a film festival.

I also remember January 29.  I had the opportunity to see six films that day but skipped out on The Maltese Falcon.

All the four film days were also associated with film festivals.  I went for four in a day during Noir City, Mostly British, Indiefest, Cinequest, SF Asian American, Sacramento French & Silent Film Festival (3 consecutive days)

My cumulative cost per film is $8.00 per film.  I've been tracking those costs meticulously since January 1, 2010 although it gets a little fuzzy w.r.t. costs which I deduct as charitable donations on my income taxes.