Perhaps my favorite book to movie adaption (in which I have read the book and seen the movie) is The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky. In my mind, the movie was a perfect adaptation and that is do, in no small part, to the fact that Chbosky was the writer and the director of the film as well. In that was, he was able to elaborate on some of the events mentioned in the book, making for a great adaptation. Another aspect that made this so darn enjoyable was the casting, which was perfect. I have no other argument than to say that the casting was perfect.
Even though this did not perfectly fit the way I’d imagined them, by the ten minute mark in the movie I couldn’t imagine them any other way. They captured the essence of each character in the same way that Chbosky was able to display the essence of his book on the screen.
In my mind, a book as always been the story of the author, which is why so many adaptations fail. When new writers and directors come in, they often tell the story their own way, giving limited power to the author. I’m okay with this sometimes (as in the cases of Jaws and The Godfather), as the book simply wasn’t cinematic or something of the sort.
I think this adaptation only worked because Chbosky was at the helm. If he weren’t, many things would have been changed or cut or gone terribly wrong because movie execs just don’t love the story as much as they love the money and their freaking sample-size statistics. Which is understandable, in their position.
But this whole thing just turned out so perfect, I can’t quite express in words how perfect it was. What’s your opinion on this adaptation? Let me know, and have a nice day.
And in this moment, I swear we are infinite