Filmbook: "The Fault In Our Stars" (2014)

I didn't head out to see this movie with All The Teens, for reasons I can share below, but it's for the best.

This movie had two problems it doesn't share with the book: First, Ansel Elgort, who plays love interest Augustus Waters, can't pull off the kind of smart-aleck-yet-sexy '80s characterization that the movie needs him to do. He either comes off as someone rattling off lines he doesn't understand, or as a creep. Neither helps his case as the fellow cancer survivor who sweeps Hazel off her feet. Gus' lines are mostly taken from the book (from what I remember), but while book-Gus is improbable yet charming, movie-Gus punctuates everything with a leer or a smirk. The one time I thought it worked for him (mild spoiler ahoy) is in the travel sequence, when Hazel says "We're just friends" and Gus says "She is, I'm not." He sold that line but many others seemed kind of beyond them. Nothing against the guy, but I think he was cast more for his ability to be a blank palette for teenage girls to project their interest onto than for his own skills. His chemistry with Woodley is fine, but in his verbal moments I was reminded of last summer's "The Spectacular Now," a much better movie featuring an actor much more up to the task of banter (Miles Teller).

The second problem is probably more subjective, if possible, but here goes: THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, the book, works in part because it pulls against the sentimentality of the person-with-cancer subgenre. Being narrated by Hazel, who tends to be blunt and resist being classified as a saintly patient or a martyr, the book is able to cut through those subgenre elements quickly. Apart from a sprinkling of voiceover, the movie doesn't have that, and while it's a good deal less sentimental than your Walks to Remember or your Notebooks, it is constantly trying to be a sappy, soppy, weepy, gummy Hollywood Cancer Flick. There's a moment when one character accuses Hazel and Gus, our young lovers, of only wanting to get their way, of living in a world where they always get their way due to their protected status. They protest: No! That's not how they live at all! But the movie betrays them in that moment and indulges them there, and later, so that they do get the important moments to round out their story, if not the ending they might have scripted.

Throughout, the tearjerking quality that Hazel resents drowning out her own story is constantly leaking out at the seams, from too-on music cues to super-clumsy dialogue. It made its emotional peaks feel cheap and ordinary. (I'm thinking, especially, of the scene on the park bench.) And believe me, I went into this movie primed to cry, having spent a whole weekend trying not to cry. I was almost looking forward to it, the way that you hesitate in a winter month before getting into the shower because you know you'll just be freezing when you get out, but at least in the middle there you will be comforted in a way. Forget America needing a catharsis; I needed one. I didn't get it from this movie, and I have to lay that at the feet of director Josh Boone, because the book made me feel differently.

Woodley's performance is very good, along with Laura Dern's as her mother and Mike Birbiglia's as an over-eager youth counselor. But I probably won't remember this movie much when I look back at the end of the year, never mind beyond that.

Filmbook verdict: Read this book, then go watch "The Spectacular Now," "Atonement" or "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" (1996, Luhrmann) to see young adults falling in love and tragedy.

One-Star Revue: THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

I recently read a review roundup of the box-office powerhouse "The Fault In Our Stars," noting that the movie's performance (beating up Tom Cruise among others) didn't seem to be affected by people who were unhappy with its ending. Even though the book has been out for two years now, a distinct population of moviegoers didn't get around to reading it -- and those were the angriest at Green, and "Fault" director Josh Boone by extension, regarding the movie's ending. I haven't seen it, so I couldn't tell you exactly how it plays out, but with a book seemingly designed to elicit strong emotion, it's not surprising that some would boomerang back onto its creators as fury.

The book haters were there before the movie haters, though, so let's take a warm bath in the kind of reviews that must have been intended to hit Green like toxic steam. But first: I did not include, on purpose, anyone who criticized this book from the vantage point of having a loved one with cancer (as the main characters of this book do). I have been lucky yet not to walk in those shoes and I am willing to concede that they have a point. Also, there's nothing funny about that. That said, we're off:

• "Albert Camus for babies"
• "The first chapter was rude, the kids can't speak proper English (like...I have cancer) and the whole thing is a liberal cliche' from the get go."
• "I am thinking the author is trying to live out his teenage years all over again, but it just comes off as a public service announcement." Being a teenager is so awesome and fun the first time, after all.
• "Yes, I'm glad I read it, but I never will again. It SUCKED!!!"
• "I bought the book based upon an interview with the author on 60 Minutes. The consensus was it wasn't a book about cancer but a love story. Sorry, but so far all it's been is about cancer."
• "I have read many books in English and Spanish and this is the first time I have felt this way about a book...complete emptiness." Spanish books are special, you see.
• "I didn't finish with any lasting feelings." This is the harshest, yet the most hilarious.
• "This is only more evidence that America needs a catharsis." Just kidding, this is the most hilarious.

Top 12 posts of 2013

It's that wonderful time of year, the time when slothful bloggers go on vacation and just throw a bunch of links at their faithful public -- and when the analytics obsessed really go bananas. Judging by the performance of this blog, next year will entirely consist of conference recaps, defending female characters and books by comedians. I'm kidding... 
 
Six great reasons to participate in Buy Nothing Day (November) In which I tell you not to go to the bookstore, perhaps uncharacteristically.

SWEET TOOTH: Sometimes I swear these men are out to get me (September) In which I defend Serena Frome, who had a tough go of it. Did any of you read this book in the last 4 months so we can discuss? Because that would be delightful.

Spill some ink with Rob Delaney (November) In which I indulge in life beyond 140 characters.

Don't be Grumpy, go on a LAME ADVENTURE today! (June) In which I met Grumpy Cat at BEA and a very non-grumpy author. 

Boy Meets World Meets Ears - Podcasting for Rider Strong and Others (May) - In which my ears are sweetened.

Filmbook: "Austenland" (August) - In which Keri Russell proclaims that it's getting hot in here.

How Jonathan Lethem Writes (And Wrote) (May) - In which a New Yorker returns from L.A. 

"Originally known as 'The Mistake'" (February) In which I attend a Granta launch party and am bowled over by Lauren Wilkinson.

Twitter for Readers of Things Longer than 140 Characters (May)

When you make a billion dollars, you too can do whatever you want (July) In which I defend J.K. Rowling and THE CUCKOO'S CALLING -- sort of.

Dad is glad: My wholly unnecessary complaints about DAD IS FAT (November)

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, Tournament of Books 2013 (January) In which I cry on the subway. Thanks, John Green! (I bet he gets that a lot, and it must be emotionally exhausting.)

Filmbook-to-Be: "The Fault In Our Stars" Not As Good As The Movie In Our Heads, Say Teenagers

This week in the A.V. Club I learned that there is a kerfuffle about the casting of the seemingly nice young man on the left, Ansel Elgort, in the upcoming adaptation of THE FAULT IN OUR STARS. People don't like Ansel Elgort because he is not well known enough, although he's going to be in the upcoming "Carrie" remake (gah!). I presume Justin Bieber had scheduling conflicts. This is additionally weird because Ansel Elgort (who will only be referred to by his full name here, because it's terrific) was actually cast back in May, but only now that the movie has started shooting, people have cottoned onto the fact that the character of Augustus will not be portrayed interchangeably by the 5 members of One Direction, or whatever.

People, please stop writing in to author John Green to complain about this. Though Green had some involvement in casting (unlike most authors), it's done, sorry you were not consulted. The book is going to be better anyway. I bet John Green thinks so (though he is likely contractually prohibited from saying it.)

Then again, if casting weren't announced in advance, what else would the Internet have to complain about?

Filmbook-to-be: THE FAULT IN OUR STARS may have a Hazel Grace

"Woodley’s involvement had been rumored since mid-February when tweets by Green, a major social networker, connected both Woodley and Josh Boone, the film’s director."
--from an article about Shailene Woodley of "The Descendants" stepping into the movie adaptation of John Green's THE FAULT IN OUR STARS. Green vlogs and tweets, and even had some of his questions answered by the President in a Google+ hangout last month.

Even actresses with agents need social media to help them get jobs! (Potentially.) Now, Aaron Tveit as Augustus Waters, yes or no?

Tournament of Books '13: THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

Writer Claire Zulkey wrote a piece for WBEZ recently on "cry crack," media whose primary output is to make its consumers cry. She singled out a scene from "Dumbo," although the example I normally reach for in this case is the opening from a more recent Disney(-affiliated) film, the Pixar production "Up." I'm not linking to it because I'm not a monster, and also if I look for it I'll probably start weeping myself.

"How is it legal that Disney could ever share something so sad with the whole world?" Zulkey asks about her "Dumbo" clip, but it seems fairly clear why we don't start banning stuff this sad (besides all that free-speech goodness and the importance of prioritizing the things we want to ban). Catharsis can be kind of nice in the right place. It's why summer camp ends with a big campfire and songs about how friendship is eternal. It's how a real-life tragedy of marriage and amnesia gets made into "The Vow." The word catharsis was first used by Aristotle as a medical term, and whether or not there are provable benefits to that whoosh of relief after letting that strong emotion out, it's still an identifiable feeling.

And so we come to THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, the tale of two teenagers with cancer who fall in love after meeting at a support group for teenagers with cancer. I carried it home from the library thinking to myself "Oh boy, get ready to cry this weekend!" and steeled myself appropriately. I lasted about 96 pages. Emotionally, I found this book incredibly effective, even though its narrative weakness led me to question it later.

The strengths of THE FAULT IN OUR STARS are quite clear: Narrator Hazel is not a Movie-of-the-Week heroine, and her navigating her path between her sameness as a teenager (going to school, having a crush, fighting with her parents) and the difference of having cancer is vivid and sharp. When she meets and falls in love with Gus, who lost his leg to osteosarcoma, their relationship is all about and not at all about their collective health  And of course, the most identifiable thing about Hazel for me (and many readers I'm guessing) is her obsession with her favorite book, which is also about a young person with cancer -- something she shares with Gus that becomes a passion for them together. (This fictional book has, of course, its own fairly impassioned but spoilery thread on Goodreads already.)

So why was I not as caught up as I felt I should have been? Of the people I know who have read this book, almost all loved it and they really loved it. I felt almost guilty in a way that I was plagued by questions about the realism of some of the plot turns (which I won't spoil here, but for those playing at home: when Hazel gets authorized, and what she gets authorized to do). These moments happened much more frequently in the second half of the book, which I would characterize as more serious and dramatic, just when I thought I should be digging into the plot further.

I think the main element that pulled me out was the characterization of Gus, Hazel's fellow fighter and object of her crush. I didn't find him to be a fully realized character, and he often acted in ways that contradicted what we already knew about him. Teenagers, of course, are not always known for their consistency, but Hazel's own actions seemed to fit into a larger pattern, whereas his made no sense. And I don't want to go out on a limb here and say that teenage boys like that don't exist, but in an R.L. Stine/ Christopher Pike book his sweetness would definitely be Act I to something really evil. For a time I thought there was going to be a twist that (and this is not what happens, so: un-spoiler alert?) he was actually a hallucination brought on by Hazel's experimental drug-taking. I'm sorry! You have to admit that would have been kind of cool!

Of course, the argument could be made that we see Gus subjectively through Hazel, so of course he seems like the best person to ever walk the face of the earth -- and Hazel's crush causes her to see him in a rosier light than seems necessary. I don't believe this interpretation, but I'm open to discussion.

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS may be "cry crack" for a lot of people, and it wasn't exactly for me. But it brought to mind other books of my youth in which characters die or disappear forever, and how incredibly invested I was in that sadness and the act of grieving over those people. Green's YA audience may see this book similarly, and I can see why they attach to it. It wouldn't be correct, though, to say that I enjoyed this book. I experienced it, and it gave me a lot of pause, and in the end I indeed felt that whoosh of cathartic relief.