Despite the ‘teen’ story line, there are no faults in “The Fault in Our Stars”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other night my husband and I found ourselves in an hour long line up to get into a film surrounded by scores and scores of pre-teen and teenage girls. No, it wasn’t “Twilight” or “The Hunger Games”, but it was a film that has just come out adapted from a young adult novel – a trend that is making a LOT of money.

Like both of these film franchises (as well as “Divergent” and many others), the film featured a young female protagonist. Unlike those aforementioned film franchises, this one did not deal with dystopian futures, revolutions or sparkly vampires. Instead, this film (and the novel that sparked it) dealt with the topic of cancer in a way that was both new and as timeless as it gets.

Let me say that I enjoyed the film immensely, and for more reasons simply than the fact that it tugs on your heart strings (more like rips them out and stomps on them actually). So few directors and producers it seems know how to properly adapt a novel into a film that it is a breath of fresh air when it does happen.

The plot is very simple. Hazel Grace Lancaster is your typical teenage girl, except for one thing – she has terminal cancer. The cancer takes the form of various tumours in her body and she carries an oxygen tank around with her to help her breath as he lungs are frequently filling up with fluid.

The fact that she is dying is apparent right from the start. Although the doctors have found a drug to help keep the fluid in her lungs at bay for a while, there is no doubt within the narrative that the cancer will eventually claim her and cut her life very short.

The characters in the film (including Hazel herself) are all operating under the umbrella of this impending future (or lack thereof), so it is no surprise that she appears depressed at the start of the film. Against her wishes, she is forced to attend a support group in the basement of a church in which she meets a boy her age named Augustus Waters.

He too was a “cancer kid” but has been cancer free after having his leg removed 14 months previous to the narrative. He immediately becomes interested in Hazel, and although she is extremely flattered (and clearly interested back) her hesitancy is tied to the fact that she knows she is dying, and will only end up hurting those around her when she goes.

Obviously being a teen film, the two of them fall in love despite those odds. And obviously being a film about cancer, the plot revolves around death. The twist comes with it being Augustus who succumbs to his illness leaving Hazel behind to cope with the loss of her first real love.

The narrative is one that isn’t new, however it does manage to touch on some issues about illness and death that don’t always get a lot of visibility in film or in print. This review is going to be an overwhelmingly positive one, as I fully believe it was a nearly perfect film adaptation to a popular novel. Here are the reasons:

The Good:

1. Shailene Woodley: Like Jennifer Lawrence this girl has TALENT. She may have got her start on one of the worst television shows on the planet, but she has since managed to prove herself in roles that have allowed her to demonstrate the full range of her ability. I don’t even like comparing her to Lawrence as the two are very different, however the successes of their two teen franchises ultimately invites those comparisons. She manages to give Hazel Grace Lancaster a maturity and gravitas that does not let us forget throughout the film that she is dying, while still maintaining the voice of a teenage girl experiencing her first love. Her performance in the film is extremely nuanced, as she is able to portray through thought, feeling and expression her fears and doubts about what will happen to those she loves around her when she dies. She does this with sensitivity and humour which avoids getting too schmaltzy, even when the plot might go that way.
2. The sub plot concerning “An Imperial Affliction”: In the novel (and film), Hazel’s character starts out depressed and unable to bring herself to participate in the world. The only thing she does take comfort in, is a novel called “An Imperial Affliction” which is narrated by a girl her age who is also dying of cancer. It might seem obvious that this novel would appeal to someone with the disease, but Hazel is quick to point out that the book she loves is not a ‘typical cancer book’. We soon learn that what she means by that is that it doesn’t talk down to the reader about the illness, nor does it offer up a happily ever after ending. It simply ends abruptly (presumably when the narrator herself dies). It might be odd to imagine how a young girl dying of cancer might take comfort in such a story, but this helps us to understand who Hazel is as a person. It gives us insight into how she deals with the reality of her illness –and that is by not shying away from it. She takes comfort in the way “Anna” the character faces up to her illness, and learns to live with that kind of honesty – even when the others around her cannot. It also shows us that the thing Hazel truly fears is not dying, but rather what will happen to those she leaves behind. When Hazel finished the novel, she confesses in the film that she wrote to the author of the novel (a character by the name of Peter Van Houten) numerous times trying to find out what happened to the rest of the characters (Anna’s loved ones) that are left behind after her death. Although Van Houten never responds (until Gus manages to get in touch – more on that later), it is Hazel’s need for closure that helps us really understand her. It is this sub plot that really adds depth into what might otherwise be a pretty clichéd story. When Gus eventually does get in touch with Van Houten and they travel to Amsterdam to meet him, Hazel is excited to finally get the answers she has craved. It is clear she feels that these answers will help her to reconcile her own feelings about leaving behind those she loves, but unfortunately (as with the novel and life itself) those answers and that closure never come. Instead, Van Houten turns out to be a miserable angry alcoholic man who verbally attacks the children when they press him to find out what happened. We later find out it is because his own daughter died of cancer. It is Hazel’s response to this (and Woodley’s performance) that really brings out the ugly truth of cancer. People die and those they leave behind are sometimes emotionally destroyed by it and sometimes not. Van Houten is the thing that Hazel most fears – the person she is afraid her parents will become in the wake of her death. He is the reason she is reluctant to let Gus in in the first place (well not him specifically but the fear of what he represents). It’s brilliantly done because in the end when Van Houten attempts to make amends for his actions, Hazel rejects him, realizing she will never have the answers or the assurance she needs. It’s a beautiful part of the story and one that is adapted brilliantly by the director.
3. Isaac’s eulogy: I know that Hazel’s eulogy for Gus is supposed to pack the most emotional punch – and don’t get me wrong, it should come with a tissue warning, but it is Issac’s (Gus’ friend who loses his eyes to cancer) speech that is truly touching. It could be because of the circumstances of it. Maybe it’s the performance from Nat Wolff, or the fact that his character has already been through so much, but this particular moment in the film was one I found truly genuine, touching and thoroughly heartbreaking
4. The actual adaptation of it: Most films that are adapted from novels suffer in the process. A novel is a very different medium from a film, and many times you get film crews or writers that can’t properly translate that written story into a visual story. The Harry Potter films are an excellent example of that with some films being done very well, and others leaving out crucial plot and character development for the sake of “action” or special effects. This film however managed to maintain the pace as well as to keep the needed character development and plot development that allows us to get to know these characters and fall in love with them. Are there things left out? Yes, absolutely. But the film is so deftly interwoven, that you truly don’t notice what isn’t there until you actually have to give some thought to it which is the mark of an excellent adaptation.
5. The scene where Hazel climbs the stairs in the Anne Frank house. Simply brilliant. Again Woodley demonstrates her talent here. We can see Hazel experiencing a myriad of emotions. This is right after they discover how horrible a person Van Houten truly is and although it isn’t explicitly stated, it is obvious that Hazel desires to see the Anne Frank house because she relates to her tragedy. Her determination to surmount that barrier in spite of her illness is a direct reaction to the helplessness she feels at the hands of Van Houten. It is wonderfully done here – understated yet very clear.

The Bad:

1. Pretty much nothing, but if I had to point out one scene I would have liked to see, it would be the scene in which Hazel is approached by a young child who inquires about the oxygen tank and the plastic bits in her nose that help her breathe. It is a beautiful moment that really highlights what Hazel has to deal with on a daily basis. She is polite to the child – even taking the time to explain her illness, but it very much showcases how divorced she is from the normal teenage experience. I know this was shown in deleted scene format during the Thursday pre-screening, but I would have liked to see it added. 

Overall it was a beautiful film and the fan experience within the theatre was also quite unique. It is films like this that truly show that women are indeed an audience that is worthy of making films for, and I hope to see more of them.

 

Joss Whedon’s “Much Ado About Nothing” evokes both the beauty and humour of Shakespeare’s prose. It is truly a work of art.

 

I realize that I haven’t posted a review here in a while, and that is mainly because of work and vacation. However, during that time, I have seen a good few movies – many of which I won’t get a chance to review completely. I will try to catch up as best I can, but for now, I am going to go back to this film – which came out a little while ago, because I believe it to be a truly hidden gem amongst a barrage of explosion – laden summer blockbusters.

I actually saw the World Premiere of this film at the Toronto International Film Festival back in September, so this review in a sense has been almost a year in the making. At the premiere, Joss Whedon was there to introduce the film and answer questions as were the entire cast and some of the crew. It was obvious when he spoke there that this film was truly a labour of love and after the immense success he has had with “The Avengers” it is nice to see that he has both the time, and the resources to get it out there (even if it was a fairly small release).

My review of this film is going to be probably the most positive review I have written thus far – mainly because this (in my opinion) is one of the few films that comes close to being absolutely perfect. I am an English teacher, so Shakespeare is something I enjoy to begin with, yet for some reason so many film adaptations just cannot seem to do the plays justice (I have yet to see a version of Macbeth that I feel is halfway decent).

That said, further bias is going to come into play here, as I am a massive Joss Whedon fan  as well. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was probably my most favourite television show of all time – and his successive efforts, “Angel”, “Firefly” and “Dollhouse” were equally as good in my opinion. He has gone on to have incredible commercial film success with “Cabin in the Woods” and “The Avengers”

I went in expecting to love this film.

And I did.

A lot.

The story, for those unfamiliar with the play, is much the same as many of Shakespeare’s comedies – two couples finding love amid a series of disasters and mishaps. Claudio is a young man returning from war. He has been successful in the campaigns and is rewarded highly for it by the Governor, Leonato. It is during this time, that he spies Hero, Leonato’s daughter. He knew her before he went to war, but is especially taken with her now that he has returned. So much so, in fact, that he seeks her hand in marriage. Her father consents to the match, and the couple begins to prepare for the wedding.

 Claudio’s good friend Benedick, however is not supportive of his friend’s happiness. He is a self-described bachelor who disdains the institution of marriage and vows never to marry. At the same time this is going on, Benedick has been trading barbs and banter with Hero’s cousin – the lovely but very sharp tongued Beatrice who has also vowed never to marry. It is clear the two are taken with one another, but have no way of showing it. Claudio and his friend Don Pedro decide to play matchmaker between the two and convince Leonato as well as the servants to help convince the two of them that they are in love with one another.

At the same time this is going on, Don Pedro’s bastard brother Don John schemes to break Hero and Claudio up. Using a case of mistaken identity, they manage to convince Claudio that Hero has been unfaithful. Just as the two are about to marry, Claudio denounces her and publically shames her causing her to fake her death until the matter is resolved. As is the case with almost all of Shakespeare’s comedies, the play ends in double weddings – with Hero and Claudio living happily ever after and Benedick and Beatrice realizing their love for one another as well (I know, spoilers).

The play has been adapted before – and many would argue that the Kenneth Branagh version is the better one. This could be my own bias talking, but I truly think that this version is far superior to the Branagh despite the fact that I tend to love his Shakespearian adaptations.

What I like about this play, aside from the comedy (which is brilliant), is the social commentary it provides, even in the 16^th century about women and the ideals of ‘purity’ that surround them. I am fully convinced that Shakespeare was a closet 16^th century feminist because almost all of his plays make very pointed statements about the status of women during the time that ring true today (for better or worse). Joss Whedon truly understands feminism as well as what Shakespeare was intending to say with his work, which is why I believe this version to be so good.

Without further ‘ado’,

The Good:

1. The Music: Joss Whedon has always been brilliant with score music as well as soundtrack and mood music. Even when working on Buffy, he always seemed to know just the right song to enhance a scene, or paradoxically, when to remove all music from the scene. There were several episodes in which he toyed with the use of sound, through music, silence or speech and it almost always worked incredibly well. He was known to handpick all the artists that were used on the show and that attention to detail really shines through in this film. Several scenes come to mind when I think of how well the music was used – two in particular however, stand out immensely. The party scene at the beginning in which Don Pedro attempts to woo Hero on Claudio’s behalf is one. The lyrics of the music are Shakespearian, taken from the play itself. The song is soft, but melodic and playful. It sets the atmosphere of the party and enhances the stunning visuals. My absolute favourite song however, is the one played during Hero’s fake funeral. Again, using lines from the play as lyrics, the song is stunningly beautiful and achingly sad. Despite the fact that we as the audience know Hero’s death to be false, the choice of music allows us to feel the depth of grief that Claudio feels and gives a much deeper understanding of what could easily have been portrayed as a shallow romance.
2. The writing: The lion’s share of the credit for this obviously has to go to Mr. Shakespeare, as he wrote the original source material, however, it takes a great deal of talent to write an adapted screen play that does his work justice and Joss Whedon deserves full credit in that department. It takes a great writer to recognize and fully respect another great writer. It is clear from the moment the play begins that Whedon has great love for this play, and because of that love, he manages to infuse the script with humour, depth and emotion almost effortlessly. He takes what, on the surface, could seem like one of Shakespeare’s more frivolous works and makes it matter and that takes real talent.
3. The casting: Again, another strength of Whedon’s is casting. He has an incredible knack for managing to almost always pick the perfect actor for any given part, but moreover has the foresight to choose those actors knowing they have the skill and versatility to play all kinds of different roles should he have need of it. This is showcased time and time again with the shows he has helmed. Characters often go through various drastic changes in their development and his cast rises to meet each and every challenge with great skill. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone that he likes to re-use those actors time and time again with his film projects (which, by the way is the mark of any skilled auteur). Almost every single cast member in this film has worked with Whedon on one of his television or film efforts and it is obvious in the film that they have spent a great deal of time with this material (Whedon would hold ‘Shakespeare readings at his house every Sunday) despite the actual shoot taking place over the span of 12 days at Whedon’s Southern California home. It might be a bit jarring at first to see Nathan Fillion speaking in 16^th century verse, you get used to it very quickly and they are all incredibly talented at it. Some standouts, however, include Fran Kranz’s performance as young Claudio. Best known for playing frenetic nerdy/stoner types (“Dollhouse” and “Cabin in the Woods”), Kranz plays the earnest young Claudio with a soberness and a maturity that surprised even me. He could have come across as bland or uninteresting, but instead gave a lot of depth to Claudio. Nathan Fillion is likewise hilarious as Dogberry, and though it was no surprise just how talented Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker are (not to mention the chemistry together), I had forgotten how much I love seeing both of them do physical comedy. The scene in which both of them are eavesdropping and learn of their “love” for one another, is absolutely hilarious. The two of them are brilliant.
4. The visuals: Whedon chose to set the play in modern day and film it at his house in black and white. He joked at TIFF that doing so was an attempt to save money (as black and white is cheaper), but I do believe that this was a deliberate stylistic choice and one that I think paid off incredibly well. Though it is obvious that his home is beautiful and that the grounds surrounding it are no doubt equally as lush and stunning in full colour, I believe this choice gave the film a sophistication and mystique that it would not have otherwise had. Visually, the black and white gave the film the much needed romanticism as well as the melancholy and sadness. Even the slapstick was enhanced by it. The choice to set it in modern day was one that could have easily backfired (as other Shakespearian efforts have done), but like Baz Luhrman did with “Romeo and Juliet”, Whedon seemed to strike the perfect visual balance between the modern day setting and the 16^th century plot. Part of it was due to the use of only one main set. The audience gets used to the grounds and by the end of the film, his home almost feels like ours as well – we are that intimate with it.

All in all, the film plays like a beautiful, surreal and dream – like piece, full of romance, heartbreak, and wonder. It manages to capture the innocence and beauty of young love as well as make a definite statement on women and their place in Shakespearian times – all while doing so in modern day California (no easy feat). It is funny in the right places and heartbreaking in others. It is truly one of the best films I have seen in a long, long time. I cannot recommend this film highly enough.