Avery-Perks of Being A Wallflower

The film adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s Perks of Being a Wallflower changes Charlie’s relationship with Sam from dependence into an actual romantic relationship. Although Charlie’s letters in the book mention a few stories about his life outside of Sam, the focus is obsessively on her, almost in a compulsive way.

Both the novel and the film portray Charlie to be subtly peculiar, but the film version does a better job at making viewers feel for Charlie and view his idiosyncrasies as endearing. This is because viewers were shown Charlie’s life through the 3^rd person omniscient perspective as things happen, instead of through Charlie’s first person reflective letters in the book. Viewers see more of Charlie’s outside life, which takes needed focus off of his fixation on Sam.

The visual aspect of the film allowed viewers to see these outside interactions, like Charlie fighting the football players in the cafeteria, in a way that empower Charlie’s character. Viewers see Charlie get more and more angry until the camera blacks out, just as Charlie mentally blacks out, and then resumes for viewers to see the immediate aftermath of the fight. This is when Charlie’s starts talking with Sam again, which is a defining moment, as Charlie proves himself to be not only loyal to the group, but as someone who can defend himself and his friends. More importantly, it proved that Charlie is good enough to be with Sam, even if it was just to himself. After the fight, Charlie has an understated confidence that he doesn’t have at this point in the book.

Charlie still loves Sam in the film, but he is less dependent on her emotionally and as a character. One particular scene change is the addition of Charlie tutoring Sam for the SATs. This adaptation reverses the roles of dependency and allows Charlie to be in control and contribute in some way to the relationship, which is sometimes rare. Sam also has her own moments, separate from Charlie, in the film that shows viewers her vulnerability, like the scene when Sam tells Charlie about her Dad’s friend when she was 11. The perspective of the movie allows viewers into this moment, and see Sam isn’t positioned as being more in control than Charlie.

All of these adaptations contributed to validating Charlie‘s position as Sam’s boyfriend at the end of the film. He is emotionally in-control and has proved that he can handle the relationship. The end of the book suggests that the two continue their lives as friends. This cemented Charlie’s position as Sam’s semi-secret admirer. 

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Sam and Charlie’s relationship in the book vs. the movie version

The main difference in the novel and the film version is that in the whole plot is told by Charlie, and we get to read more of his perspectives and opinions in the book, but in the film’s story-line is told through different characters. So this make Sam’s and Charlie’s relationship story be different. 

In the book, it seemed like Charlie was this confused young freshman, who was crazy a girl and never stopped thinking about her, but with the movie we get to see Sam’s reaction as well through the facial expressions. So in this case it doesn't seem as if Charlie is too obsessed with Sam but the movie creates the makes it as if they both had feelings equally with one another and it wasn’t just Charlie who was obsessed with Sam. The book mostly focused on Charlie as the person who wasn’t honest to himself but some parts suggest that Sam wasn’t honest about her feeling as well, because in the film Charlie was funnier and seemed more comfortable in the movies than the book, especially in the party scenes.

The book puts a huge emphasis on the fact that Charlie was still young and naïve as he repeats twice in the movie that he will never think of Sam that way – meaning thinking of Sam naked and sexually attracted to her. So in the book, their relation they not that open about their relationship, they seem to be more apart while in the movie Charlie seemed to be closer to Sam and open about their relationship.

Overall, I think in the movie Charlie is a little bit more personal to Sam, than in the book and their relationship gets deeper even before Sam admits that she also loves Charlie. Sam tells Charlie about she doubts herself about being accepted to college because she has to get good SAT scores and Charlie offers to help her and spend more time with her to prepare for college. This also goes against the image of Charlie as being the younger  and confused high school kid as it is described in the book, but we the movie portrays Charlie as this boy that would do anything for their relationship and not scared and naïve anymore. 

Charlie & Sam's Relationship

What is interesting about the adaption of Stephen Chbosky's book Perks of Being a Wallflower is that he wrote the screenplay and directed the film, so any changes made to the plot or characters were choices he made. The changes in the relationship between Sam and Charlie were his decision, and he must have decided that the complicated novel version of their relationship would not translate well into film. Instead of Charlie being a young, inexperienced boy in love with a girl four years older and out of his league and Sam being an older mentor who occasionally indulged his crush, their relationship is continually established as romantic. The novel allowed their relationship to contain paradoxes. For example, Sam didn't think of Charlie in a romantic way but would kiss him out of protective love. Whereas the film suggested that Sam reciprocated Charlie's love. 

The Sam in the film is protective of Charlie, but she also views him as more of an equal. There are several moments where she confides in him, one of them is when she is worried about not performing well enough on the SAT's to get into Penn State. Charlie then offers to tutor her, and additional scenes happen in the diner where the changing background scenery suggests the passage of time. This helps to establish their relationship as something separate from Charlies relationship with the group. While Charlie is in love with Sam in the book, their time together is rarely spent alone and is often much friendlier than displayed in the film. 

Charlie is also not as aggressive with his feelings in the novel, as he is more concerned with Sam's happiness then them having a romantic relationship. He seems to understand the age difference and the fact that Sam will always be more of a friend than a girlfriend. Honestly, most of his crush seems to stem from the fact that this was the first girl (besides his aunt) who was nice to him. In the film he makes sarcastic comments to remind Sam of their relationship and the audience of the romantic undertones between them. When he finds out Sam's boyfriend won't be there for Christmas he sarcastically says "Oh so sorry he won't be joining us" while smirking, and when he's with Mary Elizabeth he says "I'll try not to make you too jealous". 

For me, the film mirrored Charlie and Sam's relationship with Charlie's sister and pony-tail Derrick. Charlie made Sam soppy mix-tapes and Sam indulged him, just as Charlie's sister did (although Sam may have appreciated hers). Her speech in her bedroom before she left for college is reminiscent of the one Charlie's sister gives Derrick before he slaps her: decide what you want, be a man. And then is also followed with kissing and at least an attempt at sex. Perhaps because Chbosky chose to downplay the importance of his sister's behavior in the film, he incorporated some of that into Charlie and Sam's relationship. I don't think so though, since it had a completely different effect. I think it was mostly to make the relationship more black and white. Sam wanted to be with Charlie, but she had to date some people who treat her badly first. Their kiss in the closing, additional scene suggests that they might even end up together. 

Perks of Being a Wallflower - Sam and Charlie

The movie adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s Perks of Being a Wallflower alters the relationship between Sam and Charlie in certain ways that turned their relationship into something else entirely. The alterations allow Charlie to be on more of an equal grounds with Sam instead of Sam always seeming like the older more mature one. This alteration transforms their relationship so by the end it can be assumed that they are in a romantic relationship unlike in the books.

One major equalizer was how Sam would confide in Charlie about her troubles and fears in the film. In the novel, Charlie would usually be the one telling others about what was going on with him or just listening. Sam would not fully confide in Charlie because she was more of a mentor to him. She only truly confided in him with the secret about her adolescent molestation whereas in the film she also told him about her fears about getting into college. She told him she got a bad SAT score, which prompted another major alteration. Charlie tutored Sam for her SATs, which never happened in the novel. This alteration allows for Charlie to be the one helping Sam out and giving them more of a give and take relationship. This change helps Charlie to become Sam’s peer rather than always the freshman she mentors. Since in the book, Sam always seems to be trying to teach Charlie life lessons like how to go on dates with girls or helping him out by giving him his first real kiss. These things happen in the movie, but with the added effect of Charlie helping her, their relationship does not seem so much like a teacher and student.

In effect, Sam and Charlie end up presumably having sex before she leaves for college because of this equality and the negation of a alarming memory of Charlie’s molestation. Charlie has a faint hint of remembrance than tucks it away in the movie so that they can consummate their relationship instead of it just being platonic. The novel ended their relationship with friendship because the relationship would have obviously not been healthy for either of the character that had been through the same childhood trama and both needed to grow away from each other. On the other hand, th movie ended with a happy sense that Sam and Charlie are now in a more romantic relationship that Charlie and the reader were hoping for through the kiss before Sam leaves for college and the final kiss in the tunnel. The kiss in the tunnel allows the viewer to assume they are still together and in a long distance relationship.

These major changes drastically altered the relationship between Sam and Charlie. The changes shifted the relationship to a one-sided romantic love to a connected romantic love through the alterations in the plot.  

Casino Royale themes in the book and film

The book and the film themes focus on greed, corruption and control or power and these two themes goes hand- in-hand in the movie and the book. With greed we see how quickly you can lose the money that you gain over gambling, just as the saying “easy coming, easy go.” And we see a Le Chiffre winning the money at the beginning, then Bond wins it over and Vesper steals the money that Bond won from him and the Secret Service Company by being a spy for the Russians. Greed in this story also goes along with killing and corruption that characters like Bond and Le Chiffre commit in order to gain power and win in the money at stakes. The message from the plot is that the money that you gain fast it, you can also lose it easily and fast.  And you can only own that money for a short term because everyone else wants it; you also have fight for it constantly to protect yourself from your enemies. This easy money also comes with a short life as we see most of the people die a lot and early just because the people that are involved in the game are all fighting to win and paying revenge.

Casino Royale also focuses a little bit on betrayal which I think also is part of being greedy. For example in the plot we  see Vesper betraying both Bond and the Secret Service company she was working for by not transforming the money that Bond won in gambling to the company they work for. At the beginning of the movie, we also see Dimitrios being betrayed by his wife who revealed his travelling plans to Miami to Bond.

Overall, the book and the movie have the same themes even though the movie has added some scenes at the beginning. The changes that were made helped with developing some of the characters and their storylines. The changes in the book and the film are a result of the time differences and lifestyles of the different times when the book was written and the movie was created.

Avery Sherrer-Theme Casino Royale

Although I don’t think that Casino Royale is fueled by a powerful message, many themes arise in the novel as well as the film adaptation made in 2006. James Bond consistently risks his life in the pursuit of his form of ‘justice.’ Defining justice, loyalty and trust are major themes in Casino Royale.

Bond’s partner on his current mission, Vesper, is attractive but emotionally detached. Even though Vesper is cold when first meeting Bond, the two have a mutual understanding of loyalty to one another. In this case, loyalty implies the responsibility that each partner has to assist the other in each task and do everything possible to keep each other safe. I thought it was interesting that Bond and his partner are expected to be selflessly loyal to one another even though they have never met. This also points to the fact that Bond is so trusting of the Secret Service that he doesn’t even question this relationship. It is not until the end of the novel that Bond realizes that he has been sold out by his partner, which brings up the question if anyone can ever be fully trusted. Bond is praised when he expresses to his boss that he has realized that no one is to be trusted and that he must be skeptical about everyone’s motive and character for the sake of his own safety.

Another major theme of the novel is justice. Bond is glorified for his pursuit of justice and making things right, yet his morality is rarely called into question. Bond’s mission is to financial cripple international terrorists, which sounds morally just until you look at his actions. He is deceitful, manipulates the majority of those around him, and brutally shoots and strangles countless ‘minor players’ in the mission whose lives could have been spared, all with next to no emotion. This leads us to question if Bond is pursuing justice or making the world all the more violent and cold.

Casino Royale- Good and Evil

The movie, based on Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale, held a similar central message to the novel. The novel’s message seemed to be about the question of what the line is between good and evil. This line at first may seem black and white to some, but really appears grayer in real life. The book tackles this debate through the conversation between Bond and Mathis at the end of the book. They compare God to the Devil and how we represent good and evil through these two characters as the extremes of both sides (Fleming 136). Then he goes on to call God clear and the Devil undefined since there is no book of evil or even on how to be evil. So, no one character can truly judge another as purely good or evil because this is all relative creating more of a gray area.

The movie transfers this message and adds to it in order to make it clearer to the audience with M telling Bond to be careful with whom he trusts in the beginning. Then ending with saying he no longer trusts anyone and M replying that he has learned his lesson. Trust factors into this scale because Bond cannot only trust people that are purely good because no one is purely good; he must always be wary of others. So even at the end of the movie, Bond tells M that they should look further into Mathis and his background.

Bond, from the movie, even proves that no character is purely good because he does things often that could be seen as bad. Bond kills people, disobeys authority, sleeps with married women, and steals from others. But, when comparing Bond to the “bad” guys relatively he can be seen as good since he does not kill innocent people or help fund terrorism. 

The gray appears through characters like Vesper because she at first looks to be on Bond’s side, but really is a double agent for the communists. In both the novel and movie, she may appear to be good since she never kills anyone (excluding herself), helps Bond (the “good” guy), and works for M. Once her double agent status is revealed, Bond’s image of her is shattered since she works for the other side even though this makes her a gray character not completely evil. Bond neglects her prior actions and judges her on the soul fact that she works for the evil people. Working for the opposing forces automatically makes someone evil. This can be seen through Le Chiffre since throughout the beginning of the novel and film he never once kills anyone directly. Le Chiffre does not get his hands dirty, but instead has other people do his biddings. But since he works against Bond, he is automatically turned into the villain even while Le Chiffre at one point turns into the victim in the film while in his hotel room.

Casino Royale has two seemingly defined sides of opposing forces which makes the central message the difference between good and evil. It can be seen through the novel that these terms are relative, while in the film they mainly focus on the blur between the two and how these shades of gray can skew trust.