Tuesday, July 15, 2014

The Fault in Our Stars

"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart. I simply can't build my hopes on a foundation of confusion, misery and death."
-Anne Frank

The only thing worse than cancer is kids with cancer. This is a fairly bold topic for a novel and film about young people in love to tackle. But tackle it does. This isn't a movie about sick kids but kids who are sick, and there is a subtle yet important difference between the two. It doesn't need to be elaborated but you'll understand as you watch.

"The Fault in Our Stars" is the story of a girl with cancer, not cancer itself. The girl is named Hazel, a sixteen-year-old, and is played by Shailene Woodley. Hazel has suffered from thyroid cancer for years, and, despite limited relief, surviving has helped convince her doctors that she is a miracle. No one in the audience would doubt her melancholy, however, as her doctors casually proscribe anti-depressants and pressure her to attend youth peer groups for those suffering from cancer. She reluctantly agrees. Here, she literally bumps into a young man named Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort), whose own cancer cost him his leg but not his spirit. At one of the youth meetings, he proudly describes to the group that his only fear is oblivion. He intends to be around for a long time, and will reach legendary status. This understandably strikes Hazel the wrong way, and she tersely challenges him in front of the others.

Despite this defiance and rejection, Augustus develops quite a crush on Hazel, whom he flirtatiously keeps referring to as Hazel Grace. They swap books--she gives him "An Imperial Affliction," by a reclusive author who, despite his powerful writing, fled to the Netherlands never to return. Augustus gives Hazel Grace his copy of a graphic novel based on his favorite video game. They read the books and appear to enjoy the experience. The flirting continues and crescendos until they fall in love and battle their cancers together.

I liked this movie, and I was surprised by how much. It has a peculiar trajectory--it starts intriguing (though that's probably not an appropriate adjective to use), becomes annoying, then really annoying, then tolerable, then enjoyable, before becoming really enjoyable. And yet I couldn't help but feel much too manipulated. While it's strongest element is that it's a movie about kids who are sick and not sick kids, its weakest quality is that this is a movie that seems to objectify human beings just so I, the viewer (and one who is fortunate enough to not have cancer), can feel happier about my life. I wasn't sure how to react to that. There's a scene that takes place in the Anne Frank House, and there are obvious similarities between the two individuals, mainly being that they are both intellectual, brave young women. The problem is that when our two protagonists reach the top, where Frank and her family hid, it inspires them to kiss. Call me mature or realistic or cynical or whatever, but while it is a powerful and hopeful image, it still struck me as behavior more from Justin Bieber than those who are struggling and kept persevering. The scene might make you cry, but it also might make you internally debate the ethics of such actions.

Aside from being objectifying, it also at times feels clichéd. However, I can't say it's completely clichéd, because the characters' European fairy tale quickly turns into a nightmare in the film's most unpredictable moments. What starts with the pounding adrenaline of Charli XCX's music as their plane lifts off (and a lame attempt at humor as we discover that Mr. Confident Augustus is afraid of flying), the young ones finally get to meet this beloved author of theirs. I won't reveal who plays him, only that you'll likely agree with me that he's one of America's most talented actors. The scenes with him are uniquely but pleasantly absurd.

Woodley is exceptional. Fortunately, she's chosen a better project than last year's atrociously awful "The Spectacular Now." Even in the weaker moments of "The Fault in Our Stars," she still shines, and motivates us to stay interested. She should be considered for an Oscar nomination. Laura Dern and Sam Trammell are also terrific as Hazel's parents, Dern especially so, providing some of the movie's most touching moments. But I think the person who stands the most to gain from this movie is Nat Wolff, who is brilliant in just about all of his scenes (that don't involve trophies). Wolff plays Isaac. When we first meet Isaac, he tells us that his cancer caused him to lose one eye and another surgery could cause him to lose the other. Still, he's on top of the world, madly in love with his girlfriend. As the film progresses and changes, so too do his standing and perception of life. His unusual character and the notes he hits are the exact representation of the movie's dual nature. An issue I had, however, with the acting was about Elgort, who, while not terrible, could have used better direction. He simply overdoes many of his scenes.

You ought to see this film. It's a celebration of life, an acceptance of the banality yet grit of those who persevere. The best movies are coming-of-age stories. This is one, but uniquely different. We rarely see such characters in such extraordinary pain. Rarely do movies like this inspire such thought (and yes, hope and appreciation).


And finally, here's an important message by "The Fault in Our Stars" author and vlogger John Green:



0 comments:

Post a Comment