The Perks of being a Wallflower

Have you seen this film? It's incredible. Not flawless but pretty amazing nonetheless.

I wish that this film (or book) had been around when I was a teenager. If it had, then perhaps that painful period of intense isolation may have been alleviated somewhat by the knowledge that there were many others going through the crusher at the same time (And there I was thinking I was unique!)

It features lonely and sensitive CHARLIE (Logan [Percy Jackson] Lerman), who is dealing with the fallout from the suicide of his best friend, last year, along with other personal demons. In the first few frames of the film, it is agonising to watch his experience of alienation and isolation as he starts high school. He has no friends, he seems to be surrounded by a bunch of insensitive, boorish sociopaths (but, hey, it is school!) and his family don't understand him. He deals with his feelings by writing letters to an imaginary friend. Things look up when he befriends a couple of quirky high school Seniors - charismatic, articulate PATRICK (Ezra Miller) and his step-sister, SAM (Emma Watson), who Charlie, instantly falls in love with. The pair introduce Charlie to their friends (other sensitive, quirky types). They open up his social life to parties and The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where many of the gang take the 'live' sing-along parts.

One of the things that makes this film exceptional are the exquisite performances - Ezra Miller fizzes onto the screen and mesmerises from the outset. It didn't surprise me at all to learn that he had played the title role in We need to talk about Kevin, if anyone could pull that off, he could. Logan Lerman is also excellent. He is totally convincing as the sensitive, troubled teen; writing down the answers to the questions in his English class rather than raising his hand, as he is too shy to speak up (I heavily identified with Charlie). His performance is quietly understated as opposed to Miller's Catherine Wheel turn but they both shine in their own ways. I also loved Mae Whitman as MARY ELIZABETH. I could empathise far more with her as the angry, chubby-faced girl who was passed over in favour of her fragile, beautiful friend, Sam. I confess that I do (usually) find Emma Watson a teeny bit irritating, with her vibrating, expressive eyebrow and tremor-in-the-voice acting, but she pulled off a creditable performance too.

It's been a long time since I was a teenager so why did this film speak to me so much?. Perhaps it was because it struck so many chords. The feeling of being an outsider until you finally meet a group of like-minded weirdos who become your social tribe. The main character's love of books. The memory of not really having anyone to talk to and dealing with difficult feelings. Weltschmertz. Then there is the really cool music, although it was slightly frustrating that none of them knew that the song 'Heroes' was by David Bowie.

The film occasionally seems a bit sentimental and slightly clichéd but overall I stand with my first statement - it's incredible. It has been compared to Dead Poet's Society and The Breakfast Club and there is a touch of both films about it, but to my mind, this one is far better and encompasses the teenage experience (or perhaps that's just my own experience) far better.

The Mitford Sisters

I love the books of Nancy Mitford and, like many people, I am intrigued by the Mitford family, so I was very happy to receive the biography  - The Mitfords by Mary S. Lovell, for my birthday last year.

The biography details the lives of the eccentrically diverse, aristocratic family, tracing them from the late Nineteenth Century to the end of the Twentieth. With it’s eccentric father David - Lord Redesdale, - Mitford (the basis for Uncle Matthew in Nancy’s Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate, the six sisters with their polarised political affiliations and early life of the only brother, Tom, you can certainly see the rich source material that Nancy drew on for her books.

It is no mean feat to write about such a large and vastly different cast of characters and it does make for a captivating read. However, I felt moved to write about this biography (which was published in 2001, so it’s hardly a current publication) because many of the issues illuminated in the book are still very pertinent today. I found myself having an almost visceral reaction (of disgust) to some of the things I read and I wanted to explore this reaction by writing about it.

Despite loving Nancy Mitford’s fiction, I only knew a little about the Mitford sisters, with a vague idea that they counted a fascist, a communist and a devotee of Hitler, amongst them.

The author of the biography states at the beginning that she won’t be making any judgement on the sisters’ political affiliations. But I feel that, given the subject matter, this is slightly irresponsible of her, not to say disingenuous. One of the reasons I felt moved to write about this book is because in places, Mary S. Lovell comes across as an apologist for fascism. She also makes frequent comments, excusing certain ‘character’s behaviour or condemning others, which give the distinct impression that she is not nearly as unbiased as she purports to be.

Of course, any writer is going to bring their own prejudices, preconceptions and political ideology to the table; it’s impossible not to, just as it is impossible for me as a reader, not to apply my own feeling, thoughts and experiences to the table, as I read it.  I felt deeply uncomfortable when I read about Diana Mitford’s fascination with and subsequent marriage to Oswald Mosley, as well as her frequent visits to and friendship with Hitler, in the lead up to the Second World War. I then felt physically sick while reading of Unity Mitford’s idolisation of Hitler and her close links to various members of the Nazi party. Unity’s fascination with Hitler took her to Germany, where she studied German and she orchestrated meetings with him. She was in love with him, she trembled violently whenever he entered a room and he eventually noticed her and befriended her, she used to take tea with him. (It all sounds so ridiculously domestic and mundane. She wrote letters to German newspapers praising Hitler and the Nazi regime and professing a wish that England would adopt similar methods and do something about the ‘Jewish problem’ in England. Lovell writes that Diana and Unity, with their blonde hair and blue eyes, embodied the Aryan ideal, and she states this without a hint of self-consciousness.

Moving on to Diana Mosley, nee Guinness, nee Mitford. The author makes much of her looks; indeed the way in which the author rhapsodises over Diana’s beauty throughout the book is nothing short of nauseating. A photograph of Diana, aged twenty nine is captioned ‘Diana, at the height of her beauty’.  Much is also made of how in love Diana and Mosley were (despite his many affairs!). Their posture in one of their later photographs is taken to illustrate how well suited and fond of each other they were. As if we were reading about any old society couple - look at those fond old dears! She also reproduces Mosely’s party line that he was not anti-semitic but was merely responding to the aggression his party met with when they marched through the East End. I have just read an article in the serial, ‘History Today’, which repudiates Mosley’s claim that he wasn’t anti-semitic. Unfortunately I can’t provide a link to the magazine as it’s a subscription only publication. But I’m sure that very few people these days would be convinced by claims that Mosley had nothing against Jews. He certainly seemed to be a racist. When he tried to relaunch his political career in the ‘60s, he campaigned against ‘non white’ immigration. It seems rather distasteful to harp on about a person’s physical attractiveness and their supposed great love affair when their whole belief system was so discriminatory and punitive.

I also feel rather frustrated by the author’s seeming lack of psychological insight. For instance, many of the sisters said that their mother never showed them any affection. Nancy in particular is quoted as saying that her mother never picked her up, cuddled her or kissed her. Lovell brushes this aside by saying that Sydney (the girls’ mother) was typical of someone of her class and at that time in history. That may be true, but I feel that a more searching/excavating writer would have made the link between this lack of affection and the way that the children of the family latched on obsessively to certain people and movements and why Nancy had an unhappy and unfulfilled love life. Perhaps this wasn’t the only thing forcing them to extremes. The sisters, Nancy and Jessica in particular, felt resentful that they were denied the right to the proper education, enjoyed by their brother, Tom. Here, Lovell makes the point that had the girls had access to a formal education, perhaps they wouldn’t have achieved as much as they did or been so independent and ambitious as they seemed to be. Perhaps this is true, there’s no way of knowing but I did find myself sympathising with these desperately intelligent young woman who wanted to learn and go on to University.

As I said, I brought my own views and belief system to this book. I mentally applauded as I read of Decca (Jessica) Mitford’s raising social consciousness, her life of political campaigning, and her participation in the Black Civil Rights movement in the States. I had the sense that Lovell is more critical of Decca than she is of Diana (or Unity for that matter!). Why is this? Is it because of Lovell’s own political leanings or was it because in 2001, when the biography was published, Diana, along with Deborah (Debo) was one of the only two Mitford sisters still alive?

We don’t really get a clear picture of Pamela Mitford from the book; she seemed destined to be the one relegated to being the most domestic and least ambitious sister (her nickname was ‘Woman’). Nancy comes across as brilliant, acerbic and capricious. Debo as faithful and level-headed, Unity as insane (literally). Decca is portrayed as someone who is quarrelsome and mischievous but also compassionate, dynamic and in possession of integrity. That they were all clever, witty, articulate, charismatic and (sorry) beautiful is re enforced. That their mother Sydney was rather unfairly represented by some of them is explored. That the family were irrevocably changed and damaged by the Second World War (as were all families who lived through that period) is stated. We learn a lot about what the family did, dates and times and are shown some fabulous photographs. What we don’t get, unfortunately, is a thorough exploration into the motivation of the people featured. But perhaps this is difficult to achieve when writing about such a large ‘cast of characters’, spanning such a large space of time

I did quite enjoy the book (although this may sound hypocritical after all my carping) and I don’t want to sound ungrateful to the friend who bought it for me (thanks, Michelle). But I expected a book which featured photographs of women sitting next to Hitler with rapturous looks on their faces to come accompanied with a little more censure or at the very least, exploration.