For years, The Perks of Being a Wallflower has delighted fans of coming-of-age films and readers alike. The 2012 film adaptation — directed by the original novel’s author, Stephen Chbosky — transported audiences to an ageless time of invaluable lessons, where we see the characters face challenges and feelings of anxiety. The film viewed the vulnerability of high schoolers at a crossroads, presenting its on-screen elements so tenderly that it’s hard to find a rival. In truth, not every filmmaker can make high school feel as candid as Chbosky did in his book and film, but director John Hughes once did.
Hughes created some of the most discussed coming-of-age films of the ’80s. These pictures are reflected in Chbosky’s ambiguously-set high school novel, which resembles a late ’80s to early ’90s setting. On top of their similar settings, there have long been standing beliefs from some audiences that Hughes once intended to direct an adaptation of Chbosky’s 1999 novel, but never got to in his lifetime. This would have been in addition to Hughes’ many high school-set films. Regardless of what truth there is to the rumors, the 2012 adaptation from Chbosky does bear some similarities to a handful of the late director’s work.
MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY
The Adaptation That Never Was
Summit Entertainment
Rumors of a John Hughes-helmed adaptation of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, one which never came to be, have circulated for some time now. It has not only been reported that the director — who is considered a legend of the coming-of-age genre himself — once wanted to take on the project, but that he intended to cast Shia LaBeouf and Kirsten Dunst in the lead roles. Chbosky’s own adaptation cast Logan Lerman and Emma Watson in the lead roles, as Charlie Kelmeckis and Sam Button, respectively. Rumors of Hughes’ take on the story suggest the director conceived his adaptation as having a heavier focus on dark comedy.
If LaBeouf and Dunst were to be aligned with their characters’ ages, approximately, in a Hughes adaptation, then the project would have been conceptualized for an early to mid-2000s release. However, despite the discourse that has been built around it — and its relevant preservation in the years since Hughes’ passing — it is rather difficult to determine the rumor as a myth or a fact.
While this would not mark the first instance a project from Hughes slipped through the cracks (as a Breakfast Club sequel was once planned, reported original star Anthony Michael Hall); a Perks of Being a Wallflower adaptation would have been a change of pace for the director. Most of Hughes’ biggest films were developed from his own original screenplays, and not based on preexisting work.
Hughes and Chbosky: Similarities and Differences
In addition to beliefs that Hughes was once inches from directing Perks, plenty of comparisons have been drawn between the director’s works and Chbosky’s original story. In Perks, vulnerability and nostalgia were presented so front-and-center that the picture nearly begged comparison with the director’s own projects. This is no surprise, as many elements present in Perks similarly contributed to Hughes’ many high school-set films. Included in the list may be The Breakfast Club or Pretty in Pink, which put emphasis on individual journeys seen from a high school perspective.
Chbosky’s 1999 novel is a bit of an anomaly, however. It is one of only two books out of Chbosky’s thin bibliography, and its semi-autobiographical nature marks different beats than many of Hughes’ pictures. The novel and film alike attempt to keep a grounded portrayal of high school, without sacrificing grander moments of triumph and self-actualization. Meanwhile, Hughes would more often play a simpler crowd pleasure. Between Chbosky’s novel and Hughes’ own high school stories, the greatest differences may be in their topics, but more often how they are handled. Chbosky’s original text discussed instances of sexual assault, while some moments in The Breakfast Club glanced over similar occurrences. In the same regard, Perks’ careful approach in discussing sexuality was not considered in The Breakfast Club.
Perks As a Dark Comedy
Examining the rumor that Hughes’ Perks would have been a dark comedy, it’s hard not to wonder how the effort would have compared to Chbosky’s compassionate and faithful adaptation. In examining their differences, it’s likely Chbosky’s status as the novel’s author ensured a more direct translation than Hughes may have delivered. The differences in the filmmakers’ tones make sense, however, as Chbosky did base Charlie off himself, and Hughes was an established filmmaker whose style deviated from the novelist’s.
If LaBeouf were to have taken on the role of Charlie Kelmeckis, under Hughes’ direction of a dark comedy, then the film may have come up less autobiographical. Instead, Perks may have looked more like a straightforward popcorn flick than a hard-hitting character study based on the director’s youth. However, taking a look at the dark comedy efforts, Hughes did succeed with, similar characterizations as seen in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles would have been fittingly somber for a Perks adaptation. In both Planes and Perks, family dynamics and friendship are glaring themes. These were topics that Hughes handled well in his filmmaking career. Where it counted, Hughes could bring a comedy to a halt for a moment of clarity and sentimentality. His ability for such would have made him an interesting director to helm The Perks of Being a Wallflower.
