writing about music and movies among other things in hopes of selling ad space in the future or getting a job writing about music and movies among other things

Monday, January 25, 2010

Youth In Revolt: Do you like it better as letters or moving pictures?

Sorry for not posting lately. I decided you were getting a bit clingy. I just needed my space. But, now that I feel like you've been ignoring me, I want you back. You look nice, by the way.

The subject du jour is that of Youth In Revolt - Book Vs. Movie, and if you have taken the time to experience both, please grace us with your opinion in the comment box below. But, seeing as I have the floor, I'll proceed with my commentary now.

If my Kevin Bacon connection to Michael Cera were to let him know that I wrote about him, and he does in fact read this very post, let me clarify a few things: I am a fan. I think your( Yes, I am talking directly to you Michael Cera) subtle humor, and what not, is hilarious. I'd even call it laugh out loud funny. And I kid you not; I will go see any movie you are in. For example, I loved Nacho Libre, but that isn't the point. My point is that Cera is the only redeeming quality of the movie, Youth In Revolt. I'll offer a few sentences more about why this is true later.

You know when you read a book and you are like, "Oh Shit yeah!" Well, I kinda had an experience like that with Youth In Revolt. C.D. Payne exceeded my expectations(which is really easy to do - due to globally having low expectations) with this little manic bundle of joy. Wikipedia uses the word "picaresque" to describe the novel, and it is actually quite accurate (Note to self: No need to revise wikipedia entry on Youth In Revolt. Resume editing political views section of Glenn Beck page. Second note: re-check spelling on Fascist).

Youth In Revolt is the collected journals of Nick Twisp. It is 400 and maybe 60-some pages long - just thought you should know that for some reason. But yeah, this book would be hard to translate into a movie. The book is engaging because the reader follows Nick's inner monologue, which is quite devious, lonely, and vulnerable, which I suspect most of our inner thoughts are. If not, I suppose I just said too much about myself :C (is he joking?)

Therein lies the problem with the movie. Because it cannot possibly fit 4?? pages of journals into one movie, the film skips over the touching elements of Nick's life, all the while bastardizing the role of Sheeni, Nick's gf. They chose to portray her as a bitch, which I think is a major affront to Payne's depiction of her character. I am ready to argue this point if there are any takers. Also, the glorious inner monologue was lost, leaving you to simply watch the mundane events that were made brilliant in Nick's journal by his hyperbole and acerbic wit.

So, you might ask, "Why see the movie?" Well, because, it is fun to watch Michael Cera do his thing. He delivers the movie's punch lines well, and his interpretation of Francois Dillinger is really funny. And that is why, dude.

Yeah, that's all.

1 comment:

  1. Wasnt Michael Cera nominated for an oscar for his role in in Nacho libre? If he wasn't, he totally should have been.