Review: The Fault in Our Stars (2014)

Note: While most of my reviews are of a spoilery nature, this is one film I know people won't want to be spoiled for. If that is the case with you, then please don't continue reading this review until you have seen the film (or at least, read the book, they are very similar).

Here we go:

Writing out the title of this film for this review made realise just what an odd title this film has.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." So said Cassius to Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Honestly, I don't know the exact reason why John Green chose this title when writing the book of the same name (that this film is based upon). Google couldn't provide me that answer.

So time for me to theorise!

Quite simply, I think Shakespeare's quote means exactly what it says: we may look to other things to blame our faults on, but ultimately all of the problems we find with ourselves come from within. Very well, except these kids have cancer?

I think the title should be something like "The Size of Infinity", considering that this comes up in dialogue a few times. Anyway, I should get on with the actual reviewing and critiquing part of this critical review.

The Fault in Our Stars follows Hazel Lancaster, a seventeen year old girl (played by Shailene Woodley) who has survived lung cancer. However, her cancer is a constant struggle, and she is only being kept alive thanks to the sadly fictional Phalanxifor, a drug she receives in doses through a tube she has to wear connected to her nostrils at all times. Concerned that she has become depressed due to her physical state, Hazel's mother and doctor encourage her to attend a support group for children and teenagers who have survived/are surviving cancer. While Hazel doesn't enjoy the sessions at first, she one say bumps into new attendee Augustus "Gus" Waters (played by Ansel Elgort). Gus is a cancer survivor, although one of his legs was amputated in the process. The pair become fast friends, and bond over time over shared tastes, including a book called 'An Imperial Affliction', about a girl with cancer, which Hazel introduces Gus to. Gus reaches out to the author, who responds, encouraging Hazel to contact him also. Hazel also receives a reply from the author, who writes that should she ever be in Amsterdam (where he lives), she should visit him. Hazel is thrilled at this offer, but sadly cannot go due to health complications. However, although he is eighteen, Gus never used his wish to "The Genies" (the films version of the Make-a-Wish Foundation) and uses it now to get the support Hazel needs to that the pair of them can visit the author, Peter Van Houten, accompanied by Hazel's mother. Although meeting Peter (played by Willem Defoe) proves to be a disappointment, the rest of the trip is made special when Hazel and Gus finally admit and act on their feelings for each other. That is, until a heartbreaking truth is revealed that the pair must face...

When I was in sixth form, it was once scheduled in my timetable that I had about four hours free each morning on a Monday (I had to take the hour long bus there each morning from 7:30am. My mother paid for this, and although it might have been easier to take the train to college, because the bus was paid for, I had to use it no matter what). I will admit now that secretly, I would sometimes use this free time to go to the local cinema in this town. The Fault in Our Stars was one of the films I saw during this time, and it was the one I was the most excited about.

I will state now that The Fault in Our Stars has never made me cry.

I know. I'm a monster.

There is a reason for this though. I had already read and enjoyed the book (the only one of John Green's books to do so, but we'll get to that), but I had finished reading the last few chapters on one of those trips on that hour long bus ride and I wanted to cry, I really did, but I had to hold it in. Somehow, I didn't feel particularly comfortable with being open with my emotions during the middle of a bus ride.

I took a few breaths and held in the sadness I felt about the end of the book. I thought I would cry when I saw the ending unfold on screen. Nope. My dad rang me and I had to run out of the cinema to answer the call.

What about since its release on DVD? Surely I would have redeemed myself with the empty box of Kleenex to prove it? Well actually, one of the last times I watched it, I laughed. I laughed a lot, and it was during the sad part.

I was watching the film with my mum and sister at this point (sorry to my sister, to whom I pretended that when we first watched the film together, it was my first time seeing it too). My sister was already crying as she knew what was coming (as she had seen it many times by this time), but then Gus revealed that he was dying, and my mum, who had not yet seen the film began sobbing heavily. I was sat in the middle of them, as they passed tissues between each other. I would have been more sympathetic towards them, except that all the while they were crying and wiping their noses, they were both wailing "IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HAZEL WHO DIED!"

So now it's time for me to say why I think people respond to this film so much. The character of Gus is fantastic, and Ansel Elgort's portrayal of him is stunning.

When the poster and trailer were released ahead of the film, I looked at Ansel Elgort (who I think it's fair to say was relatively unknown at the time) and thought to myself: Really? This guy is Gus? But he was so attractive in the book. This isn't to speak harshly of Elgort's appearance, only that at first glance with no idea of who he is, he may not be everyone's conventional type.

Augustus Waters as portrayed by Ansel Elgort

However, both Gus on paper and Elgort as an actor in this role are both incredibly attractive, and I conversely admit that I do not know a straight woman who is not attracted to Gus in the film. When he smiles at Hazel, you believe that there is real care and affection there. He's passionate, charismatic and is geeky in a soft way that doesn't exclude those around him with his geekiness. He's lovely. He's the safe and comfortable kind of guy you would want to marry, yet his charm and unconventional habits keeps him exciting. He is literally the ideal man, and I think he will become on of the most noteworthy fictional heartthrobs of all time, if he isn't on one of those lists already.

Shailene Woodley is additionally excellent as Hazel, but unfortunately I have found that her performance is overlooked when viewing the film with other women. They resent Hazel because they are not her (despite the cancer). People love Augustus that much.

Woodley as Hazel and Elgort as Augustus have wonderful chemistry together, one of the best examples I can think of for a romantic pairing on screen in recent years. The film is far more character driven than plot driven, which works here because the two characters are so likeable. The two leads carry the film superbly, with both characters satisfying to watch as a pair and individually.

The supporting cast all balance it out nicely too. All the likeable people are lovable, and the character we are supposed to dislike (played by Willem Defoe) seems truly despicable. These performances are the films saving grace, as with a weaker ensemble, I'm afraid the flaws in the writing would be more prominent.

Ah John Green. People really seem to like him. I did too when I read The Fault in Our Stars. My feelings about his work began to waver a bit with Will Grayson, Will Grayson, although at the time, I was hopeful that this was just a weak collaboration as the book is co-written by David Levithan (who coincidentally, has written a couple of books I have enjoyed to the point of rereading). But then I read Looking for Alaska and Turtles All the Way Down, the latter which made me decide I should no longer read his work, as it just isn't for me.

Ironically, the problem I have found with John Green's other books is that I have disliked the main characters. I found Aza Holmes from Turtles All the Way Down to be particularly grating, due to her selfishness, pretentiousness and the fact that I couldn't always understand why she acted in the ways she did, which is very similar to how I felt about the narrators in the other two books I mentioned. However, I found the plot synopses of his other books to be more interesting than that of TFIOS.

The script for The Fault in Our Stars succeeds in having Gus and Hazel fall in love at a realistic pace (which brings us the lovely line from Hazel "I fell in love with him the way you fall asleep: very slowly, then all at once.") It is also admirable of the film to succeed in avoiding something that lesser films -chick flicks or not- have done before: fetishising the personal obstacles our protagonists have. One would hope that cancer is cancer: it cannot be romanticised, but alas, Hollywood has had its ways before, with that and other unpleasant conditions.

But we'll save that discussion for my future Me Before You review.

The things that go on around them are not so comfortable. The whole Amsterdam trip, though lovely to look at on the screen, is truthfully a bit bizarre. For a start, I genuinely wonder why Hazel's mother goes on the trip with them at all. She doesn't go sightseeing with Hazel or Gus at all, so she's not their chaperone, and if Hazel had a severe health issue, Gus would apparently be left to deal with it on his own, in a foreign country no less. What did the mum even do on the trip in the end? Did she just sit in her hotel room and drink champagne the whole time?

Also, I find it hard to believe that any parent of a teenage girl would be completely fine letting their daughter, let alone a terminally ill one, go off alone with her barely adult friend, neither of whom who have ever been to Amsterdam before, to meet a complete stranger. When they tell her their story about meeting Peter the next morning, she responds to it all as though it is just a funny anecdote. I don't think that's quite the natural reaction. Surely the correct response would be closer to something like: "Oh my God, I let my kid and her friend go off alone to meet a crazy alcoholic in a foreign country, I'm a horrible parent and I'm not letting them go off again." But no. She let's them go off together again without her.

The Anne Frank Museum scene is a bit troubling too, and I'm glad to hear more people are recognising that. Now, I've actually managed to accept that Hazel and Gus had their first kiss in the museum. It's a bit of an awkward location (to the point of being distasteful), but Hazel struggled to climb multiple stairs to see the whole house. Once she reached the top, I can understand that her exhaustion from this and the emotional letdown from meeting Peter combined could make her tired of fighting her feelings for Gus and just embrace them finally. What I'm not comfortable with is everyone in the room clapping as the pair make out. Why would this be anyone's response? I don't understand it.

Another thing that befuddles me is a note Hazel leaves Gus the morning after the sex (which was the first time for both of them, and although I would guess it only happened the one time, we'll just have to assume was amazing and a satisfying experience for both equally). Earlier in the film, Gus drew a circle in some sand of a circle, then put a dot in the middle. He explained that the dot is him, inside the circle of eighteen year old virgins with one leg.

Hazel leaves a similar drawing for Gus in her note, except the dot that represents Gus is not inside the circle anymore, but on the line of the circle itself.

This is the book version, but it appears pretty much the same in the film.

What does this mean? I don't understand and no one has been able to explain it to me. If they had sex, then surely the dot should be outside of the circle completely, and not on the line? Does this mean that they didn't have sex? Did they only half do it somehow? I don't know, but if anyone can explain it to me, I would be sincerely grateful.

There's also a scene where Gus gets Hazel and his best friend Issac (played by Nat Wolff) to perform the eulogies he had asked them to write and perform at his funeral. The scene is strong, yet I can't help wondering why the church is open so late at night and why there aren't any members of staff around. I think there should have been a least a humble extra strolling around in a vicar uniform.

Overall, despite some flaws in the delivery of storytelling, The Fault in Our Stars is a ride as emotionally bumpy as Gus's driving (a recurring joke in the film). It is definitely worth seeing and is a personal favourite of mine when it comes to chick flicks. The likeability of the characters keeps you invested, and by the time the credits are rolling, you still wish the best for these characters, although they sadly aren't likely to get it.

THE SCOREBOARD

Chick Flick Check List Elements: 1, 26, 32 (Isaac), 37, 46 (half point), 48, 50, 51, 52, 53.

Total: Only 9, so it isn't what I would class as a traditional chick flick.

Is this really a chick flick or will men like it too? I think a guy could enjoy it, although it might take some convincing to get him to watch it due to the reputation it has as a "weepy".

Favourite quote:

"That's the thing about pain. It demands to be felt." - Gus

Would I recommend this film? Yes

Film rating: 8/10