Review: THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, When Tear-Jerking Is Not Enough

Managing Editor; Dallas, Texas (@peteramartin)
to Vote
Review: THE FAULT IN OUR STARS, When Tear-Jerking Is Not Enough

To paraphrase Shakespeare (badly): If you place cancer kids in front of me, will I not cry? What human being with an ounce of empathy would not be touched deeply at the sight of a terminally-ill person, especially a child or teenager?

Most everyone on Earth has lost a loved one to cancer or some other horrible disease, myself included multiple times over, so any movie that declares it, and it alone, intends to "tell the truth" about terminally-ill cancer kids is courting disaster. Foolhardy as it may be for Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley) to declare that sentiment in the opening moments of The Fault in Our Stars, however, it reveals something essential about her character: she seeks the truth with resolute zeal, despite the illness that often takes away her breath, requires her to use a portable oxygen tank, and will kill her, sooner rather than later.

Based on an immensely popular novel by John Green, The Fault in Our Stars has been adapted for the screen with an apparent respect for the source material by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, the writers of the above-average romantic comedy/dramas (500) Days of Summer and The Spectacular Now. (Though I've not read the book, a quick internet search suggests many lines of dialogue are lifted verbatim from it.) Hazel's mother (Laura Dern) insists that she attend a cancer support group, where she meets Gus (Ansel Elgort), who has come in support of his best friend Isaac (Nat Wolff). Gus had cancer as well, but amputation of his leg has spared his life, while Isaac has already lost one eye and will, very soon, lose his other eye too.

Sharing a pragmatic view of life and a similar sense of humor, Hazel and Gus are drawn to one another. Gus also falls in love with Hazel's favorite book, a novel about a little girl with cancer, written by Peter Van Houten, an author who now lives in seclusion in Amsterdam. In no time, Gus has done the impossible and tracked down Van Houten, initiating an email correspondence that is soon joined by Hazel. Meanwhile, Hazel has pulled back a bit from Gus, resisting the idea of a romantic relationship for fear Gus would be even more devastated by her death.

fault-in-our-stars-350.jpgThe inherent poignancy of the situation tugs hard at the heart strings. While it's filled with empathy for the characters, the narrative is also baldly manipulative, not only in the timing of the relationship between Hazel and Gus -- 'Oh, great! I don't find my one true love UNTIL I'M DYING?! Thanks, universe!' -- but also in the entire scenario that is created between Hazel, Gus, and Van Houten, which practically screams out: 'I am a plot device. Look out for ironic twists ahead.'

Cutting pages from a book and pasting them on screen may assure that fans of the novel will be pleased, but director Josh Boone displays little interest in making the film come alive beyond the words that are enacted. While everything looks absolutely lovely, thanks to director of photography Ben Richardson (Beasts of the Southern Wild, Drinking Buddies), Boone frames nearly every scene in close-ups or medium shots, much like an old network television soap opera; it's evidently intended to maximize the emotional effect, but instead flattens the tone. What begins as a recognition of individuality becomes the tyranny of conformity: if you don't cry, there must be something wrong with you.

Certainly tears are part of the grieving / healing / accepting process, but tear-jerking by filmmakers is not enough to make up for deficiencies elsewhere, any more than an abundance of terrific action choreography makes up for a lack of character development in a martial arts movie. Of course, as a viewer, sometimes all I want is great action, and I'm willing to overlook glaring weaknesses in the plot and/or performances.

With that in mind, The Fault in Our Stars is competent and respectful, and features a noteworthy performance by Shailene Woodley, who nails every moment with grace and precision. Bring your handkerchiefs.

The films opens in theaters wide across North America on Friday, June 6. Visit the official site for more information.

to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.
Ansel ElgortLaura DernNat WolffSam TrammellShailene WoodleyWillem DafoeJosh BooneScott NeustadterMichael H. WeberJohn GreenDramaRomance

More from Around the Web

More about The Fault in Our Stars

Around the Internet

JustPlainSomethingJune 5, 2014 5:42 PM

In all fairness, Hazel has been dying since she was 13, so the idea that she's conveniently only finding love "when she's dying" isn't really true.

Peter MartinJune 6, 2014 3:24 AM

Hazel's been living with the terminal diagnosis for years, but I had the impression from the film that her physical condition worsened (again) *after* she met Gus and began developing romantic feelings for him, thus conveying the idea that she felt her own death was imminent. Wasn't that part of the discussion with the doctors, that she was now too sick to travel to Amsterdam?

J HurtadoJune 6, 2014 9:24 AM

I saw the trailer for this film about 700 times on Hulu last night as I attempted to catch up on Master Chef and it looked like horribly manipulative fluff that would make me vomit. Glad to hear that it might only make me dryheave.

JustPlainSomethingJune 6, 2014 10:31 AM

Thinking back to the scene in the movie when she's talking about her
treatment, I believe she does say that it's keeping her around "for more
time." I mean it did worsen after she met him (and maybe it wasn't quite as clear in the movie), but in the book they make it clear that the medicine she's using is keeping her surviving ... that she knows it's going to get worse eventually and she's still very much terminal, even at the beginning when she meets Augustus.

Pa Kent Says MaybeJune 8, 2014 12:48 PM

And, it's the biggest movie of the weekend (in America).

Sigh. At least, it being summer, all the movies it was up against were fluff, too, so it doesn't matter.

Tricia AllenJune 18, 2014 10:45 AM

It's interesting how you suggest that the main intent of the movie's director was to create a tearjerker. I actually think the use of words directly from the book in addition to the cinematography and superb acting from Woodley resulted in an exceptional film. The movie was bound to be a tearjerker -- anyone who's read the book will admit that but I think the film far transcended the expectations of those who fell in love with the book. You can check out my article to see why I think that's the case: Here's the link: