issue 2 // volume 43

  

‘Youre the Worst, not actually the worst

> Rom-com sticks to clichés, but still departs from formula

Chandler Walter
Assistant Editor

 

OOOOS

hat started out as a

promising departure from
the general “boy meets girl, girl
bangs boy, love, sad, then love
again” kind of show could not
quite live up to the cliché defying
promises that it’s pilot set it up
for.

You’re the Worst finds

a boy, Jimmy (Chris Geere),
and girl, Gretchen (Aya Cash),
unsurprisingly finding each
other during the sloppy,
formative years of their lives.

The main departure from the
general stew of relationship
television comes in the form of
both partner’s personalities, and
as the title suggests, both these
characters are “The Worst” in
their very own, very special ways.

He’s a novelist, she’s a PR rep
working in LA... could I make it
any more obvious? It’s a show
about hipsters that still manages
to make fun of hipsters, and does
its very best to be self-aware of
the clichés it writes itself into
by constantly making fun of
the characters—via the other
characters—about just what
clichés they are.

The sarcasm and witty
banter is as greatly enjoyable as

watching both these characters
be terrible to both friends

and strangers alike, and what
smidgen of a relationship the
two have in the beginning is
purely driven by sex at worst,
and non-existent at best. Neither
are looking for anything other
than a roll in the hay, or three,
per day.

Unfortunately, this beautiful
segue away from the sappiness
of your average vanilla-flavoured
couple comedy turns against
its own saving grace, and the
characters begin to develop
feelings. Maybe there should
be a spoiler alert that these two
characters—of opposite sex,
existing in the first season of a

Adaptation consternation

> Don’t judge a movie by its book

Lauren Paulsen
Senior Columnist

 

WW: all done it. We've
gone to the movies to
see an adaptation of a book
we may love, and more often
than not, we come away
disappointed because it didn’t
hold up to our expectations.
But are we really being fair?

Books and movies are two
completely different types of
entertainment. One is a more
“active” type, requiring more
imagination to “see” the world
through words, whereas the
other is a more “passive,” type
because everything you see
has been created for you. So
why do we compare them?

It is okay to want to see the
book you love translated onto the
big screen. Being a very visual
species, we love to be able to see

the characters and places that we
imagine in our heads. Therefore,
it is pretty natural to compare

a movie adaptation to the book
you've read. However, you should
also remember that a director is
not the author of the book, and
may have a different vision for

  

the movie he or she is creating.

A movie or television
adaptation of a book can either
be faithful to the original
story, deviate slightly from
it, or could be an entirely
separate piece of work.

An example of an adaptation

Image via thinkstoc

romantic comedy—end up liking
each other, but that is probably
the least warning-worthy
development that could have
happened.

The show still redeems itself
in the personalities of its leads,
both being enjoyable characters
to watch going about their days,
navigating messy lives, and
making circumstantial decisions
that have slight repercussions on
the story arc as a whole. When
they’re together and keeping
things light, they’re a pleasure
to watch—whether they're
knocking one out, or stealing
various cars, vending machines,
or bottles of booze. It’s when
the all too serious “I-like-you-

that only deviates slightly
would be The Hunger Games.
Something that is effective in a
book may not work as well on
screen. In the original novel,
we are in Katniss’s head and see
everything from her point of view.
Although the movie could have
been adapted in this way, it would
be difficult to portray everything
that Katniss thinks. Leaving
Katniss’ point of view also allows
the movie to give us a glimpse of
some other characters, making
it more engaging for viewing. It
also gives the viewers a better
idea of what is going on, since
a movie cannot explain things
in the same way a novel can.
Another thing to think
about when you are seeing
an adaptation is whether the
director was trying to show
something different than the
book. Remember that the
director is a different person

arts // no. 7

Image via hitfix.com

do-you-like-me?” soggy tennis
match starts happening that
really slows the show down.

The drama of their
relationship commands the
entirety of the plot in the last
few episodes, but there is a
shining ray of hope in the way of
season 2, where things are kind-
of-but-not-really figured out
enough emotionally to let the
characters’ quirky personalities
shine again.

You’re the Worst is a valiant
effort to diverge from the road
most travelled, but predictably
sticks to what the plebs generally
want—good old fashioned,
vomit-inducing love. Worth a
watch, regardless.

than the author of the novel.
Although authors are often
consulted, they may not have
much creative input. Perhaps
the director wants to portray a
different meaning in the movie
than the novel did. In the end,
the movie is the director’s vision
and creation, not the author’s.
Therefore, it is probably a
better idea not to expect a movie
to be the same as that novel you
loved, or else you will most likely
be let down. In some cases, there
is no denying that the movie was
not made well (remember how
popular the novel Eragon was,
but the movie adaptation was a
complete flop?}, or perhaps, in
some cases, was done even better
than the novel. However, it is
best to remember that a movie
and a novel are two very different
types of media, and therefore
should be treated that way.