Update: Obviously Salinger passed away on Wednesday at 91. RIP.
-------------- Originally published December 12, 2009 -----------
Author J.D. Salinger, is perhaps the most reclusive of America's reclusive writers (Thomas Pynchon, Harper Lee, Denis Johnson, etc.) having shut himself off from public and ceasing publication of any new material since "Raise High The Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction." This tales of the eccentric Glass family, covered most famously in his books "Catcher In The Rye" and "Franny & Zooey" have long been the holy grail for Hollywood producers to turn into movies. Though the novels have inspired contemporary filmmakers ("The Royal Tenenbaums" being the most transparently influenced film to date) Salinger has vehemently been opposed to selling the rights to the books after being burned when his short story "Uncle Wiggly In Connecticut" was pillaged to create the poorly received "My Foolish Heart." Since that experience, Salinger has sworn to never again let the rights to his books fall into Hollywood hands.
Over at the fun correspondence blog Letters Of Note they've posted a 1957 letter by Salinger to a mysterious Mr. Hebert which very clearly outlines everything that wouldn't make a film version of "Catcher In The Rye" work:
R. D. 2He makes a strong case against adaptation, but then again, it has been said about a lot of books that have ended up being made into films.
Windsor, Vt.
July 19, 1957
Dear Mr. Herbert,
I'll try to tell you what my attitude is to the stage and screen rights of The Catcher in the Rye. I've sung this tune quite a few times, so if my heart doesn't seem to be in it, try to be tolerant....Firstly, it is possible that one day the rights will be sold. Since there's an ever-looming possibility that I won't die rich, I toy very seriously with the idea of leaving the unsold rights to my wife and daughter as a kind of insurance policy. It pleasures me to no end, though, I might quickly add, to know that I won't have to see the results of the transaction. I keep saying this and nobody seems to agree, but The Catcher in the Rye is a very novelistic novel. There are readymade "scenes" - only a fool would deny that - but, for me, the weight of the book is in the narrator's voice, the non-stop peculiarities of it, his personal, extremely discriminating attitude to his reader-listener, his asides about gasoline rainbows in street puddles, his philosophy or way of looking at cowhide suitcases and empty toothpaste cartons - in a word, his thoughts. He can't legitimately be separated from his own first-person technique. True, if the separation is forcibly made, there is enough material left over for something called an Exciting (or maybe just Interesting) Evening in the Theater. But I find that idea if not odious, at least odious enough to keep me from selling the rights. There are many of his thoughts, of course, that could be labored into dialogue - or into some sort of stream-of-consciousness loud-speaker device - but labored is exactly the right word. What he thinks and does so naturally in his solitude in the novel, on the stage could at best only be pseudo-simulated, if there is such a word (and I hope not). Not to mention, God help us all, the immeasurably risky business of using actors. Have you ever seen a child actress sitting crosslegged on a bed and looking right? I'm sure not. And Holden Caulfield himself, in my undoubtedly super-biassed opinion, is essentially unactable. A Sensitive, Intelligent, Talented Young Actor in a Reversible Coat wouldn't nearly be enough. It would take someone with X to bring it off, and no very young man even if he has X quite knows what to do with it. And, I might add, I don't think any director can tell him.
I'll stop there. I'm afraid I can only tell you, to end with, that I feel very firm about all this, if you haven't already guessed.
Thank you, though, for your friendly and highly readable letter. My mail from producers has mostly been hell.
Sincerely,
(Signed, 'J. D. Salinger')
J. D. Salinger
So what do you think? Is "Catcher In The Rye" unfilmable? Who do you think could tackle the lead role and direct this?
Posts
19 comments:
This could totally be a movie. Obviously Michael Cera would play Holden, and the film would be directed by Jody Hill.
Actually his last published work is "Hapworth 16, 1924." It was published in the New Yorker on June 19th, 1965.
Malick.
Only Malick.
Unknown in the lead...
Michael Cera.
Awful.
How about Malick and Michael Cera. Ahh? AHHH??
I can't really tell if this would make a good movie or not. Like he said, so much of what makes that book epic are the little asides going on in Holden's head. Since this letter was written though, the acting ability of "child actors" has grown exponentially. So as far as just acting right, I mean, yeah, someone could pull it off, but it would lack that strong narrative thread.
Then again, movies based on novels are simply that. It doesn't necessarily NEED that narrative voice and it doesn't NEED to be a page for page verbatim movie adaptation.
I remember a long time ago someone said Jake Gyllenhaal would be perfect for Holden (which you can agree or disagree with), but he's clearly too damn old now. I don't see Michael Cera pulling it off though. Maybe Paul Dano. Or Emil Hersch (again, might be too old at this point - movie makeup can only hide so many years). If it were made anytime soon we'd probably get stuck with Shia LeBeouf (nothing against the guy, just don't think he'd work).
Only in the fifties mindset of innocuous mainstream cinema is it unfilmable; however, time quickly rendered Catcher a mundane and uninteresting token of teen angst. Not seeing Catcher filmed would be great start to the path that leads masses to shut up about the book and realize how devoid of merit it is. It's canonization is absurd, really. Salinger really has no right to come from this position of arrogance, and his reclusiveness was reaction to realizing his mediocrity. If Salinger continued to publish, we rightfully wouldn't be talking about his forgettable output and a John Schlesinger-type would have done Catcher: The Movie in 1977 or 1978.
P.S. Wolfy Twilight kid in a Ron Howard adaptation would be qualitatively fitting.
"Thomas Pynchon"
If the Coen brothers made a Crying of Lot 49 film, I'd probably be satisfied for life.
Malick F'sho. Malick is a recluse like Salinger, and Salinger=Holden. Therefore Malick=Catcher in the Rye?
Although I am sure David Gordon Green could make something golden.
On the one hand, he is a relatively young director, so he might not have the widsom to undertake such a monumental project.
On the other, hes made the same amount of films (nearly all being quite poignant) in less than a decade, in less than a third (fourth if you count Tree of Life) amount of time of Malicks career. DGG might have an easier time to tap into a consciousness of youth better than Malick, because of the age difference. These last two posits are a bit superficial however, considering Malicks mysterious nature.
DGG is definitely qualified to work with an unknown and get magic from non-professional actors.
Whatever. Malick or an older DGG, both sound good to me.
Salinger is right, shouldn't be made. William Burroughs made a similar point about filming The Great Gatsby: the whole character and story are nothing without F Scott Fitzgerald prose.
Director -- Wolfgang Peterson
Holden -- OJ Simpson (after his release, of course)
That's your movie, kids. That's your movie.
There's this line in the book about movies being phony, and that's why no smart producer would touch it.
I thought Catcher was pretty simple, but not in a bad way. Cormdawg novels are more unfilmable, but that hasn't stopped people.
My 1999 cast would have had Ryan Philippe as Holden. I never saw him as wimpy as Cera. If there was ever a movie, I want someone as nasty as he is wounded.
Have people forgotten about Igby Goes Down? That was basically a CITR adaptation -- with Kieran Culkin playing a spot-on Holden Caulfield.
Anyways, I'm with Salinger on this one. What makes the book special is Holden's voice, his running commentary. You could make a decently enjoyable movie out of it, but that's all.
I don't think it should ever be made into a film. It would take something spectacular to capture the power of the book, and even if some die-hards were satisfied, others would inevitably be deeply upset. What Salinger said is absolutely right, but it's beyond that now. The book is too much a part of the social consciousness now and in a way that is different from other classics. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. We'll undoubtedly see homages and knock-offs like Igby, which is fine, but I think everyone knows it would be a bad move to actually do CITR.
If it absolutely had to be done (had to had to had to), it should have been 30 years ago with Hal Ashby directing. Actually when I reread it a few months ago, I imagined it in a sort of Sofia Coppola style, with Anton Yelchin as Holden. And while I love those people, it would probably make me really unhappy to see.
I couldn't think of an actor to play Holden. Maybe Ethan Hawke back in the day but he's an old fart now.
Once the copyright wears off this will be made into a movie.
Director: Lynne Ramsay.
She made it work with Morvern Callar. That's a difficult character to read, but her direction portrayed the intricacies of her personality really well through the camera. She could do the same thing with Catcher in the Rye I think.
Who the lead would be, I have no idea.
I think that a Culkin would be a far better choice than Michael Cera
Just want to reiterate that with Malick directing and Paul Dano as Holden it could be a decent movie. Unneccesary, but decent. Pretenders like Igby are better as they get the same vibe without denegrading a beloved text. It shouldn't ever be made, but it will.
Post a Comment