[yasr_overall_rating]
The life of celebrated but reclusive author, J.D. Salinger, who gained worldwide fame with the publication of his novel, ‘The Catcher in the Rye.’
To start off: I’ve never read ‘Catcher in the Rye’ by J.D. Salinger. I was not at all familiar with the novel when I started watching this movie. I didn’t even know Holden Caulfield was the name of his protagonist. I only remember Catcher as the book the guy who shot John Lennon read like a billion times. None of that is to say I’m not familiar with ‘Catcher in the Rye’’s popularity and timeless quality (as evidenced by its forty-year run of perpetual bestseller.) In fact, I’ve never read any J.D. Salinger. So, I came into this movie with what I like to think are pretty fresh eyes.
Nicholas Hoult carries the film. I mean, sure Kevin Spacey helps but since he’s in and out of the story it’s fair to say Hoult is the true MVP. Nicholas Hoult plays the tortured artist in equal measures wry, witty, ambitious, and manic. Spacey brings out more of this flesh-and-bones person with his warm deliveries, reminding us all he’s a master even in small budget films. Still, the movie is about Salinger so thank god Hoult delivers on subtleties we can pick up on. It’s a simple film that humanizes Salinger as much as extols his legacy. The film leaves us with the gravity of what he’s done, something we tend to forget as another sixth-grade class has to read ‘Catcher in the Rye’ yet again. He wrote a book that has never gotten old. We get to watch him struggle over and over until someone hammers home the idea: writing a bestselling novel is really freakin’ hard. Salinger has done what requires astronomical odds.
The film escapes its modest budget by maintaining a singular lens on Salinger. Instead of spending copious amounts of time on World War II sequences it, instead, hones in on Salinger during the war, hinting at combat outside of the one major combat sequence we do get. Instead, we feel drawn into the world Salinger inhabited, although once we get past 1945 it all just feels like post-WWII and not any specific time. The narrowness of this narrative does not leave room for pretty much anything else. Everything we see has to be in relation to Salinger: his girlfriend Oona, World War II, publishing for The New Yorker, etc., it’s a very good thing then that Nicholas Hoult is incredibly watchable.
The movie paints scenes in color temperatures earmarked for exactly the kinds of emotions we’re supposed to feel. While not openly aesthetic, it’s color palette feels a little on the nose, which is to say, well done, but not arousing. The only time the elements of the film truly shine are post-traumatic stress flashes of Nazi death camps, frozen tundras, jazz age bars, and lightbulb flares. We’ve seen this similar effect before but you can’t deny the heavy weight of starved men and women in black and white striped prison clothes reaching through barbed wire.
Ultimately, the film left a slight impression on me, just a small dent. Even without knowing who J.D. Salinger was I’d find the story enjoyable. I’ll honestly probably use this movie as the basis for my cocktail party facts on Salinger some other time, but short of that, I wouldn’t recommend watching this outside of a rental. Unless you’re a Salinger fan. Which apparently some people are. Like, a lot.
Highlights: the steak scene. The one great moment of literary irony in a film about a writer.
In theaters Friday, September 22nd
Thanks for a right comely teaser.