In the interest of getting “hard” copies of my work under one roof, I plan to spend the next few weeks posting the entire archive of my film journalism here on ScullyVision. With due respect to the many publications I’ve written for, the internet remains quite temporary, and I’d hate to see any of my work disappear for digital reasons. As such, this gargantuan project must begin! I don’t want to do it. I hate doing it. But it needs to be done. Please note that my opinions, like everyone’s, have changed a LOT since I started, so many of these reviews will only represent a snapshot in time. Objectivity has absolutely no place in film criticism, at least not how I do it.
Originally posted on Cinema76.
Professor Whit Burnett drunkenly advises a young J.D. Salinger, seemingly aware that he’s reciting a line destined for a movie trailer: “Imagine the book you want to read … now go write it!” And so the seeds of a The Catcher in the Rye were planted, or at least that’s what writer/director Danny Strong wants us to believe. I’d pull the smarmy critic card and say that Strong should’ve taken this advice and applied it to the film, but it seems that he did indeed make a movie he wanted to see. Unfortunately, I cannot share in the sentiment. What’s telling is how phony the reverence toward Salinger seems. As this paint-by-numbers biopic blandly montages it’s way to the finish line one wonders if Strong has read any Salinger in full rather than just sticking to the Cliff’s Notes. Like a phony.
Burnett (Kevin Spacey, who is at least having some fun), demands that his class full of young writers abide by one simple rule: don’t let your style drown the story, rather let the story be a conduit to your style. Don’t be a phony! Rebel in the Rye is a classic example of doing quite the opposite. This isn’t to say that the movie is awash in stylistic flair; no, it’s pretty tame. But the cluttered and episodic structure prevents any chance of an engaging story emerging. It just feels kinda phony. While many a biopic seeks to elicit some sort of truth by examining a notable life, Rebel in the Rye seems only to have this to say: J.D. Salinger existed at some point, and during this time he wrote stories.
Nicholas Hoult gives his all as Salinger, and even though our protagonist is written as the broadest of tropes (see: phony), the young actor manages to breathe a little life into him. I do wonder if writing a screen-friendly, feature-length version of Salinger is even possible. The man’s commitment to extricating himself from the spotlight all but confirms the complete lack of cinematically demonstrable drama from his life. In fact, Rebel in the Rye plainly states that Holden Caulfield, Salinger’s most notable protagonist, is a fictional stand-in for the author. Furthermore, that author staunchly refused to let The Catcher in the Rye be adapted to film. He thought that any attempts would probably feel phony. Odd that, in a situation where a heightened version of a man can’t be brought to the big screen (for both legal and creative reasons) someone has instead attempted to give the real-life figure — one who is restricted by the limitations of, well, real life — the cinematic treatment. It doesn’t work. Too phony.
It’s a valiant attempt nonetheless, and for many moviegoers the straightforward functionality of Rebel in the Rye will be enough. There’s certainly nothing offensive about the film, nor anything so garishly bad as to diagnose it as some epic failure. What it is, however, is a poor idea executed as well as it possibly could have been, which doesn’t amount to much.
Holden Caulfield/J.D. Salinger probably wouldn’t be a fan. Probably would’ve said it was too phony.
Hope Davis and Sarah Paulson are also in it, so there’s that.
Rebel in the Rye opens in Philly theaters today.
