I don't know how to feel about Catcher in the Rye anymore. I liked it then I studied it for uni and hated it then I just read hit pieces on the author that said he was a philandering cad. Now I'm watching Rebel in the Rye, and I forgot Kevin Spacey was in it, but I persevered. He's not good. Nicholas Hoult's a favourite of mine, and he does well with whatever you give him, (see the Favourite in particular). Oh, and there's my boy James Urbaniak, in a little bit role.
The problem with these fanciful biopics is they tend toward overdramatic montages, like this teeters on the edge of that tired cliche of clicking typewriters and pages flying in the air scored to fast, ethereal music. Like there is no other way to show the creative process. It insists upon defining a writer, I'd show this to people who struggle with their want to write over their need for recognition. Then there's the war montages, everything's very much by rote here, it's trying to imply some of these memories may be false but then there's nothing to suggest this is true, which I believe alludes to the notion of Holden Caulfield being an unreliable narrator. The scenes of accomplishment and rejection are all saccharine and over-explained. Yes, the protagonist is a known asshole. He has a showdown with the publisher over marketing and distribution, him going into bat for his precious Holden, who his lecturer insists deserves a novel. It's all very blatant as these things tend to be. It's more a highlight reel of the specific events in his life, I can't in all honesty believe the conversations as they're written. Sarah Paulson isn't misused here as the agent, but her adoration of him as an author is so overblown. I didn't know about the meditation, I don't know if he befriended a Hindu swami but apparently he slid right past Scientology and met Hubbard. I guess his reclusiveness is better illustrated. Everyone he respects initially becomes a simp of sorts. It's hard to make a philandering cad sympathetic. It's really hard to hear his family and peers gush over him, it insists with this idea that despite all his flaws people adored him. I found it fascinating he was just intent on being a short story writer, that he had to grapple with the entire process of writing for pleasure versus desiring an audience and publication, something I personally struggled with, this persistence of publishing being "everything" then ironically deciding it isn't by the film's end, once the struggle of recognition (i.e. primarily stalkers and the PTSD triggered paranoia of being lied to and manipulated by journalists), it's almost condescending and it never picks a damn lane, which I resent in all honesty.
I haven't watched Hoult's rendition of Tolkien, the story of which has some similarities (one being they're both set during WWI and WWII), and came out two years later, but I recall seeing trailers around the same time. I believe the Tolkien one is better. Rebel in the Rye is really too extravagant, I think a degree of subtlety was required but this seemed to be directed at readers to reflect what they think of famous authors and the publishing industry, rather than authors who understand the intricacies of being an author. This obsession with people keeping rejection letters you can show off when you're finally published or use as motivation, that in itself is tired. I don't recommend people do this, especially considering people don't write individual letters to authors anymore when they're rejected, and they tend to be way too nice with their carbon copy form letters anyway, which encourage bad writers to keep at it. For you to get a solid reason as to why you're not being published, that's a luxury afforded very few now, because there are too many players and not enough parts. It's not that encouraging to tell people "Hey, so and so got rejected so many times before they ..." Anyway, as someone who went through this process I wouldn't watch this movie and expect to enjoy it. But if you want to at least use it as a foundation for re-evaluating how you perceive yourself as a writer, it's probably not so bad. It's certainly a good example of the difference between having a wish and the stark reality that when it comes true, it wasn't all you hoped it would be.
Sidenote, I was going over my Heathers the musical rant and completely forgot Salinger refused to let Catcher be Heather Duke's book of choice, which made way more sense, and that's why we had to settle for the public domain text Moby Dick. That would've been way cooler to have a scene where he's told about the script and he refuses its inclusion. So the main character who's the most problematic turns out to be Jason Dean. (PS I thought the Veronicas also took their name from the Archie comics but they were referring to the line, "I'm a Veronica" when JD asks if she's a Heather. So the lawsuit that was issued on the band makes far less sense, according to them they didn't want the "wholesomeness" of Archie ruined by a sexy band duo, which means the concept of Riverdale now makes zero sense. That show is not wholesome.)
No comments:
Post a Comment