Comments on: Why You’ll Probably Never See ‘Catcher In The Rye’ On The Big Screen

By: Mike in Minnesota

Mike in Minnesota — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:39:02 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:09:46 +0000

I think that a Culkin would be a far better choice than Michael Cera

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:01:17 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:55:16 +0000

Once the copyright wears off this will be made into a movie.

By: Catlin

Catlin — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:35:48 +0000

I couldn't think of an actor to play Holden. Maybe Ethan Hawke back in the day but he's an old fart now.

By: Eliza

Eliza — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:16:39 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:59:05 +0000

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.

By: notanotherblog

notanotherblog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:41:37 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:26:19 +0000

Director -- Wolfgang Peterson

Holden -- OJ Simpson (after his release, of course)

That's your movie, kids. That's your movie.

By: Tristan Eldritch

Tristan Eldritch — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:54:49 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:33:43 +0000

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.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:49:53 +0000

"Thomas Pynchon"

If the Coen brothers made a Crying of Lot 49 film, I'd probably be satisfied for life.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:44:54 +0000

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.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:46:52 +0000

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).

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:46:19 +0000

How about Malick and Michael Cera. Ahh? AHHH??

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:44:27 +0000

Michael Cera.

Awful.

By: alphabet

alphabet — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:32:29 +0000

Malick.

Only Malick.
Unknown in the lead...

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:22:57 +0000

Actually his last published work is "Hapworth 16, 1924." It was published in the New Yorker on June 19th, 1965.

By: Stradlater

Stradlater — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:13:59 +0000

This could totally be a movie. Obviously Michael Cera would play Holden, and the film would be directed by Jody Hill.