海角大神

How do you portray a great writer in the movies without delivering the usual clich茅-ridden claptrap? The problem is compounded in the case of J.D. Salinger, a portion of whose life is portrayed in co-
writer and director Danny Strong鈥檚 鈥淩ebel in the Rye,鈥� starring Nicholas Hoult.

Salinger pretty much withdrew from public scrutiny in the early 1950s after the success of 鈥淭he Catcher in the Rye鈥� and 鈥淣ine Stories,鈥� moving from Manhattan to Cornish, N.H. Since even his public years 鈥� despite several biographies and the 2013 documentary 鈥淪alinger鈥� 鈥� remain shrouded in conjecture, the temptation for Strong to fall back on the standard banalities appears to have been irresistible. But both as a writer and as a man, Salinger was nothing if not unconventional. 鈥淩ebel in the Rye鈥� is so tasteful that it practically slides off the screen.

With his matin茅e idol handsomeness that would fit right into 1940s Hollywood, Hoult doesn鈥檛 look much like the (rare) photographs of Salinger from the years depicted in the movie, roughly 1939 through the early 1950s. Salinger had a leaner, wolfish look, with a hint of terror behind the eyes even when they were lit up.

But no matter. It鈥檚 probably too much to expect that actors portray famous writers well and also look like them. And Hoult鈥檚 casting isn鈥檛 as egregious as, say, having the slight Jude Law play the towering behemoth Thomas Wolfe in 鈥淕enius.鈥� Still, it鈥檚 not just the look of Hoult here that jars. It鈥檚 also that, as an actor, he lacks the animus to convince us that this writer had the mettle to write 鈥淭he Catcher in the Rye,鈥� or those nine stories (not to mention 鈥淔ranny and Zooey鈥�).聽

Strong lays out the motivations for Salinger鈥檚 insurrectional instincts, but there is a large disconnect between what we are shown and what comes through in Hoult鈥檚 performance. We see Salinger 鈥� who goes by 鈥淛erry鈥� in the movie 鈥� rudely challenging his writing teacher at Columbia University, the legendary Whit Burnett (played with bemused aplomb by Kevin Spacey). Naturally, they become best buddies 鈥� at least until Burnett, despite his best efforts, fails to publish Salinger鈥檚 short story collection. We see Salinger in a sanitarium, traumatized by his service in World War II, during which he landed on Utah Beach on D-Day; later he was present at the liberation of a concentration camp. Suffering from what would now be called post-traumatic stress disorder, he recovers his writer鈥檚 voice with the help of a Zen guru (Bernard White), to whom he confides that he ripped up the pages he wrote the previous day. 鈥淒id you enjoy ripping up the page?鈥� is the guru鈥檚 gnomic response. None of these scenes feel authentic.

I鈥檝e often thought that the almost complete absence of any mention of World War II in 鈥淭he Catcher in the Rye,鈥� which was published in 1951, reflected Salinger鈥檚 attempt to expunge from his memory the horrors of that war. The book is both scathingly personal and deeply evasive. If some of this conflicted quality of Salinger鈥檚 had come through in 鈥淩ebel in the Rye,鈥� watching it might have been a far darker and more jagged experience. 聽

But Strong is content to walk us through the paces of Salinger鈥檚 troubled ascendancy without igniting any depth charges. Even the less threatening aspects of Salinger鈥檚 life don鈥檛 hit home. A bit too much is made, for example, of how The New Yorker was the pinnacle of writerly success back then, and Salinger鈥檚 parents, played by Hope Davis and Victor Garber, are strictly papier-m芒ch茅 鈥� the mother is nurturing and supportive, the businessman father rejects the arts. Even if this was the way it actually played out, it doesn鈥檛 convince.聽

It鈥檚 ironic that Salinger, who loved movies but refused to have his books sold to Hollywood after a botched adaption of his story 鈥淯ncle Wiggily in Connecticut,鈥� should now be the subject of a movie he would in all likelihood disdain. In that same vein, I鈥檝e always been grateful that he prevented 鈥淭he Catcher in the Rye鈥� from being movie-ized. How could any filmmaker possibly match the book?聽

On the other hand, I am reminded of an anecdote involving James M. Cain, who once was asked by a friend how he felt about what Hollywood had done to one of his books. Cain answered, 鈥淭hey haven鈥檛 done anything to my book. It鈥檚 right there on the shelf.鈥澛燝rade: C- (Rated PG-13 for some language including sexual references, brief violence, and smoking.)