About A Movie Awry

Post 285:

            I saw a movie that was poorly rated the other day. I almost had to. It was that biopic about J.D. Salinger. I mean, who can resist a movie about a book? I’m pretty sure the irony bells were ringing all over the place, considering Salinger loathed Hollywood and put himself up in a monastery or whatever.

            As a writer, I wanted to see what insights I could gain. Pretty weak on insights (the movie) but, then again, so is Salinger’s famous game-changing Catcher in the Rye.

            I’m not saying that it isn’t an amazing book. I’ve always loved it. Unlike a lot of so-called classics, it’s got a sense of humor, though it’s more sadness than an all out knee-slapper. There was a trend in the twentieth century. Something in the water. Every funny writer had to also make things a little sad.

            It was a whole thing.

            The Catcher in the Rye will always get mad respect from me. First, it’s short, which is always nice. Two, it never breaks character. I’ve written a book in the first person, and you can tell that Salinger is using Caulfield as a proxy to throw out his views. I did the same thing. But he’s really clever, because he only inserts so much of himself, and lets Holden be Holden.

            Therein lies the genius, I suppose.

            Not sure there is anything particularly genius about it, but whatever. It’s more like the ramblings of every angst-riddled precocious teenager that I’ve ever met. Trust me. I hung out with nothing but those people when I was younger. I was one.

            We don’t really change. We just get older and keep the angst. At least Salinger wrote a story and made a billion dollars out of it.

            More than the rest of us can say.

            Read it again. But don’t see the movie. It’s not that interesting. And I wanted it to be.

            Cheers. See you after.