Rebel in the Rye: Aux origines de l'Attrape-coeurs

source: Rebel in the Rye

Fiction has become Jerry's most successful pickup line. The culturally accepted version of lying that is: Short stories with arrogant and witty protagonists. Boys with blistering thoughts and sharp words, his characters observe only to formulate their next jab. This aggressive form of storytelling wins him affection from women, and disapproval from professors. Jerry writes himself into his stories, and the characters suffer an identity crisis as a result. His voice swallows up the narrative and the plot suffocates in an ooze of style. Of course, he is blissfully unaware of this clash until Whit lectures him into the floorboards. An editor of Story magazine, Whit still teaches at Columbia to support his fruitless career in writing. Whit is the first jaded wise man that Jerry encounters on his journey to self-actualization. The veteran abandons his podium often, knowing that Jerry requires a confrontational teaching approach. Sniffing out Jerry's talent, Whit chastised the young artist with noble purpose. A will stronger than titanium, Jerry's character needs to be re- purposed into an insatiable drive. Greatness comes at a grave cost. Even watering greatness involves countless occupational hazards. The fallout of success contains a special strand of toxicity. Jerry does not become drunk on his notoriety, but rather uses it as an excuse to alienate everything that does not pertain to the magic carpet that delivered him to the clouds. Jerry's second teacher reinforces this pursuit of isolation in the name of exterminating distractions. The stench from his daydreams sends him to the floor where he becomes enchanted by his breaths. Meditation becomes weaponized within his domestic context, and his productivity only wounds his family. Whit told Jerry very early on that writing is never about publication, it is about producing without ceasing with no guarantees of recognition. This cozy proverb morphs into an ugly manifesto. A global conflict gives Jerry a muse, but the magnum opus has nothing to do with death. But then again, his masterpiece might have everything to do with death.

Catcher in the Rye is one of the worst books I've ever read, but learning more about JD Salinger helped me to appreciate it as a piece of American literature. Seeing who Salinger was, & the struggles & triumphs he experienced, I have a newfound respect for the novel.

Do you remember reading the Novel "The Catcher in the Rye" by J D Salinger in High School days ?? Sure enough I dug out a Paperback copy from my little library today after seeing this Movie. A very well put together production called "Rebel in the Rye" that gives you a behind the scenes look at Mr Salinger's Life. I enjoyed the Film enough to re read the Book and my guess is that is what the Director was hoping people would do ?. The Hollywood Bells and Whistles Fancy Costumes and Music from the 30's and 40's are what you see and hear along with nice looking cast and Great As Usual Kevin Spacey who portrays Whit Burnett Salinger's mentor.

I haven't read "Catcher in the rye" and I'm grateful for this. I'm not saying this because it is a bad book but because it would create unrealistic expectations for this movie. Fortunately, I simply enjoyed the movie for what it was - a biopic. I've found it inspiring and even charming to some degree. It also persuaded me to buy the eBook (Catcher in the rye) which I'll start reading soon. If you are quite educated about Salinger, chances are that you're going to be disappointed because what's on the screen can never be as good as what's in your mind. Even if this is a movie about the author and not the book, chances are that you see Salinger in your own unique way. This is true about all authors. If you are not, then you can enjoy the movie. You can relax and not compare every single detail with actual facts. After I've saw the movie, I've discovered that there are many differences compared to actual recorded history and if I knew these things beforehand, I would have been frustrated. I didn't and I've enjoyed two hours of a good movie. The end.

This is a biopic of JD Salinger, author of "Catcher in the Rye." The film starts in 1939 and follows Salinger's life through college, the war, his PTSD, and publishing battles. Nicholas Hoult did in excellent job in the title role. The film capture the essence of Salinger as well as the turning points in his life that shaped his ideas. Includes first person narration. The film had interesting scenes which made statements within themselves. He who which we do not speak once again nails it with his role as Whit Burnett, an early mentor. Guide: No sex or nudity. F-word written on mirror in restroom. Don't recall any verbal use. I always found fiction to be more truthful than reality- JD Salinger and not a US president.

A truly fascinating film and I found myself thinking "Nicholas Hoult must get an Oscar for this one" only to be so very disappointed to find out he is not even nominated! I agree with the previous reviewer who mentioned the Kevin Spacey scandal and that it probably had something to with it. People, please see this film, it will be worth your time! If you have read "Catcher in the Rye" it will give you more about the author, if you haven´t, it will give you a reason to!

Fifty years ago I was banished from the classroom for laughing out loud while reading "Catcher in the Rye". It seemed I was the only one appreciating the humour. Likewise in the theatre there were times I was the only one laughing. JD was under-appreciated in his early writing efforts. The movie captures how tortuous it is to become a writer. It gives a good sense of where Houlden Coffield came from. It is a wonder that Salinger persisted in wanting to be published given the tragedies he endured from his girlfriend marrying a movie star to being mugged in the park with being in a war in between. The film captured the essence of the circumstances with strong performances from Nick Holt (as JD), Spacey (who I normally don't care for), and Zooey Deutch (as the girlfriend) making it feel one was peering into the past. The world of publishing was revealed and the novel was turned down (as were his early stories) yet became an ongoing success (250,000 sold annually) and JD resisted compromising his story and characters. The editors didn't find Catcher funny so I knew they didn't get the story and character. Salinger was a legend in his own time and the film helped understand why he became a recluse. From time to time I would read stories about the ) author and recall the incident when the high school reporter deceived him to give an interview. So now finally a movie tying it all in. It deserved a more main stream release.

First of all, the title is stupid. There was nothing particularly rebellious about Salinger. Maybe they should have called it "The Mentally Ill Man in the Rye." They just had to use the word "rye" in the title. This was painfully dull from start to finish and it would have been more entertaining to have watched Salinger write his book than the script they used to make this movie. Salinger the man is a lot less interesting than the book he wrote. He hid in the woods his entire adult life after he wrote one book. Get over yourself, dude. If you do want to make some sort of sense with this author's life you'd do better to watch the 2013 documentary Salinger by Shane Salerno.

It's difficult for a movie to capture and display the magic of writing, and this movie proves it. The actor playing Salinger is given a pompous screenplay to work with. Salinger comes off as dogmatic and humorless, and maybe he was, to some people, but I think this would've worked better if we heard some of those magic descriptions spoken. Every one of Salinger's Nine Stories is a gem. I know there's intellectual property laws, but I saw a documentary on Charles Bukowski and we see his lines printed out on the movie screen as Bukowski speaks them. It's Salinger's art that fascinates and touches. We should see it, up there.