An Unsolved Mystery: A Movie Review of Salinger

In my sophomore year of high school, I was required to read Catcher in the Rye.  I am open-minded when it comes to books.  I am not picky with genres, I am patient with slow-moving plots, and I finish each book I start, no matter how painful the process might be.  That being said, I was not a fan of Catcher in the Rye, and the legendary narrator, Holden Caulfield.  I have not read it once since then, but I remember feeling exasperated with Holden's complaints.  Each scenario he encountered seemed negligible to me, and I could not understand how so many of my close friends could find themselves connected to this whiny protagonist.  The book was insignificant to me, but to others, it was something they saw as an obligatory read to transition from boy to man (or girl to woman).

So--when I saw the trailer for Salinger, I was, at first, indifferent.  Why should I care to learn anything about J.D. Salinger, the author of a novel that stirred nothing intellectually nor emotionally within me? However, something about the trailer stayed with me as I left the theatre: mystery.  And I am a sucker for mystery.

I knew right away that this documentary would be much different than ones I have seen recently.  The director, Shane Salerno, did have a difficult task in making Salinger.  Almost the second Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951, Salinger moved to a small town in New Hampshire, to avoid media and adoring fans.  Ever since then, he was known as a recluse, refusing to do interviews and having short (to the point of being rude) interactions with fans who wanted answers.  Salinger died in 2010, so any recent photos are hard to come by. Because of this, there is almost no footage of Salinger in the film.

Since Salerno cannot rely on visuals of Salinger, he turns to interviews, reoccurring photographs of Salinger during the war, and a dramatic reenactment of the author, typing away on his typewriter.  The interviews include old friends, writers, fans, past lovers, and some big-name actors, such as Martin Sheen and Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Friends of Salinger all agreed that he was a confident man, sure that, one day, he would be a success.  Some of the interviewees go ahead and say that he was presumptuous, referring to his determined quest to be published in The New Yorker.

The biggest flaw of this film is the suggestion that Salinger's entire persona was an act. Through interviews, biographers state that Salinger was not really a recluse.  By "being out of the spotlight, he put himself in the spotlight."  At first, I listened keenly to these statements, since I really have no clue what kind of person J.D. Salinger was.  However, my opinion changed on this subject when the documentary turned to Salinger's time in the war.

Salinger wrote the majority of Catcher in the Rye during World War II.  This fact alone tells me more information about him than any of the interviews with his so-called "authorized biographers."  Undoubtedly, Salinger acquired a lot of inspiration for his character, Holden, while fighting abroad.  Salinger fought in D-Day, encountered death camps, and watched close friends of his die: all of these things would forever damage any normal human being's mind, soul, and spirit.  Interviews with family, friends, and lovers of Salinger reflect the effect the war had on him.  Entering the war self-assured and strong, Salinger left volatile and uninviting.  His relationships with many of the interviewees dissolved in a tragic and abrupt way.  After hearing this, I find it hard to believe that his life as a recluse is an act.
 
For the film to present itself as a mystery is unerring.  Most of the interviews are judgments made by estranged lovers, friends from Salinger's earlier years, and biographers that know Salinger solely by how he was presented through the media.  The film makes Salinger an enigma that any viewer would be fascinated to learn about.  However, for the film to present itself as a solved mystery is entirely incorrect.  I did learn much about the author through the film: his time in war, controversial relationships he had directly after World War II, and his undying passion for writing.  On the other hand, I still know nothing about J.D. Salinger.

"Uncover the mystery, but don't spoil the secrets" reads one of the taglines for the film.  Unless I left the room for two seconds (which I did not), or maybe I answered a phone call halfway through (I did not), the film never, not once, reveals any deep dark secrets of J.D. Salinger that couldn't be looked up on Google.

One scene of the film provides never-before-seen footage of Salinger during the war.  The shot includes him accepting flowers from a woman on the street on V-E Day.  That's it.  This shot tells us nothing about Salinger.  We can't even see his face, so anyone trying to claim that this footage makes him more human, more available, or (God forbid), not a recluse, is just trying to take up more screen time.

Don't get me wrong: Salinger did a lot of things right for me.  I found many of the interviews intriguing, and I truly find the capacity Catcher in the Rye had in celebrity shootings (John Lennon and Ronald Reagan) chilling and riveting.  That being said, Salinger falsely presents itself as a film uncovering the truth behind Salinger and his curious life.  The two-hour film relies solely on first-person accounts, which may be biased and stated to make the interviewees themselves look better.  There are far too many contradictions on Salinger's character for a viewer to keep up with.  And lastly, absolutely no secrets are revealed to the audience.

One thing Salinger did for me: I really want to read Catcher in the Rye again.  Maybe I will pick up on more of Salinger's secrets in his own words than I did from the accounts of people who were at odds with the author.  Or...maybe I won't.  And maybe that's the point.  

  


 

 

 


 

           

    

A Film Ignited: A Movie Review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The second installment of the The Hunger Games is quite like its predecessor; except it has double the chemistry, double the spectacles, and double the raw drama.  Catching Fire is as its title suggests: the film blazes as an adaptation to the thrilling and provocative novel that millions of fans have come to love.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) smoothly transitions from "The Girl on Fire" to the "Mockingjay" in this sequel.  She stands as the root of the revolution and becomes an enemy to the tyrannical party that governs over the twelve districts of future America, or as it is referred to in the film, Panem.  Katniss is, metaphorically and literally, on fire throughout the film.  Each outfit she wears is designed to be ignited, and in comparison with the last film, these graphics alone have far surpassed the expectations of fans who may still be reeling from how hokey her outfits looked in the first film.

President Snow (Donald Sutherland), the nefarious dictator of Panem, wishes to crush the hope of, not only Katniss and her loved ones, but of all of the resistors that reside in each District.  He indelicately warns Katniss at the start of the film that she and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), her fellow District 12 victor, must keep up their fake relationship in order to stray far away from impending war.  He asks Katniss to not only convince the Districts of their love; she must also convince him.

However, as Katniss and Peeta go on their Victory Tour, it is apparent that the revolution has already begun.  President Snow wishes to destroy Katniss, but must do so in a discreet way.

This leads to the 75th Hunger Games, where Snow and the new Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), plan to have former victors from each District enter the arena once again.  Thus, Katniss and Peeta, surrounded by experienced killers, find themselves on a tropical island full of nightmares that far exceed the horrors from the first film.

Ever since I first saw Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, I have been an adamant fan of hers.  I firmly believe she can do no wrong.  She allows herself to entirely become her character in each film she is in, and the same goes for her performances in both films of The Hunger Games.

One can never forget that Katniss is a victor: her stature suggests hardship, her face rarely reveals any emotion, and her hand is constantly steady on her bow.  Yet, at the same time, one can never forget that she loves without restraint: she makes sacrifices for her family and friends, she still sheds tears over allies from the last Games, and she fears nothing more than losing a loved one.  Lawrence combines both victor and lover flawlessly in this film.

Lawrence's counterpart, Josh Hutcherson, vastly improves in this second installment.  His performance is very much real in Catching Fire.  He is present throughout, and he perfectly matches Lawrence's charisma and emotional depth; whereas in the last film, it was easy to forget that Peeta was even there.

Together, the chemistry between Lawrence and Hutcherson is 100% stronger in this film than it was in the first.  Their relationship is believable, and there are moments where one can discern between what is an act put on for President Snow's benefit and what is a genuine connection shared between the two characters.

Catching Fire is a nearly perfect cliffhanger before the epic, two-part conclusion, Mockingjay.  Everything about this film far exceeds those from the first film, from the graphics, to the plot, the character relationships, and most importantly, to the actors' performances.  The director, Francis Lawrence, combines the penetrating storyline with his fantastic aesthetics to create an explosive film worth seeing.