Rebel in the Rye

The glamored-up remix of the life of J.D. Salinger, famously reclusive American author who gave the world „Catcher in the Rye" and, er, other writings. Salinger is played by Nicholas Hoult, one of my favorite young-ish actors who can't quite reach stardom. He's a fine actor, and has lots of screen charm but hasn't found his real breakthrough yet. At least in my opinion. Usually he's used as window dressing in trivial roles, even in serious movies. If you haven't seen Hoult's star making turn in BBC's „Skins" first season – this was ten years ago, mind you –, you probably won't even recognize or care about him. But yes, he's appeared in a string of blockbusters too, such as the three last „X-Men" (as Hank / Beast) and „Jack the Giant Slayer", or „Mad Max: Fury Road". He is often heavily disguised tho. You may also remember him from „About a Boy" (2002) but back then he was only just a boy. „Rebel's" main strength is not its historical accuracy, nor well- balanced story about the great man's life, nor going deep as its hero aspired to, but a fact that the writer-director Danny Strong bets on one strength and goes happily all in on it. The strength is this being a true actors' movie, and they truly deliver. The performances are wonderful and everything else is there to support them. I would argue they have reached drama series quality storytelling, only in shorter form, in 106 minutes. Hoult appears appropriately soulful but mentally fragile, and Kevin Spacey as the only other major character (his mentor / friend) is just as solid as you'd expect from screen veteran of his standing. Every scene Spacey's in is like a masterclass of great movie acting. If this was a project of much higher calibre – instead of premiering in Sundance this January and then disappearing quickly – we would talk about serious Oscar chances. You know how deliciously the man can be. Critics are true that the movie is ultimately pretty shallow and petty, just what Salinger himself would have tried to avoid, but it's pretty and well-acted, and makes some points about being creative and/or famous that every modern person would still benefit from considering. Such as doing something doesn't mean you're all that creative or deserve much praise. Or: true creativity emerges after working through your fears and vanity. Or also: being famous is not for everybody. In 2010's, there's been a new trend to create fictional movies about real people and/or situations. Most are mainstream (i.e, shallow), as is „Rebel in the Rye", but this doesn't reduce its power to entertain in a cheesy way. The result is likable indeed. Writing is a lonely job and "Rebel" has the power to remind us the glamorous side of it too, if only for a second.

I'm not a Salinger fan by any means, so if I loved this movie it must have something going for it. Danny Strong is one of the best writers in Hollywood, and he creates a fast-moving and compulsively watchable story about a young man burning with ambition. Only young J. D. Salinger's ambition is not for wealth and fame. He wants to write a great book, and he wants to do it his way.

Nothing is more boring than watching writers write in a movie. But Danny Strong manages to make it exciting because we actually see Salinger learning from his mistakes and even more tellingly, learning to accept criticism from his mentor, his agent, and his publisher. By the time he's come back from the war, badly shell-shocked, and has to literally learn how to write all over again, you're completely in his corner. And the movie feels more like ROCKY than SYLVIA.

So why didn't I give this movie ten stars? Well, for one thing, too many of the party scenes looked like advertisements for alcohol and tobacco products. Late in the film, Salinger finds a guru who tells him to give up all "distractions," but it's telling that they never discuss cigarettes and alcohol as problems in their own right. Because of course nobody ever heard of a great writer succumbing to alcoholism.

The other problem is the supporting cast. They're not bad, they're sensational. Kevin Spacey plays the Columbia writing professor like he's lovable old Mr. Chips. But it's a palpable schoolboy fantasy. I went to Columbia, and let me tell you, most English professors were closer to the Drill Instructor in Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET. No matter what kind of work you turned in, they always made you feel like Private Pyle. Nobody was looking to uncover any geniuses when I was there, and nobody ever did!

Then there's Sarah Paulson as Dorothy, the world's most sultry and stunning literary agent. She's got the goods, all right. And she plays every scene like she's Lauren Bacall putting the moves on Bogart in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. The problem is, young J. D. Salinger is not Bogart. He's closer to Wilmer in THE MALTESE FALCON. So when Dorothy caresses him with casual endearments like "my darling," and "my love," you feel like it's either crude manipulation or writer Danny Strong giving in to his own teenage fantasies. It would have been nice to see Dorothy buttering up other writers, or maybe just making with the golf sticks, like the agent in SUNSET BOULEVARD.

So overall, a fun movie with a lot of excitement, but not really as hard hitting as it pretends to be. Holden saw phonies everywhere, but this movie pretends they don't exist. It's really pretty goddamn shallow, if you want to know the truth.

After role by role, performance by performance, he demonstrate his lovely artistic force in the skin of J. D. Salinger. Not only a great performance but, in same measure, the right story. Simple, dramatic, convincing. Inspired portrait of a great writer and the art of Nicholas Hoult to propose the precise nuances of his character. A film about deep loneliness. And about the basic choice defining it.

A fascinating portrait of J.D. Salinger. My concern is that people may skip it due to the Kevin Spacey scandal. it deserves consideration.

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.