Salinger (2013) -
Usually when I watch documentaries like these I fall in love with the art of writing, the idea of the book in question and of course the author themselves all over again.
While this film did relight my desires to get writing my own work, it didn't exactly endear the writer J. D. Salinger to me, because he came across as a very unpleasant and unlikeable character.
I did however find myself more inclined than ever to read the book 'Catcher In The Rye', because I've just got to find out what all the hype was about and why this documentary that clearly declared Salinger's faults and quirky personality traits as less than pleasant, was still full of people that seemed to worship and adore him. Surely then it must be one powerful story to be worthy of such reverence? I only hope that when I do finally get around to reading it that it isn't too American-centric and that it doesn't lose anything on this side of the pond or so many years after its initial release.
I did find that John Steinbeck's 'Of Mice And Men' book was highly enjoyable as a piece of work that transcended both continents, so I'm sure at the very least I will appreciate the basic story of "Catcher" and based on those interviewed here I will be impressed by Salinger's writing style.
Documentary films of this sort, which hadn't been my go to thing until recently, make me feel guilty about my lack of discipline when it comes to my own writing and leave me in awe of the authors portrayed, even though most of them were more than a little bit "Quirky" to say the least - Isn't that what makes so many of them worth reading? It's those special minds that pick up on the behaviours of others in the world and get them down on paper to deliver such great stories. Otherwise they'd be writing about the everyday man for TV soaps or disposable fiction.
I've always been an avid reader and more recently a writer and I can only dream of leaving a legacy like those of Steinbeck, Harper Lee and of course J. D. I long to read every good book ever written and this famous work is definitely on my list, so I was a bit disappointed to find that the author was seemingly such an ass.
I did find the history and the experiences of the author to be interesting to start with as it showed how he had become who he was and a bit about what he was writing.
However, because it was American based, I did struggle to recognise all of the people and sources that were referenced. It may not have been produced for my benefit, and more likely for those that have read and loved the book or maybe even been around for the time setting of the narrative. That might have been part of what I struggled with.
I certainly didn't like some of the editing choices of this piece, as it jumped about all over the place and as a result I couldn't necessarily believe that all of the content was used in the correct context. The timeline jumped around a bit too much as well, making the titular man's chronology hard to follow.
And it was a shame that they repeated the use of so many of the photos/video they had found as well, as once again it seemed to suggest that the context could have been relevant to a number of subjects and not necessarily used wholly accurately.
I also hadn't been expecting it to be such a war feature either. There was a lot that I didn't need to see regarding World War II and his involvement in it. Parts that actually upset me. I had to pause the whole film to come back to at another time, because I'd found the internment camp scenes so unsettling. However I was determined to come back to it to see if the rest of the film delivered anything else closer in interest to my own, because I really had enjoyed programmes about writers for the most part beforehand.
Coming back to it and as the film progressed I struggled to work out what sort of a man he was and found myself wanting to turn the film off even more often (I wish I had). It didn't seem to be delivering what I wanted or expected for a documentary about a writer, but was more about a crazy marriage to a German and his time recovering from a nervous breakdown after WWII and all of his other strange, almost paedophilic relationships and the other foibles that made him more than a bit anti social.
I had to question his personality further, when I discovered that he had married a Nazi (Sylvia Salinger) and then went after a 14 year old girl (Jean Miller). In fact by the time I got to half way through this production J. D. actually came across as a bit of a psycho. It made me question whether I might enjoy "Catcher" at all, when I do get around to reading it.
In some ways I was disappointed that there weren't spoilers for the story, because it focussed too much on the author and his war time, rather than really giving me any hint of the brilliance of the actual story.
Apparently it was a story that inspired idiots to be violent causing three, not one, but three people to kill/attempt to kill because of it. That's a quote for the bookcover.
I did have to wonder if the producers had realised the way that they were portraying their leading man. Was he supposed to be a hero or an anti hero or perhaps just a person of interest?
For me though, it wasn't just that Salinger had obvious mental health issues, but he was also an unpleasant character in general, based on this depiction and the snippets of his letters, etc. I felt sorry for the people in his life, especially those that still worshipped him and were treated badly by him. He could probably have been the next James Jones if he'd wanted to go that way, because they idolised him so much. Admittedly a lot of those interviewed seemed strange choices, including some of the celebrities that were actually known to me. For example, why would Edward Norton's opinion be specifically valid in this instance?
I was surprised that I did persevere all the way to the end of the film, because I really couldn't imagine that I would ever feel anything positive towards the man. He seemed like a perverted, mean and someone nutty, dirty old so and so.
I was obviously engaged quite substantially by the film though, because I wrote so many notes about it. A spark ignited within that felt the need to get my point over in this review, probably because it had angered and upset me. I found it hard to find any positives, which I always search for.
I did finish watching with the desire to read his book and those others of his works, which are now alleged to be available since his death. Mostly to try and see what all the fuss was about, but definitely NOT because of its writer, who I had never felt less enamoured with.
Reading this review back it felt a bit confused and mixed up, but that was also how I felt about the film and the subject matter. It's not one that I will rewatch or recommend, even and especially to J. D. Salinger's fans.
393.11/1000.
Usually when I watch documentaries like these I fall in love with the art of writing, the idea of the book in question and of course the author themselves all over again.
While this film did relight my desires to get writing my own work, it didn't exactly endear the writer J. D. Salinger to me, because he came across as a very unpleasant and unlikeable character.
I did however find myself more inclined than ever to read the book 'Catcher In The Rye', because I've just got to find out what all the hype was about and why this documentary that clearly declared Salinger's faults and quirky personality traits as less than pleasant, was still full of people that seemed to worship and adore him. Surely then it must be one powerful story to be worthy of such reverence? I only hope that when I do finally get around to reading it that it isn't too American-centric and that it doesn't lose anything on this side of the pond or so many years after its initial release.
I did find that John Steinbeck's 'Of Mice And Men' book was highly enjoyable as a piece of work that transcended both continents, so I'm sure at the very least I will appreciate the basic story of "Catcher" and based on those interviewed here I will be impressed by Salinger's writing style.
Documentary films of this sort, which hadn't been my go to thing until recently, make me feel guilty about my lack of discipline when it comes to my own writing and leave me in awe of the authors portrayed, even though most of them were more than a little bit "Quirky" to say the least - Isn't that what makes so many of them worth reading? It's those special minds that pick up on the behaviours of others in the world and get them down on paper to deliver such great stories. Otherwise they'd be writing about the everyday man for TV soaps or disposable fiction.
I've always been an avid reader and more recently a writer and I can only dream of leaving a legacy like those of Steinbeck, Harper Lee and of course J. D. I long to read every good book ever written and this famous work is definitely on my list, so I was a bit disappointed to find that the author was seemingly such an ass.
I did find the history and the experiences of the author to be interesting to start with as it showed how he had become who he was and a bit about what he was writing.
However, because it was American based, I did struggle to recognise all of the people and sources that were referenced. It may not have been produced for my benefit, and more likely for those that have read and loved the book or maybe even been around for the time setting of the narrative. That might have been part of what I struggled with.
I certainly didn't like some of the editing choices of this piece, as it jumped about all over the place and as a result I couldn't necessarily believe that all of the content was used in the correct context. The timeline jumped around a bit too much as well, making the titular man's chronology hard to follow.
And it was a shame that they repeated the use of so many of the photos/video they had found as well, as once again it seemed to suggest that the context could have been relevant to a number of subjects and not necessarily used wholly accurately.
I also hadn't been expecting it to be such a war feature either. There was a lot that I didn't need to see regarding World War II and his involvement in it. Parts that actually upset me. I had to pause the whole film to come back to at another time, because I'd found the internment camp scenes so unsettling. However I was determined to come back to it to see if the rest of the film delivered anything else closer in interest to my own, because I really had enjoyed programmes about writers for the most part beforehand.
Coming back to it and as the film progressed I struggled to work out what sort of a man he was and found myself wanting to turn the film off even more often (I wish I had). It didn't seem to be delivering what I wanted or expected for a documentary about a writer, but was more about a crazy marriage to a German and his time recovering from a nervous breakdown after WWII and all of his other strange, almost paedophilic relationships and the other foibles that made him more than a bit anti social.
I had to question his personality further, when I discovered that he had married a Nazi (Sylvia Salinger) and then went after a 14 year old girl (Jean Miller). In fact by the time I got to half way through this production J. D. actually came across as a bit of a psycho. It made me question whether I might enjoy "Catcher" at all, when I do get around to reading it.
In some ways I was disappointed that there weren't spoilers for the story, because it focussed too much on the author and his war time, rather than really giving me any hint of the brilliance of the actual story.
Apparently it was a story that inspired idiots to be violent causing three, not one, but three people to kill/attempt to kill because of it. That's a quote for the bookcover.
I did have to wonder if the producers had realised the way that they were portraying their leading man. Was he supposed to be a hero or an anti hero or perhaps just a person of interest?
For me though, it wasn't just that Salinger had obvious mental health issues, but he was also an unpleasant character in general, based on this depiction and the snippets of his letters, etc. I felt sorry for the people in his life, especially those that still worshipped him and were treated badly by him. He could probably have been the next James Jones if he'd wanted to go that way, because they idolised him so much. Admittedly a lot of those interviewed seemed strange choices, including some of the celebrities that were actually known to me. For example, why would Edward Norton's opinion be specifically valid in this instance?
I was surprised that I did persevere all the way to the end of the film, because I really couldn't imagine that I would ever feel anything positive towards the man. He seemed like a perverted, mean and someone nutty, dirty old so and so.
I was obviously engaged quite substantially by the film though, because I wrote so many notes about it. A spark ignited within that felt the need to get my point over in this review, probably because it had angered and upset me. I found it hard to find any positives, which I always search for.
I did finish watching with the desire to read his book and those others of his works, which are now alleged to be available since his death. Mostly to try and see what all the fuss was about, but definitely NOT because of its writer, who I had never felt less enamoured with.
Reading this review back it felt a bit confused and mixed up, but that was also how I felt about the film and the subject matter. It's not one that I will rewatch or recommend, even and especially to J. D. Salinger's fans.
393.11/1000.