The Catcher in the Rye The Catcher in the Rye question


86 views
Best time to be a movie?
Demetrius Sherman Demetrius Aug 03, 2014 05:04PM
Was the best time for this to be a movie the 1960's? I think so. Young people were against the establishment, doing there own thing and non-conformists. I don't think it would have the impact today as it would as in a rebellious time period. Make it then or not at all. Movies like "Cool Hand Luke" and "One Flew Over Cucoos.." was about a society trying to control non conformists. So does a movie featuring Holden (who hates the phoney world) fits in best at a particular time?



Feliks (last edited Aug 05, 2014 09:16AM ) Aug 05, 2014 09:13AM   1 vote
I'd say the 1970s were the peak era in US cinema. A never-before-seen combo of realism, psychology, superb actors, and the removing of restrictions and censorship. Taboos could be explored. Social commentary was finally let loose.

Although each decade up to that point had merit, too. And lots of people can argue (very compellingly, too) that the 1950s offered the best quality and variety. The 60s had a lot of misfires, dogs, oddball flicks. The industry was in transition, feeling a little lost. Studios disgorged their stables of talent and mavericks roamed the landscape.

You can't find 'serious' movie-making in Hollywood today. Its gone, finished, done, disappeared. One measly flick which is non-laser, non-CGI, non-FX (basically 'Oscar-bait') film per year is not good enough, no. The dingbat audiences are just as much to blame.


I think you are right, but generally I hope this book will never be made into a movie.


I don't think Holden can be accurately portrayed in a movie regardless of what time period it would be made in.


???????????????????


Demetrius wrote: "Was the best time for this to be a movie the 1960's? I think so. Young people were against the establishment, doing there own thing and non-conformists. I don't think it would have the impact tod..."

Given Salinger's clearly expressed wishes, I doubt this book will ever be seen on any screen. I hope this remains the case. Hollywood invariably goes for low-hanging fruit and the widest possible audience.

The recent interpretations of Anna Karenina and The Great Gatsby were highly disloyal to the novels and give people excuses not to read classics.


deleted member Aug 06, 2014 05:01AM   0 votes
Never. :D


You could just watch Igby Goes Down.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgJLw...

Maybe we need to question who is making the rules and what the rules are. Every generation needs to do this. It is called maturity and growing up. When they don't it is called obedience and patriotic.


I agree that the story just wouldn't be the same as a film. Salinger's writing style is one of the best aspects of the book, and a movie just couldn't replicate that. However, I agree that the 60's were when most people could connect with a movie like this.


Let's face it, Catcher was made into at least one movie but by a different name. Admittedly a slightly more upbeat and a mildly comedic undetaking, but Ferris Bueller's Day Off was Catcher in the Rye.

Combined with all the teen angst films of the 80's, it would be more than a generation before it, CITR, would even come close to being 'filmable'.


Sadly, I fear you're right.

If it were made now, they'd probably turn poor Holden into a hipster.


back to top