Salinger (2013) User Reviews

Good Biopic, A Bit Long

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 11 October 2016]

An unprecedented look inside the private world of J.D. Salinger, the reclusive author of The Catcher in the Rye.

I didn't know very much about J. D. Salinger, and frankly was not a huge fan of "Catcher" (though perhaps I should revisit it). That being said, this was an interesting look at a literary giant. I loved the WWII aspects, and I had no idea about Oona O'Neill; her relationship with Chaplin is legendary, but Salinger, too? The film's biggest weakness is that it could probably be trimmed by a good thirty minutes. Much of the running time is focused on actors commenting on Salinger and his work. I understand that they provide a name to help ell the documentary, but their opinions dob't really have any value if they never met the man.

Interesting, eye-opening, documentary

[grantss · 8/10 · 11 August 2014]

Interesting, eye-opening, documentary on the great novelist JD Salinger. Well-researched, it includes details of his life that weren't widely known.

Has the usual documentary stuff: a linear blow-by-blow account of his life, including some the more pivotal events and how they later affected him. Quite fascinating how his character is shaped, and how he then puts some aspects of his own character, and experiences, into his writing.

However, it's not all wine and roses and only positivity. All aspects of Salinger's life are revealed, and some will surprise you. Perfect he was not.

On the down side, I felt that most of the interviews with stars were unnecessary. They really didn't have much to add and were just there as a cheerleader squad.

Very interesting and well worth watching.

Some critics really missed the point

[greg-goremykin · 8/10 · 15 May 2020]

A recurring complaint I've read about this movie (I'm more of a movie girl than a film girl, which made it even stranger I'd enjoy a documentary so much) is that it doesn't spend near enough time of Salinger's work itself. Yet that would defeat a lot of the film's unwavering purpose.

A veritable sea of interpretations and impressions of Salinger's published works exist, it is the enigma of the man that is the question, and some of his writing has taken on such an epic and larger-than-the-author stature that even delving in a little would give this film a much different feel, and not in a good way.

I wonder if even a portion of the reasons that Salinger kept so much so to himself and guarded his privacy so very jealousy had to do with that larger-than-the-author reaction, where so much of one's self could be open to misinterpretation based on your art, just as we see in tabloid press about very famous actors, musicians, aristocrats, the extremely wealthy, and whose persona rather than personalities are what are worshipped or disdained.

Salinger is one of those exceedingly rare artists (Kubrick and Bardot are the only ones that come to mind) that basically said, nah, I'm not playing the game. You get some of my art, the rest is for myself or my descendents to choose what to do with, but you don't get me.

8/10

Incredibly Flawed but Still Watchable

[Michael_Elliott · 26 December 2013]

Salinger (2013)

*** (out of 4)

When you check out some of the "Worst of 2013" lists, I'm sure you'll run across this documentary on many of them. I'm not going to lie as there are some major flaws with this picture and I really wouldn't argue with anyone who spits on the film but at the same time, even through the flaws, I found myself caught up in what I was watching. Some of the flaws include the incredibly bad music score, which is constantly playing at the wrong times. In other words, if someone is saying something dramatic we get this overbearing score, which seems to fit a trashy soap opera more than a movie about a genius. There are countless times where you wish you could mute the score and just listen to what the people are saying. Another problem is a moral one and it seems there are moments where the line is crossed and the documentary is just spying on someone who wants to be left alone. I guess we could argue, as does the film, whether or not a public figure deserves to be alone but there's an interview here with a few people who met Salinger and it's quite obvious he wouldn't want them talking. It's also quite obvious that a few people were pretty much stalking him to get a photo, talk to him or just ask him a question. With all of that said, I must admit that the film really keep me glued to it as I wanted to know some more about the man, his reasoning for writing and of course everything behind his legendary book. The film asks many questions and we really don't get too many answers but it's interesting hearing from the likes of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Martin Sheen and countless book experts about the importance of this story and the man himself. I won't spoil the big revelation that comes at the end but that overbearing music score is on display. SALINGER is a very flawed movie and there's no question about that but I think there's still enough good spots scattered around to make it worth watching.

Powerful and Intense. Entertaining, heartfelt, intellectual and insightful.

[rannynm · 8/10 · 20 September 2013]

"Salinger" is an intense and educational look into the reclusive life of J.D. Salinger. Salinger is known for his novel "Catcher in the Rye" that continues to influence our culture greatly to this day. He took rejection after rejection to get his works published in the New York Times, until he finally had his breakthrough. But becoming an overnight success doesn't suit everyone.

I think this film is incredible. Salinger was such an influential writer, but was so much of a perfectionist in everything that he did so if anyone disagreed with his stories he would discontinue speaking to them. He had his own personal issues that he worked out through his writing, so when he published his stories he was really putting the most hidden parts of himself out there. When he went away to war it really changed them. The amount of death that he saw was enough to make any sane person crazy, but Salinger was already a little strange to begin with. I love the way this documentary conducts interviews with many different people that knew Salinger throughout the years. It was interesting to see how so many of them hadn't had any contact with him for decades because he would end relationships with everyone so quickly and abruptly. He even replaced his own family with "The Glass Family" which is a series of books he wrote. This film shows footage and pictures of his life, and even includes never before seen images of Salinger in WWII which is very interesting to see. The soundtrack in this film is wonderful because it makes certain scenes so much more intense. There are fantastic cuts and edits done to enhance the emotions and overall this is a very well done film.

I think it was very interesting to see how Salinger had an obsession with innocence. He had many different girlfriends and wives, all of them ranging from 16-20. He always put his work before anything else which had a strain on his affairs, so he never kept the same love interest for long. He was also very conflicted on his works. He wanted so badly to share them, but in doing so he risked putting his inner turmoil out there. When he published "Catcher in the Rye" he thought that here he was, having these thoughts and writing these things that no one had ever imagined before. But when the entire nation had the response "oh my God, someone finally understands how I feel!" Salinger was very shocked. He referred to his characters as if they were real people and he lived more in his stories than he did in reality. This documentary has inspired me to read "Catcher in the Rye" and many of his other works because he seems like such a profound yet tortured writer. I am very pleased to know that after his passing, he left his wishes for his writings. In 2015 his "Glass Family" books will begin to be released, along with some of his other hidden works.

This film is really a conversation about this mans life, so I think that needs to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not this film is for you. It also has some very powerful and intense imagery from World War II which is definitely not something that everyone can handle. I recommend this film for ages 16+ unless you are used to more mature topics and documentaries. "Salinger" is entertaining, heartfelt, intellectual and insightful to the hidden world of this American writer. Overall I give "Salinger" 5 out of 5 stars so be sure to check it out in select theaters near you.

Reviewed by Raven D., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic. For more reviews go to kidsfirst dot org.

Good In Bad Taste

[rdz8 · 8/10 · 25 February 2014]

As far as quality and entertainment value go it really was a really great movie. Good visuals, interesting information, high quality production, I have no complaints on that end. It's just that if the movie teaches us anything it's that Salinger was a deeply private--arguably troubled-- man antagonized to no end by the press and the public. He was literally terrorized because people didn't respect his need to be left alone. If we couldn't respect his wishes in life why can't we respect them in death and let him finally be. His writing gave us something great to remember him by and that's how he wanted it. He wanted to be remembered by and in his works.

Great lesson in how NOT to make a documentary.

[PBDogs · 2/10 · 7 September 2013]

If you really want to hear about it, SADLY, Salinger doc was awful. Terribly executed and most of all PHONY. It's everything Salinger himself hated. Bombastic, sensationalistic, voyeuristic, and just plan dull. To make up for it the genius of a director adds the worst over-scored music just so you know what to feel during each moment. AND to make matters worst, there are cheesy reenactments of a shadowy guy playing Salinger at a typewriter smoking a cig through out. As a JD fan I felt shitty watching it. There was one real moment in the whole film(WW2 vet telling a story). But thats all. It'll kill ya, whether you adore Salinger or love documentaries, it'll tear you to pieces for two and a half hours. Ugh! The horrible reviews were dead on. The book is a bit better, I must say, but doesn't make me want to finish it. I'll just wait until Salinger's new stories come out. Fingers crossed.

Excellent! A must see for Salinger fans...

[Johnny-113 · 8/10 · 23 September 2013]

This is a fantastic documentary. I read the new book, "Salinger" a week prior and still thoroughly enjoyed the documentary. While there is more information in the book, the documentary provided all the emotion that is hard to derive from a book. It was amazing to see footage of Salinger that had never been released. This is not a one sided portrayal of the author. The film makers successfully show his attributes and weaknesses. None of the interviews were superfluous. The music was gorgeous. I've read criticism about the reenactments of Salinger typing in his room. I thought they were very appropriate and not overused. Errol Morris had many more reenactments in "The Thin Blue Line," but that, too was an excellent documentary. I had HIGH hopes about his documentary when I heard it was going to be released and I was not disappointed in the least.

uncaptivating, factually incorrect, selfish drivel

[msanticlimax · 1/10 · 14 May 2016]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a pretty huge fan of Salinger's work, and that I didn't go into this doc expecting very much. After all, what can you say about a man who famously kept his personal life as far away from the public eye as possible? As I found out, Shane Salerno's answer to that is "speculation, speculation, speculation."

Not only was the technical quality of this film fairly sophomoric-- a heavy-handed score, the same "reenactments" repeated over and over, visual effects and transitions that looked like they came straight out of iMovie-- but a good portion of it was made up of (entirely white male) talking heads from Hollywood who had nothing to do with Salinger, relating tales of how The Catcher in the Rye changed their lives. That has no place in a documentary that is actually concerned with learning and teaching about a person, but it fits perfectly here, where it's clear that the filmmakers were most interested in duping Salinger fans with irrelevant anecdotes and padding out their scant "evidence" for Salinger's reclusiveness into a two-hour movie.

And it's exactly his reclusiveness that the movie purports to be about, yet they seem to miss the most obvious conclusion: Salinger was a man like any other. There was no deeper meaning to the fact that he didn't want the media or rabid fans in his life, other than his rather private personality. Looking for one, claiming to have found it, and reeling an audience in for two hours of baseless accusations and factual errors, is frankly selfish and irritating. A person's life isn't ours to dissect and claim for ourselves, whether or not that person made something meaningful to us. Where these filmmakers could have created something touching and human, they created a morbid spectacle around a man who liked nothing less, and to me, that's pathetic and sad.

The great writer remains a mystery.

[JohnDeSando · 1 October 2013]

". . . I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff—I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all." Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Rye

No writer in the 20th century cultivated such an obsessive privacy as J. D. Salinger. As famed as his Catcher in the Rye was, he was equally jealous of his privacy. Shane Salerno's documentary "Salinger" does a modest job highlighting his almost hermit life in New England. However, the above quote reveals as much as any documentary could hope to do the innocence and privacy of Salinger's iconic character and maybe himself.

Otherwise, this doc is occasionally and unintentionally hilarious when it uses the same still photos of Salinger over and over for want of an extant variety. A few of the talking heads are actors who may have no real cred to talk about the author (Martin Sheen, Phillip Seymour Hoffman); at other times the real deals like author and friend A.E. Hotchner and noted writer Gore Vidal comment with insight.

The women such as Joyce Maynard, who lived with him, and his daughter Margaret provide the best insight into his emotional and physical isolation. Beyond these first-hand recollections, it's hard for director Shane Salerno to shake anything new from the Salinger tree of life. The Internet holds the same information.

Then there's the heavy-handed music, most amusingly prominent in the final sequence that reveals what the Internet already has disclosed: Salinger, who died in 2010 at 91, authorized several original works to be released between 2015 and 2020. This information is about the only new material in the documentary.

In the end, Salinger himself is in charge. Most of the commentary is broad and speculative, lacking the inside information the world clamors for. He is as rebellious and disdainful of phoniness as Holden Caulfield. Actually, he probably is Caulfield--I fit right in with the other clueless commentators.

J.D. Salinger remains an enigma and a powerful one at that: "If three people used something I wrote in this fashion, I'd be very troubled by it." Playwright John Guare on crimes by Catcher in the Rye devotees.

Unmasked

[crafo-1 · 10/10 · 13 September 2013]

I loved this movie and found it thrilling. Only a few days ago did I begin to read Salinger's short stories again as well as RAISE HIGH THE ROOFBEAMS, CARPENTERS. Of course everyone has read THE CATCHER IN THE RYE and I agree it remains a right of passage.

I came to this movie with high hopes and that always scares me, because I set myself up for a downfall. This came through for me.

It is an intense psychological portrait. The 299 days he spent at continuous war, from D-Day to the concentration camps, most certainly carved out his soul to his dying day. And how could it not? As someone who has always been interested in platonic love, I was very moved by his friendship(s) with young women that did not include sex.

This movie thoroughly investigates the ego, drive, and mystery of this artist. The portrait is not always flattering and sometimes it is downright pitiful, but it seems genuine to me.

I would recommend it to not only fans but also any writer or artist who knows something about the thrill of achievement and the horror of fame.

I look forward to the publication of the posthumous work with relish.

Impressive breadth

[d_rishel · 8/10 · 6 December 2013]

My Friday Video recommendation: Saw this recently and I was impressed. I'm not sure if it was the film or if it was the story of his life (which I did not know). I suppose, for either reason, my liking it was a nod to the filmmaker. What is most impressive about this film is its breadth. It takes you from his youth, through his service in WW II and after and it weaves his life and the writing together, all in the context of the history of the 20th century. It does a really good job of putting you into the mood of the moment as it moves you along, letting your thoughts and feelings evolve as you discover more and more as it happened. It also seemed to take you on a mental journey similar to what people must have thought of him over the years; from when he was fresh and just published--what a sensation--and how that must have changed over the years as we learn more about the man and who & what he is inside. The filmmakers talked with hundreds of people--people of stature and those from his personal life--and shot hours and hours of interviews and conversations to put it together. The film does not adore him and it does not vilify him; or perhaps it does both. I could have lived without some of the "dramatic reenactments," but I suppose they filled the visual scene while the narrative unspooled. If you have read "the book" and ever wanted to learn more, or if you have an interest in Salinger, I do recommend this.

Very phony documentary

[PeterRoeder · 4/10 · 5 April 2017]

This documentary is absolute garbage. Salinger wrote against a fake world but this documentary focus on all the fake garbage that he hated. I'm not saying Salinger was the greatest philosopher of all time but he deserves some respect for the ideas that he raises in Catcher. This documentary seems to focus more on a phony world and has little respect for Holdens attempt at combating a fake world. There is really nothing good to say about this garbage other than it shows the meaning of phony ie not seeking truth. Almost reminds me of a horrible Carlsen documentary I saw. It is obvious people who make garbage like that has no real search for truth, reality, existence or deep questions in life. Absolute garbage of a movie and an attack on the intellect of Salinger.

Forever 17: Field of Screams

[cricket30 · 8/10 · 22 January 2014]

Novelist W.P. Kinsella long ago helped America to "feel his pain" (that is, CATCHER IN THE RYE author J.D. Salinger's rage at a world in which Charlie Chaplin, 53, was able to elope with "Jerry's" presumed finance, Oona O'Neill, 17, when Pearl Harbor sent the 24-year-old virtually unpublished author overseas to go Nazi hunting on D-Day). Hollywood was so concerned about this powerful icon's deranged and unstable mind, that when they turned Kinsella's novel SHOELESS JOE into the Kevin Costner movie FIELD OF DREAMS, they felt compelled to transform the book's "J.D. Salinger" into a Salinger-lite character portrayed by James Earl Jones. In Salinger's mind, SALINGER makes clear, Charles Chaplin's well-publicized serial cherry-picking proved that the "GREAT DICTATOR" and everyone else over 30 were "phonies," giving young people license to "put their people hunting hats on." The historians interviewed in SALINGER concur that CATCHER has instigated more murders that any other American novel in history, with Mark David Chapman's assassination of John Lennon and John Hinckley's wounding of President Reagan just being the tip of the iceberg. A monster in his domestic life who is quoted by a friend as saying he wishes CATCHER had never been published, Salinger was so wounded by Chaplin that he was inspired to carefully craft CATCHER as a book bound to be "cool" to normal young people, but also to serve as an insidious Trojan Horse to push young men with "borderline personalities" over the edge to extract young Jerry's revenge against randomly picked celebrities such as Lennon and Reagan perceived as "phonies" by troubled minds (such as Salinger's). While J.D. did not have the guts to confront Chaplin himself, SALINGER makes clear that CATCHER inspires legions of "copycats" to go gunning for any prominent figure who incurs their delusional wrath or envy. Therefore, SALINGER implies that the editors at Harcourt Brace and the NEW YORKER MAGAZINE were heroes for having patriotic qualms and REJECTING Salinger's pleas to publish CATCHER, while the staffers at Little, Brown should be sued just as perverts circulating child pornography are today for the damage caused when they foisted CATCHER upon a mob of susceptible minds.

Since you cannot put toothpaste back into the tube, NOW IS THE TIME "to nip in the bud" the posthumous publishing of the last 40 years of J.D.'s scribbling! SALINGER director Shane Salerno ludicrously implies there is a 50-50 chance these sure best-sellers (after all, they have name recognition) will be "literary masterpieces." I say the interviews of ACTUAL SALINGER ACQUAINTANCES and female stalking victims during Salerno's documentary PROVE that these books (if they actually exist) will be "Manchurian Candidates" to further corrupt American youth. Even Salinger admitted he was "crazy" by the time 299 straight days of combat topped by stumbling upon sky high stacks of nude corpses in one of Hitler's death camps first put him into an Army hospital with a "mental breakdown," and then caused him to illegally marry a die-hard card-carrying Nazi chick in Occupied Germany whom his unit was supposed to be punishing! Once this marriage was annulled, the Jewish Salinger converted to Eastern religions, adopted a mostly-peas diet, ignored his second wife and kids, and hunkered down in a concrete bunker to furiously type up thousands of "mash notes" to any underage teen girls whose addresses he got his hands on, actually deflowering a few of them on out-of-the-country trips financed by his mountain of CATCHER royalties. SALINGER documents every aspect of this disturbing psychosis, but CANNOT see the forest for all the trees! Who cares if J.D. landed on Utah Beach on D-Day with six chapters of CATCHER's manuscript under his uniform? It's likely there was some G.I. a few yards to his left or right with eight or nine chapters of a BETTER, SANER novel who got BLOWN UP--chapters and all--by a German artillery shell. No American should "feel his pain"--vicariously, or at the hands of a Holden Caulfield wannabe--ever again! Burn Salinger's papers now, before they attack us AGAIN like the BLOB!

You won't CATCH me watching it again.

[adamjohns-42575 · 4/10 · 12 April 2024]

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.

Thoughts onthe work of J.D. Salinger

[sosebee2 · 11 September 2013]

JD Salinger's work had a big impact on me for years after I read it at 17. I then read all of the short stories and I marveled at their craft but never quite in the rapture that Catcher In the Rye had. "Catcher..." was completely original and it was critical of modern society in a way that made most main stream adults uncomfortable. Having a hate-hate relationship with my parents at the time made "Catcher" a tremendous source of comfort but one does grow up so I haven't thought of the young Holden Caulfield, self-centered prep-school wash-out, for more decades than I care to admit.

But the thought of peering onto the private doings of J.D. Salinger and all of his various trysts is creepy like Norman Bates in Psycho obsessed with his mother and unable to move on psychologically. But I'm grateful to J.D. Salinger for showing me what good writing was but the documentary may have to wait for the published work to bleed out and hold him accountable for that. Whether he was a lousy father or spouse is for the gossip mags to hash out.

Totally captivating....like Salinger himself

[BudTalley · 10/10 · 19 June 2020]

I first read Catcher In The Rye when I was a 15-year old 10th grader in 1962, 58 years ago. No other book I have read...before or since...had the impact on me that Catcher had. Over the years I have bought at least a half dozen copies of the book (paperback & hard back) and have read the book at least 25 or 30 times. I DVR'd this documentary in 2013 and have watched it many times. There is just something about Salinger that draws me to him like a moth to a flame. To me, there has never been a writer like him. When I read Catcher In The Rye it is like Salinger is in the room with me telling me his story, rather than that I am just reading a book. For all of my generation...and anyone else who has ever read Catcher In The Rye...watching this documentary should be a mandatory experience.

The catcher who caught a generation

[tomsview · 8/10 · 9 February 2015]

I must admit that I did not know much about J.D. Salinger before I saw this documentary, so I actually got a lot out of it.

I feel the film identifies the forces that shaped Salinger: his early quest to be published in the "New Yorker" magazine, and the status he felt that would bring him, then the withdrawal from public life when he became disillusioned with the trappings of fame. The film explores the impact of his unrequited love for Oona O'Neill, and the troubled relationships with the women who followed. "Salinger" also tells how memories of the war were never far from his mind for the rest of his life.

Told entirely through interviews, the filmmakers found many of the key players in his life – some are riveting: the quiet dignity of the veterans he served with during the war balanced against tell-all accounts by some of the women he encountered and left behind. All add to an understanding of what the man wrote.

The film details how Salinger entered military service in WW2, landed at Utah Beach on D-Day, fought across France into Germany then on to the Hurtgen Forest. He survived to see the horrors of Dachau concentration camp – eventually he suffered a breakdown.

Just before seeing this documentary, I had read Robert Rush's "Hell in Hurtgen Forest". Having some idea about what Salinger must have experienced during the war is enough to get my respect even if he had never written anything more significant than a shopping list.

Salinger was attracted to many beautiful young women – some of them very young. These days, with the paparazzi likely to pop up out of a celebrity's bowl of corn flakes, some of his relationships, no matter how platonic, would no doubt have attracted more attention than they did back then.

Most intriguing was his marriage to a German girl just after the war – she a Nazi, he a Jew who had seen the concentration camps. This documentary didn't have to try too hard to portray Salinger as enigmatic.

Throughout the film are interviews with people inspired by "Catcher in the Rye", who virtually stalked Salinger. They quite innocently tell how they tracked him down and forced a meeting. Along with murderers claiming they were inspired by "Catcher" to perpetrate their crimes, it's little wonder he became a semi-recluse.

The film is visually stylish, even if some of the war footage gets a little mixed up. I also detected some surprising influences such as the multi-screen montage sequence and Craig Armstrong's anthem-like score from "Love Actually".

However, "Salinger" captures the mystery of the man and the impact of his writing. One point really comes through; Salinger's characters were a part of him; they were expressions of everything he had experienced and felt, and he was protective of them. By the end of this film you understand why.

Interesting in parts but overall a weak doco

[eddie_baggins · 5/10 · 25 September 2014]

For a documentary that has at its disposal one of the most intriguing and mysterious figures in modern day history, it's a mighty shame that Salinger comes off so amateurish and lame, despite an ability to remain watchable thanks to its undeniably juicy content. This juicy content is so full of untapped goodness though, that in the end Salinger can be seen as a missed opportunity to truly get to the bottom of Salinger the writer once and for all.

Filmed by screenwriter wunderkind Shane Salerno who has given us such screen gems as Armageddon and Alien Vs Predator: Requiem, the feeling of Salinger is all over the place with quite shoddy re-enactments and some questionable stock footage making up a large part of proceedings, it's clear that Salerno struggled to put all the right eggs in the quite large basket. For a film that runs nigh on 2 plus hours, by the films end you still get a niggling feeling that some details where skimmed over or other details played out to long and the things we do find out make us less likely to appreciate J.D Salinger as a person.

I (as many others are) am a big fan of Salinger's work on Catcher in the Rye and while there are some interesting aspects and info shed about the book you can't help but feel a slight sense of sadness knowing that the man who wrote this novel was such a basket case of a human being. Parts of the documentary focusing on Salinger's personal life and preference for much younger women than he is, paints him as a preying type of male and his treatment towards his family and encounters with fans again displays him as a quite nasty human being. Whenever these aspects of the film take centre stage it makes it mighty hard to care for the story and the story works best when the focus is on Salinger's early life in the army and his return to normality afterwards. Other aspects of the film such as a horrid score and some random talking heads who have no real right being there again detract from a bizarre tale.

Finishing off with some revelations and giving an insight to the man who wrote one of the most loved books of all time makes Salinger a passable film but one that can easily be written off as a misfire and with years spent on its construction it's hard to imagine how such a mundane effort was produced as the final product. For die-hard fans only, the rest of us would be well advised to read the man's famous novel once more.

2 and a half New Yorker rejection letters out of 5

For more movie reviews and opinions check out -

www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com