Who do you think would best handle filming Catcher In the Rye?

I've read the book three times and at different periods in my life. I discover new things in it each time I read it. The fact that the book has never been made into a movie retains the mystery and integrity of the book, yet I'd still love to see a film version, if handled right.

What directors do you think would best handle a film version of The Catcher In the Rye? And who what actor would be the best Holden Caulfield?

I like Shia Labeouf for the role of Holden Caulfield. I've been impressed with his acting, and he definitely looks like he could play a 16-year-old.

__________________
Like Nadal, I'm a spin doctor.

Ummmm haven't read the book

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

the first director that popped into my head was Sofia Coppola

__________________

I don't think that a film could be made about it. Not a heck of a lot happens, plot wise, and unless the entire film was narrated in voiceover, you'd lose what made it such a great book in the first place.

I've got to disasgree, I really don't believe that any book is "safe" from being adapted to film...there are always ways around obstacles...Im sure it could be done with minimal narration and the rest of his thoughts could be represented through "experience scenes" or however you want to describe them...

If you have a good enough actor they ought to be able to convey their thoughts without having to resort to too many voiceovers.

Considering the heavy-handed job Hollywood did in trying to bring the humor of "Catch 22" to the screen, I think they should steer clear of "Catcher in the Rye." The kids who buy the most movie tickets wouldn't understand it, anyway.

If that was enough to put people off making films, we would all be missing out on a lot of the classics and have to watch Norbit instead...

Hollywood isn't interested in making "classics;" they're interested in turning a profit on the films they make. Hence, they cater to the kids who will be in the theaters and buying popcorn week after week no matter what's on the screen.

If Hollywood were ever interested in classics, Orson Welles would have made many more movies than he did. "Casablanca" was made as a B-movie and just happened to become a classic. None of its stars were among the first to be offered those roles.

And I doubt any of the films released in 2006 or so far in 2007 will make a new "100 Best Films Ever Made" list in 2106.

I think this might be true in many cases, but Hollywood is not a single entity, and I think it's clear that there are still plenty of people with vision and (forgive the pun) direction working in the industry. I think there's more crap out there than they're used to be, but I don't think there's necessarily less quality; it just requires a bit more digging to find.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think Children of Men has a shot, and Pan's Labyrinth will certainly be counted among the greatest fantasy films ever created, if not on a more general list.

But, time will tell.

Probably about the same number that would feature on such a list now from 100 years ago...

Of course there are a lot of rubbish films out there, and of course the film industry is as interested in profit as any other, but there are, as Yoda has pointed out, still lots of people making films who are interested in film as an art form, or even just quality entertainment.

Bear in mind as well that a lot of the films we now consider 'classics' weren't instantly hailed as such on their release, so only time will tell how the films of 2006 will be regarded in the future.

JBriscoe, I was thinking Sofia Coppola as well, but I'm not entirely sure that she's the ideal director. I take back my thought on Shia Labeouf being good for the role of Holden Caulfield because judging from the book, Holden is supposed to a tall height. The movie will probably never be made because isn't JD Salinger still disallowing anyone to use his book for anything?
I think the movie could be marketable to today's audience. Kids are not the only people who go to see movies. The book is about being a person who appears as a rebel without a cause, but he really is a rebel with too many causes. lol After rereading the book, it really touched on some controversial topics, from suicide to terrorism. I just wonder what actor could do a great job of playing Holden Caulfield. It's fun to imagine a cast even though a movie adaption will probably never be made.

Yeah, I was probably being too pessimistic in my original post. I agree that one can't lump every director, actor, and stagehand into a sausage-maker approach to making a film. I'm sure most would like their films to have a shelf-life of more than one summer. The major breakdown, IMO, is on the financing-production end when they lump together a package of story-line, name actors, name directors based on what the producers and average movie-goer will buy.

As for there being more bad movies than good moves made now compared with whatever golden days of Hollywood's past, that's probably not true either. We remember all the great classics of the past, but most old films didn't make that cut. For every "High Noon," there were a whole lot of forgettable Lash Larue, Durango Kid and even John Wayne westerns shot for the Saturday matinee crowd. For every "All Quite on the Western Front," many war movies were churned out that were more propaganda than entertainment. For every "Bringing UP Baby," more screwball comedies that were more screwball than comedy. Certainly the more recent movie about Cole Porter's life was more accurate and more entertaining than the Cary Grant version.

I haven't seen the two films you mentioned, so I can't disagree with your assessment. Plus time changes things: "Casablanca" was just one in a chain of movies being made, and no one thought at the time that they were crafting a classic, but look how it has lingered in people's memories. There were plenty of films that were box-office flops at the time of their release that are classics today. And there were movies that were highly publicized when released that failed to become classics: Remember "The Greatest Show on Earth"?

We'd probably all be surprised at what will be considered the Top 100 Movies of All Time in another hundred years.

So if you could cast someone to play Holden Caulfield, would you decide to choose an unknown actor? I would. I'd definitely include some known actors in other roles, but not the main role.

I'd have Wong Kar-Wai direct. He's a master of mood and the use of color - both are vital in telling that story.

I'd cast an unknown. All the actors I can think of for the role are too old.

even if i haven't read the book

READ IT!!

I agree. Have auditions and go with an unknown who's never even been in a movie or TV before.

As for a director, Wes Anderson

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

I remember reading that book a couple years ago in school. Never gave much thought to what a cinematic version of it would be like, but now that I am... Ang Lee seems like the right man for the job. He's one of those directors who puts more stock into character than anything else and that kind of filmmaking style, I think, would compliment a motion picture adaptation of The Catcher in the Rye superbly.

__________________
"No form of art goes beyond ordinary consciousness as film does, straight to our emotions, deep into the twilight room of the soul." ~ Ingmar Bergman

This is one of those books that is great, not because of the plot, but because of the way Salinger uses the literary medium. I feel that Vonnegut books have this same quality, that is, they are great because of a specific approach the author is taking that is only possible with a book. Most successful film adaptaions of books involve a director taking a book that was a best-seller (and thus, a very plot-driven book, and so easy to adapt to screenplay), or some genre piece that is also easily translated into film. Also, directors will take books that are more or less unremarkable, and send them in a new direction based on the director's personal sensibilites and strengths. This is what Kubrick did with pretty much all of the novels he adapted. Very little of what makes his films great came from the books he adapted; he just used them as springboards to accomplishing his own vision. If someone wanted to use Catcher in the Rye as some sort of springboard to an entirely different type of work, then that would be the only way I can imagine it working, seeing as so much of the greatness of the book is inextricably linked with devices that are literature-specific (the narative voice being the most obvious example).
And since, that's the case, and since the book is so amazing and beloved my so many, seems to me like the equivilent of an american remake of monty python and the holy grail...that is, sure a different direction could be good and could work, but, really why bother?


it's gonna hurt me.