Althouse: "There’s a reason no one has ever seen a big-screen version of Catcher in the Rye or Franny and Zooey."

June 7, 2017

"There’s a reason no one has ever seen a big-screen version of Catcher in the Rye or Franny and Zooey."

"In the late ‘40s, J.D. Salinger consented to have his short story Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut made into a movie retitled My Foolish Heart. He was so mortified by the swooning love story that he swore his works would never be butchered again."

From "11 Authors Who Hated the Movie Versions of Their Books."

This is a very scratched up old promo for the movie but it really puts across how dreadfully schmaltzy the thing was:

15 comments:

David Begley said...: Yeah, but what about the estates of the deceased authors? Seems to me that the literary executor has a fiduciary duty to maximize the return on the IP and that means making a movie. No dead hand ruling from the grave.; 6/7/17, 5:01 PM
tcrosse said...: Catcher in the Rye would not make a very good movie.; 6/7/17, 5:19 PM
eddie willers said...: Hard to imagine a more overrated novel than Catcher In The Rye.; 6/7/17, 5:25 PM
Richard Dillman said...: Add Willa Cather to that list. "A Lost Lady " was made into a film in the 20's; Cather hated it, and prohibited any more films made from her novels. "My Antonia" and "Oh Pioneers" were filmed when they entered the public domain.; 6/7/17, 5:44 PM
eddie willers said...: So I went to your link at Mental Floss and wanted to comment on a few of the choices but.....no comments section!

Jeeze Louise, this seems like a perfect fluff piece to encourage sticking on the page longer.

Anyway, Ken Kesey is crazy. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is one of those few instances where the film is far, far superior to the book. (The other that quickly comes to mind is JAWS); 6/7/17, 5:50 PM
rcocean said...: By comparison, Hemingway had low expectations of movies made of his work. He wasn't upset when Hawks/Faulkner junked his story and wrote a new one for "To have and have not" and actually liked the movie version of "For Whom the Bell tolls".

I can't comment on King or Salinger since I'm not a fan of their work.

Many authors dislike the movie, because the producers change the story to make more $$$. They know you have to entertain people and please a mass audience. While the authors want complexity and their cherished, sad bastard characters shown on the screen.

And Groom was an idiot. Everyone knows you take a percentage of the gross, since a percentage of the profit can be screwed around by the Producer/Studio. Its amazing what thieves and liars most Hollywood execs are - when dealing with outsiders.; 6/7/17, 5:52 PM
eddie willers said...: Also funny is that two Stanley Kubrick films made it into the list of eleven. (The Shining and A Clockwork Orange); 6/7/17, 5:57 PM
rcocean said...: King should never been surprised if the movie wasn't like the book since Kurbrick had a long track record of changing the book. "Dr. Strangelove" was based on a serious novel and make it a black comedy, while "Barry Lyndon" is a funny, satirical book made into a dirge like movie. And Kubrick's "Lolita" and "Spartacus" bear only a superficial resemblance to their source materials.; 6/7/17, 5:57 PM
rcocean said...: I agree with Burgess that film completely changes the book's viewpoint and moral but I don't know how you make a commercial film where everyone speaks made-up slang.; 6/7/17, 5:59 PM
Etienne said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/7/17, 6:01 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Anyway, Ken Kesey is crazy. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is one of those few instances where the film is far, far superior to the book."

I agree. The book is kind of bad. The movie, great.; 6/7/17, 7:55 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: Wes Anderson has made several Salinger Films without actually using Salinger's writing.

It seems to be working for him.

I am Laslo.; 6/7/17, 8:09 PM
CWJ said...: tcrosse and eddie willers beat me to it regarding CITR.

But I don't think any movie has done more violence to the original book than "The Natural."; 6/7/17, 9:35 PM
Sally327 said...: I think Tom Wolfe should be really upset by what Brian De Palma did to Bonfire of the Vanities. Except I think he got his money up front and had nothing to do with the movie so probably doesn't care one way or the other. I do only because it's a great book and it was a really lousy movie.; 6/7/17, 10:56 PM
dustbunny said...: Both Hitchcock and Kubrick used the basic ideas of books to expand on themes they wanted to play with or explore. That works best with either obscure or second-rate novels as the public isn't so wedded to an exact portrayal of the original. King was foolish to diss Kubrick's version as was made clear years later when King remade The Shining his way and produced a dismal, boring mess.
I know the obscure or second rate category doesn't really fit Lolita but I suspect Kubrick thought most people were only interested in the superficial story not the literary high wire act that was the real story Nabokov created.; 6/8/17, 4:09 AM