Tybout: Salinger classic will hopefully remain unfilmable

On Jan. 27, perhaps the least-hated author you had to read in high school passed away: J.D…. On Jan. 27, perhaps the least-hated author you had to read in high school passed away: J.D. Salinger.

While most of us struggled with “A Separate Peace” and SparkNotes-ed our way through “A Tale of Two Cities,” “The Catcher in the Rye” was one of the few texts adolescents could genuinely enjoy. And with good reason — protagonist Holden Caulfield seemed to channel the teenage sentiment of dissatisfaction better than any modern equivalent.

Of course, the unparalleled success of “The Catcher in the Rye” may have eclipsed Salinger’s other great works — “For Esmé — With Love and Squalor,” for instance, is one of the finest short stories I’ve ever read — but there’s a critical consensus that, along with being the most-read of Salinger’s novels, it’s also his best.

Which is where the movies come in. You’d be hard-pressed to find a novel of equal acclaim that didn’t garner some sort of movie treatment. But for better or worse — I say for better — there has yet to be a cinematic adaptation of Salinger’s classic.

It’s not like the studios have forgotten about it. Rather, Salinger harbored a profound disillusionment with Hollywood.

After moviemakers apparently botched his short story “Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut” with the 1949 film “My Foolish Heart,” Salinger vowed never again to have Hollywood lay its dirty fingers on his literature. After the “Foolish Heart” incident, Salinger’s idea of movies may have more or less mirrored Holden Caulfield’s view of people: phony, cheesy messes.

But with Salinger’s death there came, along with the tributes, a host of rumors that “The Catcher in the Rye” would be shaped into a film, now that the pesky author is out of the way. Thankfully, according to The Hollywood Reporter, the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust remains adamant in refusing adaptations.

Perhaps with good reason. The list of great film adaptations isn’t particularly inspiring — many stories, like the recent “The Golden Compass,” get lost in translation. And even counterexamples of great books that made great movies — “Where the Wild Things Are,” or “The Lord of the Rings” — had to involve significant changes to the plot — changes that probably wouldn’t jive with Salinger fans who, with time, have only grown more dogmatic about the sanctity of the book’s every word.

But it’s not like Michael Bay would have made the movie — plenty of great directors have tried to obtain the rights. The legendary Steven Spielberg, for instance, once made Salinger an offer, which he of course refused. The fact is that the book would probably fall flat in even the most capable hands.

When people think “The Catcher in the Rye,” they think Holden Caulfield — the voice, the soul of the book.

Unfortunately, the sharp narration that permeates each page of the text would be diminished in movie format, barring the liberal use of voice-over. And while there are actors who might do Caulfield some form of justice — Paul Dano, for instance, or Emile Hirsch — I doubt any could really satisfy fans, each of whom had formed a slightly different image of Caulfield in their mind. If anything, “The Catcher in the Rye” would function better as a character-driven television mini-series.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Unless the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust has an abrupt change of heart, “The Catcher in the Rye” isn’t going to be gracing the silver screen any time soon. We’ll just have to keep the book where it has flourished since 1951: in the adolescent within all of us.