ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Margaret Qualley

1on1 with Philippe Falardeau (MY SALINGER YEAR)

by Leave a Comment

At first glance, it may seem that My Salinger Year may seem like an odd choice for writer/director Philippe Falardeau to choose to adapt.

That’s certainly not to suggest that he would not have the sensitivity or skill to do so. As the director of such stunning narratives as Monsieur Lazhar and The Good Lie, Falardeau is no stranger to writing complex characters who are struggling to find their way in a new world. However, when telling the story of a young woman stepping into adulthood, an adult male such as Falardeau simply may not immediately come to mind. Even so, as he read the material, he felt that he connected with her story in ways that he did not expect.

“The question of me choosing that book is always interesting to me,” explains Falardeau. “It’s more the other way around. The book [chose] me in the sense that I [was] reading it at a particular and specific time in my life where I kind of recognized myself in Joanna. I could relate to that specific moment in life in [your] early twenties where you have ambitions, but you’re not quite sure you can achieve them, (or you’re not even sure if you are allowed to achieve them). So, I think I was at a good place to reflect back on that moment and knowing that people could also relate to that. But, specifically the book touched on something that moved me. The way she has attention to small details in a very feminine perspective and I had been looking for a female character… because all my films are from the point of view of a male character. So, all of this came together.” 

Beautifully written and directed by Falardeau, My Salinger Year is the coming-of-age tale of Joanna Rakoff (Margaret Qualley), a young woman who decides to skip graduate school in order to follow her dreams of becoming a writer. In order to make ends meet, she takes a job as an assistant to Margaret (Sigourney Weaver), a prominent New York City agent who clings to the way things used to be, whether it’s typewriters or three-martini lunches. Of all her clients, her most high profile is reclusive author J.D. Salinger and Joanna is tasked with processing his continuous stream of fan mail. Working long hours and living in a sink-less apartment with her socialist boyfriend (Douglass Booth), Joanna finds herself torn between her calling as a writer and living someone else’s dream for her career. 

 “Honestly, I had to do what Joanna did,” continues Falardeau. “I had to, at one point, decide what I wanted to do in my life. I think we all did to a certain extent. In my case, it’s even more dramatic because I was studying international relations when I was 22 and I thought I would work in foreign affairs. At one point, I saw this short film on television and I was very moved by it. I wrote to the director, who I [didn’t] know. She’s in Japan and she writes back. I thought, ‘Wow, her film moved me and my letter moved her. There’s a connection.’ I think that was the genesis for my career as a filmmaker. So, it connected with the book because Joanna takes care of all these letters that are supposed to go to Salinger and her job is to stop the letters from going to him. She thinks, ‘You can’t do that’ and she starts answering the letters herself. So, I think I was really touched by that.” 

As Salinger’s fans put their countless pleas to paper, Falardeau’s story takes place at a time when communication felt more personal. With the internet mere moments away from taking hold of the world, he latches onto the tension between the future and the past and honours the effort taken in the written word.

“I think the letter process was a more profound process when, as a fan, you took the time to sit down and write something, put it in an envelope and put a stamp on it…,” Falardeau observes. “If you got an answer, you probably got a genuine answer, unless it was a generic form response like Joanna was supposed to do. The film takes place in the 90s where everything is shifting. Internet is coming and cell phones are there, but it’s not widespread yet. You can sense that things are not going to be the same. It was true for the literary world, but it was also true for… the way people were going to see our films in the future. Art versus commerce. All of this was embedded in the film. Even though it’s about the literary world, it could be about many, many fields.”

Beginning as a memoir, My Salinger Year tells the real-life story of Joanna Rakoff as she navigated the literary scene in her early 20s. Asked whether or not it was difficult for him to adapt someone else’s experiences for the screen, Falardeau argues that it’s more challenging when the author is still living.

“It depends who wrote the memoirs and if that person is still alive,” he considers. “If it was a pure novel, you could say ‘loosely inspired by’. But it’s a memoir, so I couldn’t say that… I needed to make sure I was not stepping over the boundaries and I asked Joanna to read my various versions. She came in to help. It was important for me that she would recognize herself in the movie, even though I took some liberties. She read the script and said to me, ‘I like what you wrote that is not in the book. Can you go there more or further?’ That was very liberating but I kept asking her. For instance, the very last thing she does in the office, I asked Joanna [if it was] alright if I do that. She said, ‘Yes, because it’s something I might’ve done if the occasion occurred.’ In Berlin, after the premiere, she said to a journalist that, when [she] watched the film, sometimes it’s unclear what happened and didn’t happen because it makes sense.’ So, everything that I invented stems from very strong details in Joanna’s book. 

Though he never appears onscreen, the legacy of J.D. Salinger looms largely in the film. Known best for his iconic book Catcher in the Rye, Salinger endures as a voice that challenges and connects with youth throughout the generations. For Falardeau, the primary reason that Salinger continues to resonate with audiences is the rebellious spirit embedded in his writing.

“I think [Salinger] came at the right time,” he begins. “When an author becomes so big so fast like that [with a] certain generation, I think it’s because people were longing for that kind of literature for a while, and then it happened. When you analyze Catcher in the Rye, you understand why the youth and the teenagers like it. It’s a non-conformist point of view and about someone who just doesn’t want to belong to the older, adult world. It’s someone that doesn’t want to grow up. He’s afraid of growing up. But if I had read it myself back then when I was 15, I don’t think I would’ve gotten it really. I read it after writing the first version and I tried to put myself in the same shoes as Joanna and I was amazed when I read it. First of all, I thought, ‘Wow, it is not what I thought at all.’ And then second, I thought [it was] interesting that it’s considered a teenage book because I would have been lost as a teenager reading that. I thought it was about a mental illness about depression in a time where people never talked about depression and put a word on it. So, in a sense, he was 40 years in advance. He was way ahead of his time.” 

Somewhat surprisingly, one of the more interesting themes within My Salinger Year is its willingness to explore issues of mental health. Set in the mid-90s, Falardeau recognizes that this was a time where topics such as depression and anxiety were not discussed in the same manner that they are today. However, he also believes that issues such as these can also find a voice through the arts and allowed that to be expressed through his characters.

“I know that the letters are central [to the film’s conversation on mental health],” clarifies Falardeau. “Salinger certainly is not central to the movie. He is important and he’s a key. It took me a while to figure out how to stage him. It is about the literary world, but it’s not the core of the movie. It is about the coming of age but, for me, it’s about the power of the written word and the power of art. It can bring people together. Joanna understood at 22 that you cannot send back a letter to a fan saying, ‘Salinger will not read your letter.’ It is better not to receive anything. It is better not to know that he’s not going to read it. Why? Because, to these people, art is something that can heal. It can bring people together. But [it can make you] ill also.” 

“This brings us to the question of mental illness. I think art has a role to play in our mental health and in opening channels to communicate. By blocking that channel, this is something that becomes very poisonous and dangerous. I think deep down inside, that’s what moved me in Joanna’s memoir and in the journey of the characters. It’s the same thing with her relationship with her boss. [Margaret] was kind of like idiosyncratic and very bossy and a bit cold, but I needed to create an arc with that character. That came with Joanna’s empathy and sensibility. So that’s why I added scenes that were not necessarily in the book where you see Joanna go visit her boss at her home when she’s grieving. For me, it’s the same quality inside Joanna that makes her do that that makes her answer the letters.” 

Young and enthusiastic, Joanna has an energy about her that’s infectious. Coming of age both as a writer and as a woman, her heart yearns to be ‘extraordinary’ and leave an impact on the world around her. As Falardeau considers what that idea means to him, he recognizes that such ambitious qualities were not always admired in young women during a time of masculine dominance.

“I needed to address the question of ambition but, from the female perspective,” says Falardeau. “Ambition is something that has been considered good and strong when it’s portrayed or verbalized by a man. You see Don at the beginning, [who says] as a matter of fact, ‘I’m writing a novel.’ That sounds kind of weird to say that to a stranger, but he was writing a novel. She thinks he’s a bit cocky when he’s saying that but, at the same time, she admires that because she would never do that. I think that’s a big difference between men and women, especially at that time. Nowadays, the gap is closing, but certainly, in my generation, a guy who wants to become a writer doesn’t get a job as a secretary. Just never happens. You go in the cafe and you live poorly and you write like a Bohemian. That’s what you do. That’s the ‘man thing’ to do. But for a woman, the path was a bit different. So, I liked this idea with the characters saying, I want to be extraordinary because I wanted to address the idea of ambition in the woman’s point of view.” 

“I think it’s also my own ambition. I’ve always been very ambitious and then your ambitions, they hit a wall or a ceiling and you have to accept that also. It’s funny because, doing My Salinger Year, I think I hit that wall in many ways. It’s very difficult to do a film that is not story driven. There are no big plot points. There is no big tension. There’s no big drama. There’s no big mystery. It’s just you following a character. It’s very difficult to do and I had big ambitions for the movie. It’s always like that. When you finish your film, as a film director, you measure the gap between your ambitions and your actual talent.“

My Salinger Year is available in select theatres and on VOD now.

To hear our conversation with Philippe Falardeau, click here.

My Salinger Year: Listening to Words that Change Lives

by Leave a Comment

A lot can happen in a year, especially when you’re young.

Directed by Philippe Falardeau, My Salinger Year is the coming-of-age tale of Joanna Rakoff (Margaret Qualley), a young woman who decides to skip graduate school in order to follow her dreams of becoming a writer. In order to make ends meet, she takes a job as an assistant to Margaret (Sigourney Weaver), a prominent New York City agent who clings to the way things used to be, whether it’s typewriters or three-martini lunches. Of all her clients, her most high profile is reclusive author J.D. Salinger and Joanna is tasked with processing his continuous stream of fan mail. Working long hours and living in a sink-less apartment with her socialist boyfriend (Douglas Booth), Joanna finds herself torn between her calling as a writer and living someone else’s dream for her career.

Known for such stories such as Monsieur Lazhar and The Good Lie, Falardeau understands how to create an arc for his characters. Adapted from the memoirs of the real Joanna Rakoff, Falardeau manages to seamlessly blend Rakoff’s journey with his own dramatic additions in ways that feels genuine to the time and his characters. This is not a story with any particularly flashy events like car crashes or dire secrets to be revealed to drive the narrative. Instead, Salinger feels more akin to viewing a slice of a young woman’s life. This sense of authenticity is also in part due to some wonderful work by Qualley, who feels present in the role of Joanna. Her charm and humility bring out the humanity in the impetuous and ambitious young woman as she attempts to make her dreams come true. 

Though he never fully appears onscreen, Salinger looms largely throughout the film. Keeping his face hidden, Falardeau puts greater emphasis on the words of someone who has left an indelible mark on American literature than on the man himself. It’s interesting to note that, by shrouding his appearance in mystery, Falardeau keeps his audience from becoming too preoccupied with the Salinger’s personality or identity. There’s no climactic dinner with Salinger or long-winded monologues. Rather, Falardeau simply allows his legacy to hang like a shadow over the characters and their motivations. As a result, Salinger (or ‘Jerry’) becomes more than an icon or personal hero within the film.

He becomes an idea.

Without properly personifying his character, Falardeau lets Salinger’s voice take centre stage in a way that highlights the power of his words. As Joanna reads letter after letter from fans who identify with his work, the viewer sees the impact that his writing has had for generations of people who are looking to feel valued and heard. Their insistence that Salinger receive their letters stems not only out of mere fandom but from a need to feel validated from someone that they believe understands them. 

Even Joanna, who has never read Salinger’s work, dreams of being ‘like him’. Not ‘be like him’ in the traditional sense, mind you. (After all, she has barely spoken with the man.) To her, the iconic writer represents someone who has powerfully contributed to popular culture in a way that helped others and changed lives. With Salinger’s example in view, she believes that she can be extraordinary.

To her, he represents a calling. 

In this way, Falardeau’s creative use of ‘the man’ helps magnify the myth of Salinger. For his readers and fans, the value of Salinger’s voice takes on a life of its own and creates space for them to understand and translate their own experiences. His writing cuts through the souls of his readers in ways that other authors seem unable to do. In My Salinger Year, Falardeau understands the importance and power that his words carry but thankfully doesn’t end the film there. While it could be argued that Salinger himself is almost deified throughout the film, the best part of Falardeau’s work is that it also encourages others to do the same for the next generation.

To hear our conversation with director Philippe Falardeau, click here.

My Salinger Year is in select theatres and on VOD on Friday, March 5th, 2021.

Strange But True: Life, Death and Nothing in Between

by Leave a Comment

When Phillip (Nick Robinson) receives a visit from Melissa (Margaret Qualley), the former girlfriend of his late-brother Ronnie, old wounds are re-opened when she claims that his brother is also the father of her unborn child. Since Ronnie’s death was over five years ago, Phillip and his mother, Charlene (Amy Ryan) are rightly enfuriated and hurt by the seemingly ridiculous scenario. Even so, Melissa’s earnestness causes Phillip to begin to question the truth of her claim and sets out on a quest to unravel the truth about her child and, potentially, spiritual realities as well.

Directed by Rowan Athale (The Revolt), Strange But True has a stellar cast and high concept that unfortunately never really settles on what type of film it wants to be. Despite featuring such incredible talents as Blythe Danner, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan and more, the film simply doesn’t come together. Opening with an engaging premise that the unborn child may be that of the long-deceased Ronnie, the film sets itself up as an exploration humanity’s relationship with the unknown. However, as the film progresses, Strange gradually moves away from its more complex themes and settles in as yet another generic thriller. 

Without question, the strongest aspect of the film is its interest in grappling with the nature of belief. Guilt-ridden by the death of her lost love, Melissa’s decision to approach Charlene about the child’s potential parentage seems reckless and even unkind. Nevertheless, her claims have a ripple affect within the family, especially within Phillip’s heart. A skeptic himself, the potential of supernatural birth seems absurd to Phillip yet her steadfast belief causes him to question his own understanding of the universe. As he steps out on a journey to understand the spiritual realm, Phillip recognizes that his own personal blinders may be keeping him from understanding something more. In moments such as these, Strange seems to be opening the door for deeper conversations about the space between life and death.

Nevertheless, without offering spoilers, the film is quick to shut the doors on these potentially powerful conversations, opting for the more standard approach that the ‘truth brings pain’. In doing so, Strange tries to balance two conflicting arguments. On the one hand, the film points out that holding belief is an acceptable way of life that can provide hope. However, it also argues that hope in the beyond often serves as a way to merely distract us from the horrors of reality. As a result, Strange attempts to walk the line between hope and horror but struggles to maintain its stability in the process.

Without question, the most frustrating aspect of Strange But True is that it simply feels like a wasted opportunity. Filled with a quality cast of Oscar notables and young talent, Strange has the potential to be something truly special. However, with a meandering script that settles for less, Strange misses the mark and leaves its audience with answers that leave them in the dark.

Strange But True is available on VOD now.

Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood – A Tarantino Fairy Tale

by 1 Comment

When I first heard that Quenton Tarantino was going to be making a movie that involved the Manson Family killings, I assumed the violence and blood would be overwhelming. But Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood turns out to be his least violent film. All of Tarantino’s films have an aspect of his appreciation of cinematic history, but this is his most explicit love note to Hollywood and the film industry.

As the title suggests, the film has a bit of a fairy tale aspect, focusing on the Hollywood myth—a world of stars, fame, and a bit of perversion. Set in 1969, the story focuses on Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a former star of a TV western who has been reduced to guest starring as a heavy in other series. His longtime friend and stunt double, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), serves as his driver and emotional sounding board. Dalton’s career is on a downward trajectory, but he has an offer from an agent (Al Pacino) to go to Italy and make spaghetti westerns.

The time and place are important aspects of the film. 1969 Hollywood serves the same function as the “woods” in fairy tales. It is the locale of magic and danger and dreams. There is a real nostalgic quality to the film that seeks to recreate 1969 L.A., down to the Real Don Steele on 93 KHJ (a DJ and radio station, for those who didn’t grow up here at that time). The film makes excellent use of the remaining locations from that period, as well as recreating Hollywood Boulevard to resemble what it was like then.

The danger that lurks in these woods is the Manson Family. This subplot comes into the story in two ways. Dalton’s new next-door neighbors are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). That home became the scene of a murder by some of Charles Manson’s followers. But the main way this subplot develops is through Booth’s meeting hitchhiker Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) who takes him out to the Spahn Ranch where the Family lived. As a stuntman in westerns, Booth knew the ranch and its owner. Booth does not trust the group that is there, and soon leaves, but not before making enemies, including Tex Watson (Austin Butler) and Squeeky Fromme (Dakota Fanning).

Six months later, much has changed in the lives of Dalton and Booth. Perhaps their friendship is coming to an end, but when the Manson Family comes on the night we know as the night of the Tate murders, Tarantino doesn’t show us what we think we will see. The violence is still there, but [spoiler] there is an alternative history. The way Tarantino twists the story makes for a fairy tale happily ever after ending (of sorts).

Tarantino fills the film with myriad movie references and reminders of stars of the time. It is not just for nostalgia’s sake. It helps to create that fairy tale environment of hopes and dreams and magic. All of this is real history, but its telling is the relaying of the mythology of the Dream Factory for dreams that may not come true. His cinematic history is at times humorous. He even manages to make us think about and laugh at the kind of violence he’s become famous for.

Fairy tales are not just happy (or scary) stories; they have meanings and lessons. As we watch Dalton, Booth, Tate and others living their lives in this fairy tale, we note the importance and frailty of egos. Whether it is Tate going to a local theater where one of her movies is playing to hear the audience reaction to her on screen, or Dalton being disparaged (and later praised) by a child method actor (Julia Butters), or Booth dissing Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) on the set of The Green Hornet, we see people who struggle, even in success, with personal fulfillment. Perhaps it is of note that the person who seems most satisfied with his life is Booth, who is the person who isn’t famous. He is the one whose ego doesn’t require constant feeding. He is at ease with himself and his place within this world that is filled with artifice. He understands that he is a part of the artifice that the others believe to be reality.

In this film, Tarantino creates an artifice built around a reality that is well-known. By focusing on the Hollywood myth, he is able to create a world of happy endings out of a real-life tragedy. But then, he knows cinema enough to know that that is why we love movies.

Photos courtesy of Sony Pictures Entertainment