As Far Away as the Dakotas

This film bring up two warring memories in me. Oddly, neither is the clear image I have of Jared Leto as big, dumb, beautiful Jordan Catalano from My So-Called Life. Probably it's the layers of flesh, the weight he gained for the role, which prevents that. However, one of the earliest memories I have of which I can say, "Yes, that's when that happened" is the death of John Lennon. I remember it quite clearly, for someone just-turned-four whose parents weren't Beatles fans. John was killed, and I knew that was important, even if I couldn't quite work out why. In addition to that, then, there is the clear and distinctly unpleasant memory of having read Catcher in the Rye in high school. It was probably junior year. I'd been kind of looking forward to it, actually, as being another book I'd been meaning to read for years and just hadn't gotten to. And then I actually did read it, and I thought it was terrible. Worse, almost, was that I was the only person in the class who did other than my best friend, Angie. (Where are you, Angie?) Stephen King took the best of the Bachmans, Rage, out of publication when some kid who shot up his school had a copy in his locker. So far as I know, J. D. Salinger has never even commented about this. So there's that.

There's really not much to say here. Mark David Chapman (Leto) is not at all a well man. He has come all the way from Hawaii to meet John Lennon and shake his hand, to get his autograph. Oh, and to kill him. He is obsessed with Lennon and with Catcher in the Rye. He goes, along with unknown untold others, to stand in front of the Dakota Apartments and hope that John will come out so that he can see him. There, he meets the a-little-too-appropriately-named Jude (Linsday Lohan), who spends much of her time there as well. She can point out Lennon's assistant, Frederic (Matthew Humphreys), Sean (possibly Matthew Nardozzi, but no one is credited as Sean Lennon), Sean's nanny (not, so far as I can tell, credited at all). She introduces him to Paul (Judah Friedlander), the photographer who would later take a picture of Lennon (played by Mark Lindsay Chapman, no relation) signing Chapman's new copy of Double Fantasy. We know what is going to happen; we have started watching the movie because we know what is going to happen. Yet somehow, we are able to wish it will not.

I could have done without the Jude character. I think she's intended to walk us through who these people are. I think she's intended to give us someone to identify with. After all, we cannot and should not identify with Chapman. However, I don't personally feel we need the addition of that character. I think we are capable of being outside the situation, looking in, not quite seeing through anyone's eyes. We can linger for that moment with Sean, looking on the man who will kill his father. We can be with the doormen, the photographers, the fans. There is no need to interject a narrator, which is I think another purpose of Jude. Perhaps there isn't any other way we'd get to know these people, but that may be okay. For one, I don't think knowing who Frederic is adds anything to the story. Even if we know that Chapman acted toward Frederic as he does in this movie, we don't need a named character telling him who he is.

I think the film slipped under most people's radar. I'd never heard of it until Netflix suggested that I wanted to see it. (I don't remember why.) It's not terribly surprising, given that it didn't really have a wide release--and its release was in March, anyway, which is not the best time of year for movies. Still, it's pretty good for all that. Jared Leto chose to actually gain the weight for the role (apparently mostly by drinking melted chocolate ice cream), and apparently, it did kind of a number on his digestion. The film feels right. It feels like it's 1980. Its story does not necessarily need to be told, but it's told well. I'm not sure I'll remember having watched it in a couple of days (thought that may be the cold medication talking), but if you're interested in the time period, there's nothing wrong with watching it once.

Yoko Ono wants us all to forget Mark David Chapman's name. She wants us all to think of her husband as he lived, not as he died. (Of course, I'm sure she'd rather that not include thinking of her as something that broke up the Beatles, or even helped.) She does not want Chapman out of jail; she has not yet forgiven him. The fans have never forgiven him and probably never will. Only Yoko is not going to get her way. We will never forget him, and any remembrance of John Lennon's life must inevitably end with a remembrance of John Lennon's death that night in December. It is not my purpose here to debate whether Mark David Chapman is insane, understands the consequences of his actions, or anything else. It is not my purpose here to understand him, though I had a conversation last night which may tie in here. For some people, they come across a book, one book, which changes who they are forever. This doesn't happen to everyone. Most people are still the same person they are after they read Catcher in the Rye as they were before. (Often, they are just as phony as Holden himself.) I'm not sure if Mark David Chapman was one of those people. It's not unlikely he'd be the same crazy person either way. But my memories of John Lennon and Holden Caulfield will be tied together either way.