I just saw the film for the first time, and though I haven't read the book in a good ten years, I was impressed with the adaptation and thought it stayed pretty close to the original material. Details were left out, certain character moments would have been nice to see, but such is the nature of squeezing a 400 pg novel into a 120 page screenplay. One thing, however, strikes a dischordant note with me– the later part of the second act veers into a rather dismal examination of the depravity surrounding the men's leave-time activities. Though it perhaps lends to Yossarian's overall feelings of alienation or disenfranchisement, it also sucks the humor right out of the film for a good thirty minutes, thirty minutes that, IMHO, might have been better spent bringing in some of the characters that were left out.
It's a fine line to walk, creating scenes that are true dark comedy versus scenes that are just plain dark. Certainly, if memory serves, the book stays funny pretty much the whole way through. The shift in tone in the later part of the film moves away from this, I think, and is a mistake. In a sense, Good morning Vietnam suffers from the same sort of shift late in the film, though there, after a wonderful 60 minutes of dead-on absurdity and clever righteousness, it becomes downright sentimental.
MASH, a film working in a similar vein, takes a different tact, it goes from black comedy/satire to just plain farce (the whole football game sequence.) Which, in it's case, probably is more of an audience pleaser, but also, in a way, cheapens the rest of the film.
Any thoughts on this?
reply
share
JohnnyBoy1020
19 years ago
Catch-22 is by far my favorite book and I have read through it 2 maybe even 3 times. Since the novel doesn't seem to follow any chronological order, there are limitless possibillities of how the script can be treated. They need to enlist the talents of a gifted scriptwriter (hell, or maybe even I can do it) who can make a cohesive script that above all captures the snappy, sharp wit and humor of the book. Humor I would say is the most crucial element to a sucessful adaptation of this book. Heller's gags made the 400 page book worth reading until the end, and it will also be necesarry for people to an enjoy a movie that will have to be 2 1/2+ hours. So tie together all of the funniest charachters and anecdotes while still maintaining a few of those "war is hell and the people running the army are idiots" themes. Then you'll need a truly great director to give it the finishing touches it needs. I've always thought Martin Scorcese would be great for the job and the soundtrack would rock, but I guess you can't use many rock bands in wwII setting. Tarentino's next film is supposed to be a wwII dramedy so we'll see how that works out. Warren Beatty could if he hasn't retired yet. Steven Soderbergh?
Despite a pretty damn good cast, the Alan Arkin version of Catch 22 failed in many ways. I can't really even explain why, but it definetly isn't as engaging as the book. So mark my words, if Catch 22 is made into another movie it will be a seperate adaptation of the book, and not a remake. I don't want to speculate too much on who to cast in a remake since I'm sure it will recieve criticism. I always thought Johhny Depp would play a great Yossarian but he is pushing 40 and Yossariasn I believe is supposed to be late 20's. I also think having a narrator would help because Heller's words and diction are just so articulate that the movie needs a way that is capable of delivering that kind of punch. A younger Brad Pitt could have also convincingly played a lot of characters in the book, like Milo, because he has great comic delivery. The guy made Tyler Durden into a cinematic icon. Believe it or not, I think the Rock has the timing to play a character like Cheif White Halfoat. I mean I wouldn't even be opposed to casting one or two of the frat pack brothers because they seem to be doing comedy better than anyone else in this buisness. I think Vince Vauggn and Owen Wilson have just enough drama work in their reperotioire to be right for the film, not to mention great chemistry. Plus cast a couple guys like Jack Nicholson and Christopher Walken as generals and you've got the making of a classic. If they keep in those little anecdote chapters like Yo- Yo's roomies and the soldier who saw everything twice that are just a riot from beggining to end, I can't see this movie possibly sucking.
reply
share
tank921
19 years ago
What most people seem to be missing here is that it is a black comedy. Although most people who have written something, have mentioned that fact, everyone seems to miss the point of what a black comedy is.
Heller began to write Catch 22 in the 1950s and finished it in 1961. This was 16 years after the end of WWII and around the height of absurdism. WWII, which is the war that Catch 22 is set in, was a coming of age for the world. Thanks to the atomic bomb, man realised that finally he had the power to destroy the world. This is the subject for Dr. Strangelove. Man realised the futility of war, and the precious nature of life.
Although there are parts within Catch 22 (both the novel and movie) that are hilarious, one must realise that these are funny only to those observing them. Such as when a person slips on a banana peel. We laugh because it is not happening to us. In reality, the whole situation is hopelessly bitter. The funny acts that the characters do are their way of coping.
Also, a few people haven mentioned that the movie goes from very funny to very serious in almost a blink of the eye. In particular, the last thirty minutes or so, while Yossarian is in Rome. For anybody who has read the novel, the story goes very much this way, especially whenever mentioning Snowden. Personally, I think that the fact that it goes from funny to serious so quickly adds to the whole desperation of the situation. Also, the last few chapters of Catch 22 have very little humour in them at all. There are a few places for a chuckle, but for the most part it deals with Yosarrian's feeling of alienation and hopelessness.
Essentially, a black comedy shows the amusing side of very serious issues, such as death. Once again, for those within the situation, it is not particularly funny or amusing. Only those watching find a black comedy funny.
Also, as this is a black comedy, slap stick kinda guys like Owen Wilson or Ben Stiller would be horribly miscast. For what they do, they're good, but their over-the-top antics would just ruin the seriousness of the story.
reply
share
hodie
19 years ago
<<Also, as this is a black comedy, slap stick kinda guys like Owen Wilson or Ben Stiller would be horribly miscast. For what they do, they're good, but their over-the-top antics would just ruin the seriousness of the story.>>
I thought that the original cast was terrific, that Mike Nichols did a great job, and that this film just should not be remade.
"Oh, Stewardess! I speak jive."
reply
share