MovieChat Forums > Catch-22 (1970) Discussion > Joseph Heller didn't like the casting of...

Joseph Heller didn't like the casting of Jon Voight as Milo

posted 16 years ago by jonchopwood
13 replies | jump to latest

Heller said that Mike Nichols wanted to cast an "Aryan" as Milo, which he felt was utterly wrong, due to his family's having been victimized by the Nazis. Milo is NOT a Nazi, and though he is the mayor of towns and assistant vice-roys and such of places in which he has brought international trade in the novel, he is an American businessman, not the proto-fascist of Nichols conception, at the end of the film (when he rolls into Rome like Hitler or Mussolini during Yossarian's arrest.

-------------------------------------------------
"Why do people always laugh in the wrong places?"
--Nurse Cramer

[–] corgi37 16 years ago

Well, what the Hell did Heller know? He only wrote 1 good book.

[–] Billy_McAvoy 16 years ago

I can see Heller's point, certainly. But Buck Henry wrote Milo differently and I think made his character stand out more. The whole discussion between Milo and Yossarian had about Nately wasn't in the book and was one of the most potent and poignant scenes in the movie:

M: Nately had sixty-seven shares in M&M Enterprises. He died a rich man.
Y: It doesn't matter, he's still dead!
M: Then his family will be rich.
Y: He was too young to have a family!
M: Then his parents will be rich.
Y: They already are!
(Milo turns in his seat and looks Yossarian in the eye).
M: Then they'll understand.

...Guess What S1m0ne! We have now entered an age where we can manufacture fraud faster than our ability to detect it

[–] krm374 16 years ago

That's a great scene, because even though the conversation isn't in the book I think it still captures Milo's personality. But, that doesn't mean Milo couldn't look the way Joseph Heller wanted him to, if it's even true that he was unhappy with the casting. This is after Midnight Cowboy, so getting Jon Voight was probably just about getting a big name. Or, I don't know, maybe they really did see Milo that way.

#51"That's right, one can make all kinds of explosives using simple household items"

[–] information_police 15 years ago

That's a great scene, because even though the conversation isn't in the book I think it still captures Milo's personality. But, that doesn't mean Milo couldn't look the way Joseph Heller wanted him to, if it's even true that he was unhappy with the casting.

Heller might not have liked the choice of Voight, but he loved that bit of dialogue. It was all Buck Henry, but according to Nichols, Heller said he wished he has come up with that.

He died. You don't get any older than that.

[–] HikerBoy57 14 years ago

Heller might not have liked the choice of Voight, but he loved that bit of dialogue. It was all Buck Henry, but according to Nichols, Heller said he wished he has come up with that.

Having read the book several times, I'm quite impressed with that exchange, as it reads like pure Joseph Heller. One can certainly imagine it in the book. And the previous poster is right that it's one of the most poignant exchanges in the entire film.

The war is not meant to be won... it is meant to be continuous.

[–] hka-3 14 years ago

one of the most potent and poignant scenes in the movie:

M: Nately had sixty-seven shares in M&M Enterprises. He died a rich man.
Y: It doesn't matter, he's still dead!
M: Then his family will be rich.
Y: He was too young to have a family!
M: Then his parents will be rich.
Y: They already are!
(Milo turns in his seat and looks Yossarian in the eye).
M: Then they'll understand.

So glad you mentioned this. I just watched this film for the first time last night and that particular scene got one of the biggest reactions out of me. I was shaking my head for a while after that.

I liked Voight in the role. He came across as perfectly shallow and clueless. I wouldn't have changed any of the casting for this film.

[–] ridge-m-1 16 years ago

I have always felt the casting of John Voight as Milo was perfect and in the Nichols' adaptation his character represents an indictment of capitalism. As the Hitlerian motorcade through Rome suggests, Minderbinder, after contracting with the Nazis to bomb his own base, has become just as evil as the Axis powers the Allies are fighting against. In other words, capitalists have loyalty only to making money, not to country.

[–] jay_jay_armitage 13 years ago

Jon Voight doesn't look like Milo as he is described in the book, but I think he played the part well. Also, the guy who said Heller wrote only one good book is crazy. Something Happened is excellent.

[–] jejozi 12 years ago

When you consider all the American capitalists that assisted in Hitler's rise to power, Milo isn't that far from the truth.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

[–] darryl-tahirali 10 years ago

When you consider all the American capitalists that assisted in Hitler's rise to power, Milo isn't that far from the truth. - jejozi

When I first read Catch-22 at age 19, I thought that--finally--I'd found a book that made sense out of life, love, living and dying. The only part that seemed far-fetched was Milo's collaboration with the Germans, particularly in the bombing of his own base by American planes on behalf of the Germans.

Then, years later, as I began to read about World War Two beyond the standard histories, and I learned about the roster of Western companies that traded with the enemy before--and during--the war, I realized that Heller was actually not too far off the mark.

------------------
"We hear very little, and we understand even less." - Refugee in Casablanca

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shepardjessica-1 10 years ago

Voight was fine as Milo!

[–] thbryn 10 years ago

There's not a single actor I've ever wondered about vi-a-vis the book and whether they were similar enough. It didn't matter. Getting good people was the thing.

Kisskiss, Bangbang