Film's setting is a problem.

The novel "Catch-22" on which the movie was based was written by Joseph Heller, who served in combat in the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II as a bombardier on B-25 medium bombers, based on the island of Corsica in the Mediterranean.

Heller placed his novel (which most reviewers and readers agree is really a black comic examination of man's struggle for survival in modern organizational society) in this setting, rather than that of Korea (or of Germans late in WWII) because it was one he had known and experienced.

The novel and film's main character, the bombardier Yossarian, comes to the eventual realization that although he and his fellow airmen have more than done their duty by flying numerous dangerous combat missions, they will have to continue to do so, despite the war's being essentially won -- risking their lives uselessly -- and mainly for the aggrandizement of their commanding officers.

Heller himself described coming to a somewhat similar conclusion during a bombing mission during the war.

The film really wasn't about Vietnam. Like the novel, it was more about the modern individual caught in a society or organization like the military -- or the corporate world, in which Heller was working as an advertising copywriter as he wrote the book -- and the surreal situations and people encountered as the individual fought for his identity and survival.

Just mostly agreeing with others above:

It's not like Heller said, "I want to write an anti-war novel. So: what war should I set it in?" He started out to write a novel about WWII, and it came out the way it came out. I think.

The fact that it's about WWII actually gives it more impact to me. It's a lot more interesting to de-mythologize a subject that's been mythologized than it is to kick a dead horse.

"Piece of Cake" (British book and mini-series) is different in a lot of ways, but has the same general point -- the subject there is RAF fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain, which is at least a notch or two higher on the mythologized-hero scale than the American bomber crews.

[deleted]

In the commentary, Nichols says this movie is not about Vietnam. As others have said, it's a general objection to the disposable quality of human life when governed by a selfish "corporate" entity. Nichols admits that it was risky setting it in WWII since WWII was a popular war with Americans. But (according to Nichols) that's what makes it so memorable & groundbreaking. It challenged people to think beyond mindless patriotism, to scrutinize the very establishment of war itself.

Movies like this are classic regardless of setting. Another great one is the Russian film Ballad of a Soldier (1960) which accomplishes the same thing without getting wrapped up in details of politics & history.

What everyone says here is pretty much dead-on. Perhaps you or others are confusing this film with M*A*S*H*, which came out the same year and was openly a satire of the Military in Vietnam. There's a huge number of differences between the film and the novel in this case.

For a start, Catch-22 was written well before Vietnam got underway. And contrary to popular belief, WW2 had a very dark side on many levels. WW2 has been severely romanticized and turned into a sort of Modern Mythology as others have said. Bear in mind that some 55-Million lives were lost during WW2 and not all at the hands of the "Bad Guys". There were elements of Life during the War that people still don't really want to talk about. Actually, some of these are touched upon in the film version as well as the novel. The Black Market/Racketeering, Brothels, Rape, Friendly-Fire, etc., etc.

I knew of one Veteran who was in fact a Bombardier in WW2 and was stationed at one point in Corsica. He even "dated" a Corsican Official's daughter while there. She was young but, they liked the side-benefits such as the food and supplies that He would bring them. He was also like Milo Minderbinder, a Black Marketeer like so many were. I was told that when he saw the film, he started to freak out a little because the aerial sequences triggered flashbacks. Aside from that, he enjoyed the film.

Over the years, I've known more than a few GIs who were in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and even Desert Storm. All but a couple that I met were very ambivalent about their experiences and circumstances at the time. They know what went on, they were there. They lived it, they suffered and survived it. They know all too well what the bureaucracy and Politics they served under were really like. I think that for many of them, if not all, that it's a bit difficult at times to have the Hero-Status placed on them by others. Some feel that they have to play along to a sort of PR-fueled lie. That they can't freely express how miserable they were or how horrible and unglamorous War truly is. My own Father is a 3-Tour Vietnam Vet and although he actually enjoyed most of his Service, he's still very honest and humble about it all. He considers himself to be lucky: It could have been much worse for him.

I personally never served in the Military. I was geared towards it, it was something I was very much going to do. To make a career of in fact. But, as I studied up on it more, certain aspects of it all just started to turn me off. It wasn't all about just being a Soldier and "Serving your Country". There was so much more to it all. I was just too uneasy about what that may involve for me. By what all the Veterans I have spoken with have told me, I only regret not joining up just a little. We always understood where we were coming from, both sides of the same coin. I understand everything that they went though short of doing it myself. They understood why I couldn't bring myself to be a part of it. There was no blame or grudge between us, just friendship. May they all enjoy the Peace they fought for.

I think what makes this a stronger story is that is IS set in WWII. Anyone can make an antiwar movie about an unpopular war. But to make one about a war with is generally considered a "good war" is much more challenging. If you can pull it off, you've made a much stronger statement.

I have known a few WWII veterans who became very devoted pacifists after it. One guy in particular was a recon photographer on a B17. He'd take photos of what they had bombed so they could evaluate the success of the attack afterwards.

He was looking at the photos one day and realized that there were dead people down there. He thought the war was just at the time but in the 60+ years since then he says the feeling of having photographed all those dead bodies has never left him.

America didn't really get into WWII because it was drawn in against its will. America really wanted to get into this war to acquire new, and protect existing, foreign markets. Pearl Harbor, while tragic, was serendipitous from that perspective. Roosevelt had been hounding German U-Boats in the Atlantic for two years, trying to antagonize the Germans into making a mistake and bringing the US into a fight. There was a standing order in the Atlantic to harrass all German ships as much as possible without actually firing at them. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, the United States would definitely have gotten involved eventually. Just like Minderbinder's character reflects, war was (and still is) big business.

1. Its not an Anti War film.
2. Its based on the author's (Joseph Heller) real life experience in WWII
3. My Father flew Lancasters for the RAF, He thought it was funny as hell.
4. I'd be willing to bet that you have zero military experience.
5. Everyone has a different view of politics and history, and mine is definately different from yours...