MovieChat Forums > Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) Discussion > I thought this was rubbish

I thought this was rubbish

posted 12 years ago by rnlol
10 replies | jump to latest

I expected to enjoy it. I love sci-fi and time-travel; although I've never read any Vonnegut I've always thought of him as an author I'd probably like; Hill made this in between Butch Cassidy and The Sting, both of which I love; it's got a high score and generally positive buzz on the message board.

And yet I thought it was rubbish.

Why?

The backbone of the movie is the WW2 story, which is the only part presented in sequence, and it builds up to Billy's traumatic experience at Dresden (the ultimate depiction of which is very anti-climactic). The film opens with Billy writing a letter explaining that he's become 'unstuck in time', that he 'jumps back and forth throughout his life' and has no control over it. There's some discussion on these boards about whether to take this literally. There seem to be only two ways it could be taken literally: 1) his mind/consciousness is jumping into his body at different times in his life (sort of like in Quantum Leap, except only into his own body), or 2) his actual body is travelling through time, so when he's physically in WW2 we're to assume he's disappeared from any of the other times that we see, and vice versa.

The second interpretation makes no sense at all, so I just rejected it; nobody responds to his disappearance, it's never an issue, so I have to assume he doesn't disappear.

The first interpretation is more workable, but it doesn't make much sense either. If whenever there's a match-cut, or parallel editing, or some kind of rhyming imagery, and we cut from America in the 1960s to WW2 that means his mind is then in WW2, does it also mean his body in the 1960s is an empty vessel sitting there catatonic?

It's so vague and inconsistent, so conceptually unworkable, so dramatically inconsequential and narratively unsatisfying, that I gave up wondering about it and decided to not take the letter literally. And what are you left with then? The WW2 story is okay, nothing special, and then it's punctuated by flash-forwards to his post-war life, but these aren't interesting in themselves, and add nothing to the main story of his WW2 experience.

Also Michael Sacks is awful, and his wife is even worse.

rankfilms.proboards.com

[–] sonofbeach-sheet 12 years ago

Well you know, the acting in this film was not that great, except for the Edgar Derby character and that bubblehead porn star. But I absolutely LOVE the atmosphere of WW2 Germany and upstate New York in the 1950's and 1960's. The filming locations were so beautiful and all the nice blue and green hues added a special touch. But Billy's mother shouldn't have been a southern woman!

Truthfully, the way I see the film is the only parts happening for real when his daughter and son in law are looking for him and then at the end where they're at the dinner table with Billy telling them he's just fine. Everything else is a flashback of his life and the Trillaflamaduke scenes and his death are illusion. His way of coping with a mundane existence.

BUT, Montana was reported as having disappeared! Whether she just vanished or just missing wasn't explained. And if Billy was at Tralfamadore for real, then how did he get back home to explain to his daughter and son in law? They said he couldn't leave!

[–] MarieGabrielle 11 years ago

PTSD is difficult to translate onto film. Vonnegut, in the book at least was hinting at sub-text of mind control during WWII.

[–] bek-12 11 years ago

I have only read A Man Without a Country by Vonnegut, but it stinks of genius. I was blown away by his everyman thoughts and humor.

With that said, I gave this movie a shot, and was very disappointed. It definitely hurt that it's a very dated movie. I feel as if I would get much more out of the original novel. I, for one, am glad to see it being remade. Maybe a modern interpretation of the original work is what I need to enjoy it in movie form.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"I expected to enjoy it. I love sci-fi and time-travel";..."And yet I thought it was rubbish."

I wouldn't feel too bad. You gave it a shot. I know how you feel.

The science-fiction of time travel is not really discussed in either the film or book. It just kind of happens. From memory I think it's alluded to in the book that's it's due to Billy's association with the aliens on Tralfamadore. I don't think Vonnegut was all that interested in that aspect of the story so George Roy Hill stayed away from it as well.

Considering the fact that S5 was always pretty much considered one of those "unfilmable books", I think GRH did a pretty good job, focusing as you say on the WW2 and the almost fateful inevitability of war which drags individuals like Pilgrim into its clutches, when they really don't want anything to do with it.

But I agree with you that those experiencing the film without reading the book may find it "vague" and somewhat unsatisfying.

[–] Axholio 11 years ago

The guy that posted is a troll... he's never come back to respond.

Doesn't matter. I think it was a great movie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make me a sergeant and charge the booze!

[–] rnlol 11 years ago

Here are two things the word 'troll' doesn't mean:

1) When you make no further comment on a thread you started.
2) When you express a dislike for something (N.B. when you give considered reasons for your dislike, this is especially un-troll-like behaviour).

[–] fatpie42 11 years ago

That sums up my thoughts too. I don't know that Michael Sacks was all that bad considering that he is playing someone who is constantly in a daze, but the quality was definitely lacking.

[–] Mhjm6 10 years ago

Your attitude is rubbish...

[–] MsSpiderGrrl 10 years ago

(See my post under the Benjamin Button topic re character aspect/POV, ptsd, Alzheimers, sci-fi, etc.)

OP -- you are of course entitled to your opinion and I agree that you are not a troll.

To the rest of the above, I add, I see why you think "rubbish", if you came to it expecting sci-fi, and have not read Vonnegut. This is not a sci-fi movie... It's a movie about a novel basically about the bombing of Dresden, and POW experiences (which Vonnegut was). The time-travel/sci-fi aspects are one of the many clever tools Vonnegut uses.

Lastly:
1. That's a great observation, imho, that the WWII sequences are the only ones that are linnear in time. I feel that speaks to my assertion that it's a novel/movie about WWII.

2. If you'd like an intro to Vonnegut, with more sci-fi/George Orwell feel, I suggest my favorite of his short stories: "Harrison Bergeron". Easy...but very deep...read, like most of Vonnegut. That story haunts me to this day.

Enjoy!

[–] Buddy-51 10 years ago

Sorry, just gotta' disagree. "Slaughterhouse-Five" is, by far and away, George Roy Hill's finest film, far surpassing both "Butch Cassidy" and "The Sting" in style and content. If nothing else, Hill's eye for detail in this film (especially in the war sections) is nothing short of phenomenal.

I must also add that Kurt Vonnegut himself adored this adaptation of his work.