MovieChat Forums > Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) Discussion > Isn't it tragic?

Isn't it tragic?

posted 13 years ago by jdennist
5 replies | jump to latest

This is a damned good film--and far too few people have seen it!

I've never read the book (I mean to someday), but I really liked the film. Michael Sacks was perfectly cast, as was just about everyone else; the script was wonderful, the direction was sprightly, the production itself (which was apparently expensive) was fine...it's just an overall great film.

I wonder if a theatrical re-release would be at all feasible. Re-releases are rare, but why the hell not? Or try and get Criterion to re-release the DVD...can you imagine a Criterion BLU-RAY of this film?

I can only wonder why this went unnoticed by the Oscars at the time. The Director's Guild and Writer's Guild gave it nominations (in fact, it's one of the only films to get recognized by both the DGA and WGA and get shut out of the Oscars), but no love from the Academy...who decided the script for PETE N' TILLIE was more deserving of a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination. And who thought the sets in TRAVELS WITH MY AUNT or YOUNG WINSTON were more noteworthy than bombed-out Dresden, that giant lecture hall, and Tralfamadore itself?

Seriously, this film deserves better.

[–] xdayton 13 years ago

What's tragic is that you haven't read the book.

[–] jdennist 13 years ago

Granted, granted, but that sin of mine aside, I maintain that the film is a seriously undervalued one...one of the cases where a great novel was filmed, and filmed extremely well (AND Vonnegut loved the film), and the film then fades largely into obscurity. A shame, say I.

[–] timothyhodge 13 years ago

One reason that it was overlooked at Oscar time was that the hit (financially and critically) that year was "The Godfather". "Slaughterhouse-Five" was just too cerebral and got buried in its wake.

[–] jdennist 13 years ago

It also didn't help that the Best Picture line-up that year was fantastic (Godfather, Cabaret, Deliverance, Sounder, and The Emigrants; I haven't seen the latter, but the other four are all excellent), and that Slaughterhouse-Five was a science-fiction satire with no big names*. Still, the Cannes Grand Jury Prize is nothing to sneeze at.

What does suck, though, is that George Roy Hill got an Oscar the following year for THE STING--a far inferior film.

*From Erik Beck's Nighthawk News: "Slaughterhouse-Five becomes the only film since 1956 to earn DGA and WGA nominations but not earn a single Oscar nomination." Ain't THAT a kick in the head?

http://nighthawknews.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/the-year-in-film-1972/

[–] MsSpiderGrrl 10 years ago

Frickin' awesome post/response, jdennist. I agree re the sets..and I'm sure the WGA was giving a "hat's off" to Vonnegut, whose writing, especially at that time, was/is very difficult to film. Like Hitchiker's Guide cum superior greek tragedy.

Puzo is great, sure... But Vonnegut should have had his time in the sun as well. Poor choice of years to release.