help! i need advice from the vonnegut fans!

OK, I'll bite...

First and foremost a friend recently had a convo with me about "likes and dislikes"--he always liked classic rock, which usually gets respect, and I've always liked more poppy, immediate stuff, which gets no respect at all. But rather than criticize me for that, he said, "You like what you like. Just because it's not the Beatles doesn't mean it doesn't have value to you or someone." But we both agreed that context can have a big effect on how you perceive something, which will affect whether or not you like something, and generally speaking, if something is kicked around for a very long time and still has the power to entertain people, it's probably, in a general sense, "good." If it dies or is forgotten by the public, perhaps it is NOT "good."

"Slaughterhouse 5" is an "old" movie, and was made at a time when the concept of a movie as simple entertainment was being challenged. Most of Vonnegut's books are rather cold in presentation, but the heart is underneath when you think about it later. The film version of "Slaughterhouse" is, in my opinion, more heartfelt than the book. However, they're both very clinical--Billy Pilgrim is not so much a protagonist as a cypher--he's certainly nothing like a "hero." He's by turns an idiot, a simp, a nerd, even a bourgeoise snob. His wife is borderline repellant, his kids are alternately hateful and overly needy. It's a cynical view of society made at a cynical time in history. I highly doubt a film of its kind could be made today, but was pretty common in the 70's...other examples would be "Diary Of A Mad Housewife," "The Conversation," "Carnal Knowledge" and even "The Graduate." Time will tell if these films translate to future generations, but they were revered in their time for the very things that make them hard to watch today--these characters are hard to relate to and almost impossible to "know," and the storytelling techniques are challenging and alien to us today.

One caveat about "Slaughterhouse 5," however; as a fan of the film, I believe you can't truly enjoy or understand the movie until you've seen how it ends, literally the last few minutes or so. Of course nowadays literal-minded filmgoers would be so bewildered by the ending they couldn't enjoy it, but in its day the ending capped a rather grim, unsettling and often coldly off-putting movie with a rapturous, joyful finale that, whether it "makes sense" or not, is wholly satisfying to fans of the film. I always saw it a bit like a reward for slogging through all the miserable war scenes and tragedy that proceeded it. You get to the end, and it's so goofy, surreal and joyful, you can't help but "forgive" all the pain you've had to endure to get there. Like the denoument in the film itself, "The moment simply is."

I've never convinced anyone to like something they didn't like, and wouldn't bother trying, but sometimes people, myself included, can appreciate something better if it is placed in a different context. I was beguiled and irritated by Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" and tried it 4 times before I finally 'got it' and now consider it one of my favorite films. Hope that helps!

Nilbog! It's goblin spelled backwards! This is their kingdom!

I wouldn't judge one by the other. A book is a book, and a movie based on a book is still a movie-- different medium. Any movie will change a book's narrative voice, and Vonnegut's narratives are especially delicate and idiosyncratic. If you want to see what the book is like, read the book.