Comma 22

I, for one, had NOT read the novel before viewing Catch-22, and I absolutely LOVED it! I believe it ranks as one of the best films ever made! It certainly ranks with Carnal Knowledge and the Graduate as the best pieces of work Mike Nichols ever made. Alan Arkin gives by far the best performance of his entire career. The rest of the cast is nearly perfect. It is a long movie, and moves at a very quick clip. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it begs to be viewed again and again. I love the close-up photography, which adds to the sense of claustrophobia & combustibility of the "insane war" situation of the characters. There are no panoramic vistas of Italy here. In fact, Italy has probably never looked so ugly in a movie. I love the way the action moves from scene to scene based on the thoughts of the characters, rather then strictly chronologically -- a technique Quentin Tarantino has utilized throughout his more recent career. Unlike most of the rest of you, I love the pacing. I love the hilarious, fast-paced first hour of the film, and then I love the slower, somber, horrific second hour. Later, I read the novel, and while it's certainly true that everything in the novel could not possibly have been used in the movie, I prefer to judge the movie strictly on its own merits. It seems as though most of you prefer to compare the two. I always like to see the movie first. Case in point: I believe I liked the World According To Garp so much because I had never read the novel before -- I had no preconceived notions of what the characters looked like, or how they should behave. Then, when I read the novel, I realized that all the action of the book could not possibly have been used in the film, but the film gave me a good, solid basis from which to begin reading the book. Was the movie is "good as the book?" Of course not. Is it ever? Was To Kill A Mockingbird as good as the book. Again, of course not. But didn't you love the movie anyway. Same with Catch-22. NOT comparing it to the book, but comparing it strictly to every other movie I've ever seen, it ranks as my favorite war movie of all time, my favorite comedy of all time, my favorite film of 1970 (a year full of good movies), and one of my favorites, period. It is a classic. Rent it. Watch it over and over again. It's well worth it!

This film suffers from the fact that so many have already read the book and look to pick apart every scene that doesn't synch up. I read the book and I think it helps to watch the movie if you are at least familiar with the themes of the book, but I still think the film stands alone in its genre, somewhere behind Stranglelove, MASH and Full Metal Jacket (all movies influenced by the book). A lot of the acting comes out cartoonish, but I think they were cartoons in the book as well. That was a theme of the book and the film; the artificiality of people playing roles in war. I thought Voight was excellent as Milo and Perkins played a perfectly reserved Chaplin. This was Arkin's film, and I though he carried it off. I also found the Snowden flash backs as an interesting choice for the movies pivot.

I've seen the film with people who did not read the book, and some unaware of the book, and I think most had very positive impressions of it. Yes the book is a more fulfilling experience, but that is almost always the case. I understand that the film disappointed when it opened and all the stars ended up despising each other. I think that reaction tainted the film for several years. I think that the film has appreciated with age and really stands today as a great underrated piece of work. I think at some point if will be rediscovered and be placed among the best black comedy/farce/war movies of its time.

The ever talented Alan Arkin strikes again. "Catch-22" ranks among his all time best films. It's a hilarious dark satire about an American World War II soldier (Arkin) who hopes to escape from the pressures and insanities of the combat front lines. He devises a scheme to have himself grounded as crazy so he can leave the war. However, his plan may backfire due to the so called "catch-22" law. Arkin gives a hilarious performance as the harried soldier and he is supported by a huge all star supporting cast who all turn in equally good performances.

Joseph Heller mentions in his introduction to the S & S Classics edition of Catch 22 that John Chancellor went around pasting stickers saying "Yossarian Lives" all around NBC studios in New York after having read the book.

One finds this enthusiasm understandable upon first reading of this classic novel (and it is a classic though it is a mess -- which is part of its charm). It is simultaneously funny and tragic, and this material fits naturally with the cinematic talents of Buck Henry and Mike Nichols. They achieve the same tone as Heller's book, but with requisite condensation (even if this film had been twice as long, it wouldn't have been able to capture everything in the book, which is not a condemnation).

The book runs in circles chronologically; so does the film. The book repeats the Catch 22 theme on almost every page (it is certainly the focus of most dialogue); the film isn't as rife with its references but is more explicit when invoking the Catch.

The tragedy of Snowden is a dramatic focal point for both; unfortunately, the film builds it up more (due to its comparative brevity) but falls short in explicating the relevance.

Fortunately the adaptation works incredibly well on several levels. In terms of characterization, Alan Arkin IS Yossarian, Anthony Perkins IS Chaplain Tappman, and Bob Newhart IS Major Major (albeit briefly). The dialogue, which closely follows the novel for the most part, works as well orally as in the written form. And the insanity of war, which underlies all of the book, is well represented.

As a creative work, this film is impossible to divorce from the book, which is difficult to say about many adaptations. As a creation of its own, it suffers some without knowledge of the base material, and as an adaptation of that material it is bound to disappoint fans of the original. There's that Catch again. Viewed with a balance between the two positions (if that's possible), it works extremely well and shows its depth with each viewing in the same way the book does with each reading.

This is great film-making. I have never experienced greater skill with sound editing. The acting is terrific, the writing crisp and intelligent. The conception deeply nested. Why has the viewing public discarded this film? Interesting question.

Usually the answer is that the film is a poor evocation of the book. It is, of course; films are fundamentally different beasts than books, so the closest one comes is to have congruence of story. But the story is the least important element of either fine books or movies. No intelligent viewer looks for sameness in an adaptation.

I think the reason is simple. We are happy to accept war as heroic. Deep down, that's what we believe; whether as an inescapable fact of evolution or of chauvanistic indoctrination. Against this backdrop, we apply the stuff of our apparent convictions: that war is funny (MASH, the escape movies) or grossly brutal and confusing (Platoon, the first part of Pvt Ryan-- which then reverts to the noble). We just cannot accept the view that war comes from stupidity and selfishness, because it convinces that we, all of us every one is at root stupid and selfish.

This movie is so good, it convinces of that fact, and that's why no one wants to watch it. So no one is convinced. That's the catch.