Vítima do Passado

If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.

Before this, the flawed "Slaughterhouse Five" was the best. But this screen adaptation of "Mother Night" is very true to the book and keeps the comedy, mystery, and tragedy intent. Thankfully it wasn't Hollywood-ized or idiotized a la the movie of "Breakfast of Champions." Another good thing about this movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book to follow it (as I think you do for Slaughterhouse Five). That's probably true of Breakfast of Champions also but they did such a bad job of that you're better off just reading the book and not seeing the movie! Nick Nolte did an excellent job in this film.

Given the track-record for adaptations of Vonnegut novels, I was pleasantly surprised at how faithful this film is to the original source material (with one glaring and near-fatal exception near the end). It is also handsomely-made and features fine performances from everyone involved, especially Nick Nolte. The problem is that the tone is all wrong. The power of Vonnegut's novel is its black humor, which is completely lacking here; in the novel, Howard W. Campbell's story, despite being rooted in WWII and the Holocaust, is a farce that ultimately brims over with moral outrage; here is it more of a arty tragedy.

I've always loved Vonnegut because his books probe issues most people don't much like to think about. This film begins with an American who is beautifully and passionately in love. It ends with him broken by an ill-considered agreement that many would call noble, even heroic. What part does anticipation have in avoiding blame? Is simply being too distracted by love or duty to see the full impact of something an excuse? Is there ever an end to personal responsibility?

I'm a rather pedestrian person, with somewhat lowbrow tastes. However, I occasionally try to raise the bar on my cultural awareness. This movie was one of my attempts. I was in awe throughout the entire movie. I liked it so much that I got my own tape so I could see it again. This is a very thoughtful and emotionally striking movie. I saw it as a huge question to the viewer: What is the depth of sacrifice to duty one can accept, can be asked to accept, should accept? As a military member, this is of course an important question to me. This question weighs heavily on the viewer of this movie.

Recommended.