Catch-22

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.

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.

The book Catch-22 is my favourite novel, and is extremely deep and intricate. It has great moments of comedy which slip quickly into tremendous moments of horror. That novel as it is could never feasibly be addapted into a live action anything.

However, upon viewing the film, I was quite impressed and happy with it. I'm not an unrealistic person, so I understand that they had to cut out scenes and characters and subplots to condense it for the film. Overall, of course, it lost some of its greatest moments which are in the ironic humor of the narrative style of the book. But it was not a bad film at all. In fact, I thought it was one of the best adaptations I have seen. I think almost everything you see on screen happens in the book.

Apart from that, it was extremely well casted. The characters were just as I have envisioned them in my head while reading the novel (except that Major Major shrank about a foot... but that's not matter, because Bob Newhart was great anyway). The cinematography was beautiful, the acting was awesome (Alan Arkin was perfect), and the flashbacks to Snowden were done stylishly and surrealistically.

Basically, it's a good movie. But it's an even better movie if you've read the book, and you know exactly what is going on in some of the characters' heads and what is going on outside of the scenes we see in the film. Overall, I think this is the best anyone could have done with this adaptation, and I applaud the filmmakers for that.

I am in love with this book, so when I saw that there was a movie I flipped out and ordered it right away... and it was fantastic. I love the actors and I love how Nichols directed it. However, I was disappointed of the changes they made, where's Dunbar? He was like my 2nd favorite character. He was Yo-yo's best friend.... Also, they said it was Hungry Joe who was cut in half by McWatt, but it was really Kid Sampson, I could see how they didn't want to have too many characters to keep up with (in the book I felt like that was true) but still, Hungry Joe was...amazing, he was hilarious. Also, I'm not sure if I liked how Nately died, opposed to the books version. I suppose it made more since to kill him off when Milo's deal (the bombing thing), but it was when he died in combat mission that really broke Yossarian. I think Jon Voight did an fantastic job of Milo, he was really how I pictured Milo, I was really excited about that. The poignant walk through Rome that Yossarian takes, was so, perfect as well. But all in all, this was an excellent portrayal of the book, I totally imagined this movie (the settings, what Yossarian looked like, everything pretty much) as I was reading the book.

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!