Stream it now Catch-22 1970

 

Joseph Heller's book was considered unfilmable and it is. However rather than compare the novel to the film one must look at the film on its own. It is blindingly funny! While Alan Arkin is brilliant (as usual) it is really the supporting cast that delivers the laughs. Bob Newhart and Anthony Perkins in particular are a joy to watch. The film is filled with madness and insanity and is a brilliant satire. A classic.

I think you probably need to have read the book first before you can truly appreciate the film. It's a fantastic adaption of the novel, which also cuts and chops from one sequence to the next. I was captivated from beginning to end, what an experience.

Intentionally absurd and non-linear, but unfunny because of an overly faithful adaptation of the source and poor acting. Perhaps it has all to do with cultural context, but I couldn't find anything original or funny in this film.

***1/2 (out of four)

Mike Nichol's irreverant take on the huge best-selling book by Joseph Heller is an entertaining anti-war satire that remains very funny nd poignant today.

Alan Arkin plays a World War II flier who tries to get out of the military by claiming that he's insane. But by knowing this and proclaiming this shows he's sane. So he is sent to the Mediteranean where he watches his friends fly off and die.

The great cast also includes Richard Benjamin, Art Garfunkle, Anthony Perkins, Bob Newhart, Orson Welles, and Charles Grodin.

Captured the feeling of the book as well as a film possibly could.

Way ahead of it's time! I hated MASH...this is a must see!! Great movie!

Many of the novels' fans unjustly malign the film adaptation, because Catch-22 is without a doubt one of the most accomplished and biting film adaptations there is. The novel as is, is almost unconvertible to the big screen, and Buck Henry organizes a series of vignettes and character stories in order to best explore comedy, the absurdity of war, and the dangers of capitalism.

The film's structure is difficult to describe, at first dream-like and fragmented, it soon becomes clear that there is a natural comedic and thematic progression of each scene. The comedy begins lightly, slight absurdum, obvious jokes about sex, and the crucial, and ironically humour explanation of the Catch-22. However, with each progressive scene, it becomes more difficult to laugh. The audience is presented with a scenario that begins as little more than a sketch, but dissolves into tragedy or horror, putting a very strange taint on the audience's understanding of the situation. This is thematically crucial, as one of the film's main thesis' is about the higher-ups and capitally motivated industries understanding of war, and how they perceive soldiers to be expendable.

There is a series of scenes towards the mid range of the film, that is perhaps the most beautifully orchestrated I've ever seen in cinema. It begins with the longest comedic beat in film history (I can only assume), as Orson Welles stands shocked, in awe and bewilderment as the naked Yossarian stands before him waiting for his medal for bombing the Mediterranean. This for Yossarian is rock bottom, and beyond this point, the film quickly becomes a strange pastiche of quick vignettes and strange nightmare like sequences bringing the ideas of corruption, capital and absurdity to well... absurd heights. With a very deft match-cut (nearly every scene transition in the film is a rather clever match-cut using sound or imagery, somehow it never gets old and is always quite amusing), the scene cuts to Yossarian in bed with the beautiful Luciana. Their scenes together are an incredible joy, the most human genesis of the absurd nature of human relationships and compromise. They argue playfully in bed about getting married, and come back to the idea of the catch-22. It's very clever, and always sweet. The light and romantic nature almost seems out of place, but at the same time, it's almost miraculous how much chemistry and affection exists between Arkin and Carlisi, that a later scene where she becomes a part of the syndicate, becomes so much colder and painful. All the warmth of humanity has evaporated, and of course, the scene that follows that is chilling. Back to them in bed, this match-cuts to Nately and his whore, and the old man who explains why Italy is the strongest nation of all. It's one of the most incredible monologues in cinema. Not only potent in it's writing, but the delivery, almost delirious, drunk on life and humour is awe-inspiring. As frightening as it is amusing.

The film's final act, is a strange and detached world, where Milo's syndicate has finally taken over. War is no longer about ideals and fighting for one's country (was it ever about that? A question both the novel and the film ask), but about making as much money as possible. Human life is expandable, not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. There is the incredibly evocative and disturbing scene where they blow up their own base, as they made a deal with the Germans to get that job done, as long as the Germans take the cotton off of Milo's hands. It ends up costing one soldier his life (for the "greater good"), which is handled with an almost too on the nose sequence, where Milo explains the money will be sent to the man's family (Yossarian answers, he's too young to have started a family!), to which Milo says, well to his parents then! (Yossarian answers, they're already rich!) and without a blink, Milo answers "they will understand then". There is also Milo's brothel, taking in the whores and women from the street in a sort of mechanical set-up to be as efficient as possible. It drives one man to murder, but it's a necessary risk, and there is no perceived crime, only damaged collateral.

Catch-22 is actually one of my very favourite films. I suppose I've explained in part why, the delicious comedy, the biting satire and the ruthless criticism of capitalism, but beyond that, I find something comforting in Yossarian himself. A man who is beyond just a little neurotic and crazy, surrounded by people who are so much more insane than he is. He has simple desires, he doesn't want to die, he wants love and happiness, but mostly... he doesn't want to die. It's something that's difficult not to relate to. He's been called annoying and off-base from the novel, but I think his reactions are on the money, and you have those scenes with characters like Luciana that reveal he is anything but a broad caricature. He just seems to see things more clearly than everyone else (well nearly everyone), though ironically it is his need for self-preservation that prevents him from being truly saved. Somehow, I find both his crazed paranoia, and confused clarity incredibly endearing, and I'd even say comforting. It's a strange film to watch to make you feel at ease, but it somehow works for me, I'd say largely due to his presence.

Beyond that, nearly everyone and everything comes together just right to make this film work, from the impeccable casting, to Buck Henry's knowing and spot on screenplay, to Nichols' careful direction. The film is also unnecessarily beautiful, it almost seems like an act of pure vanity on the filmmaker's part to make it look so good, though I shouldn't really complain about that! I don't think I could really name something about this film I dislike, though I'm sure it has it's faults, I just don't care about them.

I WAS LUCKLY TO KNOW JOE HELLER , THE MOVIE WAS GREAT AS WELL AS THE BOOK .. THANK YOU JOE REST IN PEACE BOB

Catch-22 is a film often mentioned in the realm of the dark war-comedies, but has been even more often overlooked due to the release of the much better MASH that very same year. Catch-22 is a non-linear film, directed by a personal favorite of mine in Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Charlie Wilson's War), and a screenplay by Buck Henry (The Graduate, Get Smart TV Series). The movies style takes some time to get used to, and it really relies heavily on amusing characters to get through it's rather inexplained sequences. The movie is very heavy on satire and sarcasm, two things I enjoy very much but manages to sneak in haunting realities of war almost flawlessly.


The movie's characters are great and there isn't a horrible or deadend performance to be found. The movie really just struggles to find its feeting, some of the absurdity is great, but not all of it works. The movie creates a lot more than it really can explain, and leaves a lot of it open to the view to interpret. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I've always found open to interpretation films annoying unless done just perfect and Catch-22 rides that line just a little to close. One thing I enjoyed was seeing so many great actors, both ones from the 70s and ones who have developed into our now legends. I suppose what I'm trying to say is if you have to watch just one dark war-comedy then watch MASH, but if you can't find MASH, Catch-22 isn't the worlds worst replacement.

Catch-22 (1970) - 6.3/10
Director - Mike Nichols
Starring - Alan Arkin, Martin Balsam, Anthony Perkins, Art Garfunkel, Jon Voight, Martin Sheen, Bob Newhart, Jack Gilford, Buck Henry, Orson Welles, Paula Prentiss, Bob Balaban, Charles Grodin, Norman Fell.

Alan Arkin stars as Captain Yossarian, a WWII fighter pilot who wants out of the rest of his bombing missions after a young gunner dies. However his publicity-obsessed Colonel Cathcart (Martin Balsam) does not approve. In fact he keeps raising the number of missions. This decreases Yossarian and the other pilots chances of returning home safely.

This is a comedy, much along the lines of Robert Altman's MASH which came out the same year. It does attempt to undermine the insanity of war, but it has far fewer laughs than Altman's film. Alan Arkin fares best as the man who will do anything to stop from flying. The rest of the cast is quite impressive as well although some are not given enough to do to make much of an impression. Had this film came out a few years before M.A.S.H. I might hold it in higher regard, but since it did not I'll just say it's a competent entry into the genre.