Skip to main content

Time travel’s a bitch for you, isn’t it?

Slaughterhouse-Five
(1972)

(SPOILERS) It’s little surprise this adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut’s science-fiction classic has drifted into obscurity. As director George Roy Hill’s follow up to his breakout hit Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and preceding the even bigger success of The Sting, it might be seen as occupying similar territory to, say, Peter Jackson misfiring with The Lovely Bones between Tolkiens (give or take a Kong). The Slaughterhouse-Five novel was only three years old when the movie came out, and if the audience reception was muted, it nevertheless garnered the Jury Prize at Cannes (so it was certainly better received than Jackson’s unloved effort). Vonnegut was profusive in his praise (“… a flawless translation… it is so harmonious with what I felt when I wrote the book”). But as Stephen King has proved repeatedly, literary credentials don’t necessarily foster cinematic discernment. Slaughterhouse-Five feels a little too literal minded, lacking the point of view that would make it a strong movie in its own right. I’m also doubtful that it played to the director’s genre strengths, however effective certain sequences are.

Stephen Geller’s screenplay tracks the major plot points of “unstuck in time” Billy Pilgrim, shuffling between war-torn Dresden, his late 1960s patriarchal life, and a yet-further future sojourn on the planet Tralfamadore. There, living within a geodesic dome, Billy is given porn-star mate Montana Wildhack (Valerie Perrine) by the fourth dimensional Tralfamadorians, eager to witness human mating rituals. There’s no shortage of ideas, but something is clearly missing. Hill’s movie lacks personality, which you could never say about Vonnegut’s writing, and he evidently has no affinity with the science-fiction element. For the most part, the transitions between time periods lack energy and dramatic heft. Slaughterhouse-Five is also largely humourless – the twisted demise of 1960s wife Valencia (Sharon Gans) being a notable exception – which is odd, given Hill was far from a slouch in that department.

The best-realised sequences are undoubtedly those during World War II, their content largely autobiographical on Vonnegut’s part (the horrors of Dresden haunted him and would inform much of his political perspective). Even here, though, we can see quite starkly the problems an adaptation faces. Was Sachs cast for his resemblance to a young Vonnegut? Maybe. He was a decent actor before he went off to Wall Street, but he makes Billy Pilgrim rather passive (to be fair, reflecting the novel). Which in turn makes the movie rather passive. Sachs is additionally constricted by various layers of prosthetics as Billy ages.

Other production and casting elements are similarly variable in success. There are decent performances from Ron Leibman as Billy’s fellow POW and persecutor, and Eugene Roche as his protector (who dies in a bitterly ironic wave of the hand). The Glenn Gould score is strong, and Miroslav Ondricek’s cinematography effective during the war sequences (again, a different approach for the other time frames would have been more impactful).

It’s stating the obvious, but material that sings on the page can prove tone deaf on the screen, and there’s an essential conundrum Hill and Geller fail to solve with a narrative built on the illusion of free will. The Tralfamadorians hold this fatalistic position, owing to their ability to see beyond the illusion of time. Discussing the death of the universe, they report that it will end with one of their number, experimenting with new fuels, will press the fateful button. He “has always pressed it and he always will” (one wonders if Steve Gallagher was inspired by this when writing Doctor Who’s Terminus).

This kind of causally contortive idea has been better expressed by Terry Gilliam in 12 Monkeys and various Philip K Dick adaptations (and confirmed, then rebuked, and then confirmed again in the various Terminators). Here, the lack of authorial voice voids any bite the conceptual musing might sustain. Vonnegut is full of ideas and opinions, but Hill rather flattens them.

The overriding issue in translating Slaughterhouse-Five to the screen is not dissimilar to another problematic adaptation of two years prior, Catch-22. Both feature hyphens and numbers in their titles, both tell their story through fractured time frames, both were received as anti-war, and both possess a dark sense of humour. And both had mixed cinematic fortunes. Indeed, while both productions were doubtless spurred by the ongoing Vietnam War, which had boosted the novels’ reception or ongoing popularity, they were entirely eclipsed by another picture set during an earlier conflict. One that more acutely captured counter-culture irreverence: Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H. Also based on a novel, but as is often the case when a movie catches the zeitgeist, entirely eclipsed by it. By comparison, Slaughterhouse-Five is stodgy and over earnest, as if Hill is nervously backing away from Vonnegut’s literary style.

While the novel’s anti-war ethic comes through in the movie – particularly with the post-plane crash 1960s Billy’s fellow patient dismissing his first-hand experience of Dresden: “The hell with him. Let him write his own book” – other elements are less certain. The freewill aspect only really foregrounds itself during the later Trameldorian sequences (largely moved to the end of the movie). Further, because Hill and editor Dede Allen (also a regular for Arthur Penn and Sidney Lumet) are unable to crack the sequential interplay, Billy’s final fate carries little import.

Most of the rest is vague at best. Vonnegut’s politics have been painted in broad strokes by some, but this was exactly the kind of characterisation he objected to (“If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering foetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other… you’re a liberal. If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative. What could be simpler?”) That he favoured socialism and spoke positively about communism might suggest he did mistakenly buy in to certain Hegelian dualistic constructs, but it would be too easy to reduce him to simple soundbites. Likewise, his outlook on religion, while being a self-professed atheist, took many of its values from Christianity (he also characterised himself as a freethinker).

Charlie Kaufman was announced as to pen a new adaptation for Guillermo del Toro nigh on a decade back. Kaufman has the right kind of bent for Vonnegut, but I doubt another take could fare substantially better. The remake – often in mini-series format – has been popular of late, including such notables The Name of the Rose and Catch-22, but this boom in serialised TV has also sputtered somewhat, broadly around the time all the hopes and dreams for Game of Thrones fell apart for a vocal section of the audience. Movies like Slaughterhouse-Five tend to become cult classics; it’s telling that it hasn’t, and probably stands as a warning to any thinking they know better and determined to give it another shot.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.