Official PoCo Muse Film Critic Jeff Schultz revisits Catch-22 for his March 2021 Review.
Americans in 1970 no longer need to go to the movies to see images of soldiers marching through combat zones with someone like John Wayne leading the way. All they had to do was turn on their TV sets. The Vietnam War was dramatically different from any war in United States History largely due to being the first military conflict where TVs were prevalent. Unlike World War II when morale reached its zenith, Americans were more diverse in their opinion of war seeing its horrors inside their living rooms. With the rise of the anti-war movement came the anti-war genre for movies.
“Catch-22” was an example of this new type and played at the Premier Theater in Valparaiso in March 1971. It’s based on satirist Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel and maybe best known today for its cast which includes a long list of guest stars. Oh look, it’s Jon Voight! Look, it’s Art Garfunkel! Look, it’s Anthony Perkins! Look, it’s Martin Sheen! Look, it’s Bob Newhart! Look, it’s Orson Welles! There are more cameos here than a Muppet movie. The film’s protagonist, Capt. John Yossarian, is played by established comic actor Alan Arkin. Having seen too many of his fellow soldiers perish in flight combat missions during WWII, he learns he can get out of the war if he is declared insane by the squadron physician. However, he has to ask the physician to declare him insane, but doing so would indicate he is sane and require him to keep flying missions. That’s Catch-22.
Heller’s novel was considered prime real estate in Hollywood with many prominent filmmakers attempting to rise to the challenge of bringing this surreal, unconventional vision of war to the big screen. Welles, who was considered by some to be the greatest director of his time, showed enthusiasm for helming the production but ended up playing in front of the camera instead as General Dreedle. Other directors considered included Stanley Kubrick and Richard Lester. After their success with “The Graduate” in the late 1960s, the production moved ahead with screenwriter Buck Henry and director Mike Nichols. It reportedly took Henry two years to adapt the novel and by the end differed in many ways, although Heller is said to approve of Henry’s changes.
Trying to describe the plot further is a futile task. It’s difficult to know at any time of the movie if we are in a dream, flashback or reality. That’s the point though, to drive the narrative that war is illogical. I’m not sure what effect people watching the movie at the Premier in 1971 had they not read the novel other than confusion. They’d probably get that it is a farce but it’s often hard for the viewer to know if they’re supposed to laugh. I think the most they would be amused by is Bob Newhart’s scene when the colonel leading the outfit appoints him as the new squadron commander simply because his name is Major, despite he is only the schlemiel who collects the laundry. This then makes him Maj. Major Major.
Evidence to say that “Catch-22” proved too subversive for audiences is reflected in its paler box office performance against another war comedy from that same year, “M*A*S*H.” An instant success, “M*A*S*H” skewed the Vietnam War just as much as “Catch-22” but moviegoers liked it better because its characters came off as real and the situations and antics were relatable, famously spawning an enormously popular TV series. It and other war films “Patton” and “Tora! Tora! Tora!” scored a wealth of nominations at that year’s Academy Awards while “Catch-22” struck out receiving none and was largely forgotten.
Today, “Catch-22” is a minor classic due to the lasting popularity of the novel and has gained more appreciation from critics. I found much in it to admire, particularly Henry’s dialogue packed with his trademark wit and wonderful cinematography by David Watkins. The visuals of the of the B-25 Mitchells taking off are masterfully filmed and the sound of the engines is thrilling to hear if you’re watching with speakers or headphones. I enjoyed everything I saw and heard in the movie but none of the technical elements add much to the narrative which remains flat and non-cohesive. It’s a movie worth seeing but it’s unsatisfactory in adapting the novel, a Catch-22 of its own. I give the film 2 out of 4 stars.
Half a century later, the story has been adapted again, this time by George Clooney and company as a mini-series is available now on Hulu. Spread over six-episodes, it’s a more tactful way to capture Heller’s complex structure and I recommend for fans to give it a look.