123 reviews
It makes an eloquent statement about how traumatic moments in our life stay with us as if it 'just happened yesterday'. What makes this film so appealing is how it depicts what would happen if you could jump around your entire life. When the future influences the past, it takes on a great significance. Billy Pilgrim is a humdrum Optometrist who nevertheless has an exciting life, surviving the bombing of Dresden in WW2, living through a plane crash, and being transported to another planet. Yet he maintains to be humble. As we follow Billy's life, the portrait of mediocre America is a touching contrast to the other moments that are frightening. He knows how he will die, and in the process becomes unafraid to live life to it's fullest. The inhabitants of the planet Tralfamador (??) say it is best to concentrate on the good moments in your life, and not so much on the bad. But they are still there, and you cannot erase that moment of your life. In essence, the true moral of this film is to accept all that has happened in your life. For if you don't, you deny the validity of your existence. When Billy finally writes about his adventures, others have a chance to learn about the world and themselves that would've otherwise been denied.
Technically, the film uses the moments where Billy jumps in time as meaningful transitions. It interweaves lessons learned from one part of his life and applies it to the present moment (whenever that is). The film's real treasures are the supporting characters that surround Billy. It also vividly transports you to WW2, a semi-autobiographical account of Kurt Vonnegut's real life experiences in Dresden. The film is filled with anecdotes that present the film's other main theme, that life is indeed ironic.
I was deeply touched by this film, with it's ability to whisk you from scenes of horror to amusing 'Kodak moments'. The music poignantly represents these transitions, and helps to carry the film. In the end, you can accept his death, by having lived his life.
Technically, the film uses the moments where Billy jumps in time as meaningful transitions. It interweaves lessons learned from one part of his life and applies it to the present moment (whenever that is). The film's real treasures are the supporting characters that surround Billy. It also vividly transports you to WW2, a semi-autobiographical account of Kurt Vonnegut's real life experiences in Dresden. The film is filled with anecdotes that present the film's other main theme, that life is indeed ironic.
I was deeply touched by this film, with it's ability to whisk you from scenes of horror to amusing 'Kodak moments'. The music poignantly represents these transitions, and helps to carry the film. In the end, you can accept his death, by having lived his life.
Kurt Vonnegut was more than worthy of the National Book Award that he received for the novel Slaughterhouse Five, but his humor and literary expertise are often lost in screenplays.
This flawed movie was a cult classic since its release because legions of Vonnegut fans were so fond of the novel that they could overlook the film's flaws. This is probably the only Vonnegut novel to make the transition to the screen as a movie that more than a handful of people are willing to watch. And they watch it again and again. I am reminded of Voltaire lovers who enjoy Leonard Bernstein's Candide. This seems to be the best of all possible Vonnegut movies.
There is a wealth of trivia associated with the cast. Michael Sacks disappeared into obscurity. Sharon Gans joined a community theater company that seemed more like a cult. Holly Near became a feminist folksinger. Valerie Perrine would later give a great performance as Honey Bruce in Bob Fosse's Lenny. Perry King and Ron Liebman became minor stars.
The story is largely allegorical. It is not science-fiction. Vonnegut is coping with the trauma of World War II, particularly the horrors he witnessed during the firebombing of Dresden. Billy Pilgrim's emotional numbness and alientation are characteristic of combat fatigue or post traumatic stress. Despite the lack of a chronological plot, Billy Pilgrim's arc is linear.
To the uninitiated, being "unstuck in time" can be confusing. It's sort of like one's first encounter with hypertext. Perhaps, that's why the movie is better on the second or third viewing. The key to enjoying Slaughterhouse Five is to focus on the best scenes and performances -- much like Billy Pilgrim's advice on living.
This flawed movie was a cult classic since its release because legions of Vonnegut fans were so fond of the novel that they could overlook the film's flaws. This is probably the only Vonnegut novel to make the transition to the screen as a movie that more than a handful of people are willing to watch. And they watch it again and again. I am reminded of Voltaire lovers who enjoy Leonard Bernstein's Candide. This seems to be the best of all possible Vonnegut movies.
There is a wealth of trivia associated with the cast. Michael Sacks disappeared into obscurity. Sharon Gans joined a community theater company that seemed more like a cult. Holly Near became a feminist folksinger. Valerie Perrine would later give a great performance as Honey Bruce in Bob Fosse's Lenny. Perry King and Ron Liebman became minor stars.
The story is largely allegorical. It is not science-fiction. Vonnegut is coping with the trauma of World War II, particularly the horrors he witnessed during the firebombing of Dresden. Billy Pilgrim's emotional numbness and alientation are characteristic of combat fatigue or post traumatic stress. Despite the lack of a chronological plot, Billy Pilgrim's arc is linear.
To the uninitiated, being "unstuck in time" can be confusing. It's sort of like one's first encounter with hypertext. Perhaps, that's why the movie is better on the second or third viewing. The key to enjoying Slaughterhouse Five is to focus on the best scenes and performances -- much like Billy Pilgrim's advice on living.
This is a very clever, thoughtful, well made movie. It succeeded in doing what I thought was nearly impossible, i.e. to put this amazing book on film. There are one or two small points that keep me from giving this picture anything higher than a 7, the main one being Ron Liebman playing the Paul Lazzaro role - highly irritating. Other than that, a brave and imaginative, clever, witty film that I would heartily recommend to anyone.
There seems always to be something exhilaratingly depressing about Vonnegut's work. It's as if our lives were slowly coming apart at the seams. There always seems to be an element of tragic waste in his characters' lives, and never is the feeling more evident than in the book and film of "Slaugherhouse-Five." It's not surprising to learn that Vonnegut really did live through the firebombing of Dresden during World War II.
If there's a weak element of the film, it's the bombing itself. By never letting the audience see outside the bomb shelter Pilgrim was in (and if so, not making it vivid enough for me to remember it), the horror and sheer magnitude of the event is downplayed. Two hundred thousand people died in the destruction of one of the greatest, most majestic cities in all of Europe, and all we're given is a shaking camera. Those who've read the book know that the trajedy was conveyed all to well by Vonnegut's skillful, near-photographic descriptions of the event and its aftermath. Very little of it made it to the screen.
Aside from that, George Roy Hill does an excellent job of communicating the existential dread of what must have been thought to be an unfilmable novel. The fate of Pilgrim's wife through her reckless driving could have come off as tasteless black comedy, but any cheap laughs are thankfully avoided, and the sequence is as shocking as it is heartbreaking. The really far-out parts of the novel (the four-dimensional aliens, Vonnegut's conception of the future and the end of the universe) are done with complete seriousness; another director might have had a condescending approach to the material, and killed the magic. The novel, by itself, is one of the best I've ever read -- it gleefully trashes the rules of standard novel-making, narration, and continuity, and manages to tell a real whale of a tale (there's a lot of weird stuff to swallow in it.) When I saw Hill credited as director, I moaned in agony, recalling the headaches that were induced by his smug, syrupy box office smashes "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Sting." After those two, I gave up all hope in Hill, the same way I did with Richard Lester after "Petulia" and "Help!" By the end of the movie, however, I ate my words. It's a beautiful, thought-provoking, and enchanting film, and does justice to a fine novel.
If there's a weak element of the film, it's the bombing itself. By never letting the audience see outside the bomb shelter Pilgrim was in (and if so, not making it vivid enough for me to remember it), the horror and sheer magnitude of the event is downplayed. Two hundred thousand people died in the destruction of one of the greatest, most majestic cities in all of Europe, and all we're given is a shaking camera. Those who've read the book know that the trajedy was conveyed all to well by Vonnegut's skillful, near-photographic descriptions of the event and its aftermath. Very little of it made it to the screen.
Aside from that, George Roy Hill does an excellent job of communicating the existential dread of what must have been thought to be an unfilmable novel. The fate of Pilgrim's wife through her reckless driving could have come off as tasteless black comedy, but any cheap laughs are thankfully avoided, and the sequence is as shocking as it is heartbreaking. The really far-out parts of the novel (the four-dimensional aliens, Vonnegut's conception of the future and the end of the universe) are done with complete seriousness; another director might have had a condescending approach to the material, and killed the magic. The novel, by itself, is one of the best I've ever read -- it gleefully trashes the rules of standard novel-making, narration, and continuity, and manages to tell a real whale of a tale (there's a lot of weird stuff to swallow in it.) When I saw Hill credited as director, I moaned in agony, recalling the headaches that were induced by his smug, syrupy box office smashes "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Sting." After those two, I gave up all hope in Hill, the same way I did with Richard Lester after "Petulia" and "Help!" By the end of the movie, however, I ate my words. It's a beautiful, thought-provoking, and enchanting film, and does justice to a fine novel.
- Jaime N. Christley
- Jul 11, 1999
- Permalink
After becoming enraptured with Vonnegut's strange and subversive Slaughterhouse-Five far too late in life I discovered that not only had a film been made, but had been spoken about gushingly by the great author himself so I endeavored to see it. It's a strange affair really - incredibly close to the narrative of the book but eschewing any and all elements of the witty commentary so it comes across as a kaleidoscope of images with very little dialogue even. If you'd never read the source I can't imagine how you begin to make sense of it. The book is so woven into Vonnegut's voice that detaching it from that feels more like a fascinating experiment or a curious visual companion piece than a solid adaptation in its own right.
- owen-watts
- Feb 9, 2021
- Permalink
This is a workmanlike job of filmmaking. Many of the incidents and characters of the Kurt Vonnegut novel are in the film, but the filmmakers have not come up with a way of duplicating the novel's darkly comic tone, and the climactic firebombing of Dresden, the book's reason for being, is curiously unimpressive in the film. Michael Sacks is suitably sweet and blank as Billy Pilgrim and Ron Liebman gives frightening life to the maniacal Paul Lazzaro. Not showing us the Trafalmadorians, who abduct Billy and put him on display on their planet, seems a cheat.
The realization of this glimpse into the mind's eye of a man unstuck in time is brilliant to behold. Yes, the book is a brilliant work in its own right, and open to interpretation, as a truly complex work must be. The movie is not the book. It is Hill's interpretation of the book, and a brilliant and viable one it is.
Hill won the best Director Oscar the next year with "The Sting". He later filmed the similarly unfilmable "World According To Garp" and also did a brilliant job with it, partially by letting go of John Irving's more depressing side. Other notable credits include Butch Cassidy... and The Great Waldo Pepper.
Michael Sacks, in his first movie, and only starring role at the tender age of 24, is completely convincing and natural. He is equally effective, compelling, and believable at the six distinct stages of Pilgrim's life memorialized herein. If he weren't up to the six-in-one role, the film wouldn't work, but he is, and it does. (I wonder why he has no other major credits, and ceased acting altogether in 1984. If anyone knows, please e-mail me.)
Valerie Perrine is fine as Montana Wildhack. The other characters are all played for maximum irony and effect, and the cast delivers beautifully, without exception. Eugene Roche is the epitome of kindness as Edgar Derby, the yin, to Ron Liebman's yang, a twisted ball of anger named Paul Lazaro. John Dehner is brilliant as a war-hawk professor upset at the Vietnam protesters. His character would be as appropriate amidst today's global conflagration as it was in 1966. Lucille Benson, Kevin Conway, Sorrell Booke, Holly Near, Richard Schaal, and Perry King are the more familiar names in a uniformly excellent cast, including the German actors.
The musical score is also perfect, both in tone and substance. Vonnegut is a master of superimposing satire over irony over futility. The movie does a marvelous job of blending these contrasts and making its audience feel enriched. The music underscores all of these contrasts. The cinematography also is magnificent.
Searching desperately for something to say to show that the movie cannot be 100% perfect, the only thing I can come up with is that the pacing of the movie drags slightly when the soldiers leave the first camp for Dresdner until their new Kommandant gives his "welcoming" speech. It might have played better with about three minutes cut from that sequence. So what?
I recently saw Slaughterhouse Five for the fifth time in 27 years since I originally saw it at my college campus -- this time on DVD. I never fail to catch something new, and I never fail to enjoy it all the more.
Given how many 70's movies have failed miserably to withstand the test of time, Slaughterhouse Five is a true treat to be savored.
Hill won the best Director Oscar the next year with "The Sting". He later filmed the similarly unfilmable "World According To Garp" and also did a brilliant job with it, partially by letting go of John Irving's more depressing side. Other notable credits include Butch Cassidy... and The Great Waldo Pepper.
Michael Sacks, in his first movie, and only starring role at the tender age of 24, is completely convincing and natural. He is equally effective, compelling, and believable at the six distinct stages of Pilgrim's life memorialized herein. If he weren't up to the six-in-one role, the film wouldn't work, but he is, and it does. (I wonder why he has no other major credits, and ceased acting altogether in 1984. If anyone knows, please e-mail me.)
Valerie Perrine is fine as Montana Wildhack. The other characters are all played for maximum irony and effect, and the cast delivers beautifully, without exception. Eugene Roche is the epitome of kindness as Edgar Derby, the yin, to Ron Liebman's yang, a twisted ball of anger named Paul Lazaro. John Dehner is brilliant as a war-hawk professor upset at the Vietnam protesters. His character would be as appropriate amidst today's global conflagration as it was in 1966. Lucille Benson, Kevin Conway, Sorrell Booke, Holly Near, Richard Schaal, and Perry King are the more familiar names in a uniformly excellent cast, including the German actors.
The musical score is also perfect, both in tone and substance. Vonnegut is a master of superimposing satire over irony over futility. The movie does a marvelous job of blending these contrasts and making its audience feel enriched. The music underscores all of these contrasts. The cinematography also is magnificent.
Searching desperately for something to say to show that the movie cannot be 100% perfect, the only thing I can come up with is that the pacing of the movie drags slightly when the soldiers leave the first camp for Dresdner until their new Kommandant gives his "welcoming" speech. It might have played better with about three minutes cut from that sequence. So what?
I recently saw Slaughterhouse Five for the fifth time in 27 years since I originally saw it at my college campus -- this time on DVD. I never fail to catch something new, and I never fail to enjoy it all the more.
Given how many 70's movies have failed miserably to withstand the test of time, Slaughterhouse Five is a true treat to be savored.
Reading Kurt Vonnegut's novel it seems impossible to ever make this book into a movie. The story jumps back and forth and the reader becomes unstuck in time with the main character Billy Pilgram. This shifting of different periods of time is indeed the biggest problem of the movie. If you haven't read the book, you will probably get confused about what's going on. Is Billy having flashbacks? What kind of narrative is this? Still, I think George Roy Hill and Stephen Geller did a good job. They included the most important conclusions of the novel, and got the feel right with indications of humor and cynicism. Of course, the movie can in no way substitute the book, which is an essential read anyway, but it's helping you visualize Vonnegut's story. The director gloriously avoided relying on special effects that would have looked dated by now. There's a plane crash, aliens and the destruction of a whole city but we never actually see any of it. The mayhem of Dresden is shown through a comparison of the beautiful city before and after the bombing and not by having buildings collapse or people die (so it goes). I think, war captivity in Germany was portrayed as an almost innocent, carefree time, which it definitely wasn't, but maybe Hill felt that this was necessary to show how unnecessary and brutally exaggerated this attack was. See this movie as an addition to the book, it doesn't stand very well on its own. For a film that's almost 35 years old, it does hold up pretty well, however.
- Superunknovvn
- May 25, 2006
- Permalink
Like most of those who have posted before me, I am an avid Vonnegut fan and went into this movie with a guarded optimism that it would just be decent.
But George Roy Hill did an excellent job conveying the overall feel of the book -- the time jumping was flawless and I didn't find it hard to follow at all. The actor who played Billy Pilgrim captured Billy's passive, calm and vaguely anti-social demeanor. Lazarro, Montana and Billy's wife are also well played.
George Roy Hill had a knack for directing movies made from great books -- e.g., "The World According to Garp" -- and in the end, I was pleasantly surprised how well this movie turned out.
As far as the Vonnegut adaptations go (I know of four -- this one, "Mother Night," "Breakfast of Champions" and the god-awful "Slapstick") this one is the best of the bunch.
I've always wanted to see a movie version of "Sirens of Titan," but it'll probably never happen -- so "Slaughterhouse Five" is my only chance to "see" Trafalmadore.
Recommended to any true Vonnegut fans. Other people probably won't appreciate it.
But George Roy Hill did an excellent job conveying the overall feel of the book -- the time jumping was flawless and I didn't find it hard to follow at all. The actor who played Billy Pilgrim captured Billy's passive, calm and vaguely anti-social demeanor. Lazarro, Montana and Billy's wife are also well played.
George Roy Hill had a knack for directing movies made from great books -- e.g., "The World According to Garp" -- and in the end, I was pleasantly surprised how well this movie turned out.
As far as the Vonnegut adaptations go (I know of four -- this one, "Mother Night," "Breakfast of Champions" and the god-awful "Slapstick") this one is the best of the bunch.
I've always wanted to see a movie version of "Sirens of Titan," but it'll probably never happen -- so "Slaughterhouse Five" is my only chance to "see" Trafalmadore.
Recommended to any true Vonnegut fans. Other people probably won't appreciate it.
If you didn't live through the late 60s/early 70s, you have no idea how BIG Kurt Vonnegut was at the time. Reading SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE was required of all cool students, probably second only to LORD OF THE RINGS. I read this book, then devoured all his earlier books, but eventually tired of his work.
Over 35 years have passed since I read the book, so I can't comment on how true the film is to the book's narrative, but I have to say that I can't imagine the job being done any better than this. What makes it work is the careful way the director and editor set up the transitions between scenes/eras; even though it doesn't make sense LOGICALLY it makes a lot of sense with visuals and sound. The Dresden scenes really make the war come alive, and even Tralfamadore looks great! The scenes of the Pilgrim family at various times in their lives can be a little confusing, but you just need to relax and go with the flow.
For me, the weakest link in the film was Michael Sacks and the make-up artists who attempted to send him through time. He simply doesn't have the screen presence or the acting skills to hold a film like this together, and the bad "middle-aged-man" makeup looked like it came from a high school play. The minor characters are much more memorable, especially Eugene Roche and Valerie Perrine, Ron Liebman and the debuting Perry King.
Vonnegut remained a venerated icon until his death, but I don't think his drawing power lasted beyond the 1970s. He became one of those authors whom you're supposed to respect, but whose books you probably haven't read. His most enduring piece of work is the short story "Harrison Bergeron" which shows up in many high school literature anthologies, and which probably seems very non-PC in today's educational system. But in 1972, he was the king, and this film will give you a glimpse of why.
Over 35 years have passed since I read the book, so I can't comment on how true the film is to the book's narrative, but I have to say that I can't imagine the job being done any better than this. What makes it work is the careful way the director and editor set up the transitions between scenes/eras; even though it doesn't make sense LOGICALLY it makes a lot of sense with visuals and sound. The Dresden scenes really make the war come alive, and even Tralfamadore looks great! The scenes of the Pilgrim family at various times in their lives can be a little confusing, but you just need to relax and go with the flow.
For me, the weakest link in the film was Michael Sacks and the make-up artists who attempted to send him through time. He simply doesn't have the screen presence or the acting skills to hold a film like this together, and the bad "middle-aged-man" makeup looked like it came from a high school play. The minor characters are much more memorable, especially Eugene Roche and Valerie Perrine, Ron Liebman and the debuting Perry King.
Vonnegut remained a venerated icon until his death, but I don't think his drawing power lasted beyond the 1970s. He became one of those authors whom you're supposed to respect, but whose books you probably haven't read. His most enduring piece of work is the short story "Harrison Bergeron" which shows up in many high school literature anthologies, and which probably seems very non-PC in today's educational system. But in 1972, he was the king, and this film will give you a glimpse of why.
- LCShackley
- May 30, 2007
- Permalink
"Slaughterhouse-Five" begins with a man, Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks), typing on a sheet of paper that he has become "unstuck in time." He's caught in a time warp causing him to shift back and forth without warning to different points in his life. This premise sounds a lot more interesting than what the movie delivers. Is he calling out for help? We can't tell. The movie never lets us in on Pilgrim's reaction to what's happening. We don't know if he's upset, scared, perplexed, happy, bemused, or anything. We are simply shown various points in life, connected in odd ways. One moment he's a POW in World War II, threatened by German soldiers who are about to shoot him; the next he's at his wedding and people are "shooting" him with a camera.
The problem is, this looks more like a narrative device (and not a particularly original one, at that) than evidence of time travel. It's more like a story told out of order than a story about a man caught in a time warp. Sure, something weird is going on whenever he appears to "remember" the future, like when his younger self starts addressing his future wife, and a fellow soldier standing there thinks Pilgrim is propositioning him. But the film has relatively few such moments, and we can't help thinking that what we're seeing is simply the perspective of an older man experiencing flashbacks, a distinct possibility considering that we later learn that the older Pilgrim had a nervous breakdown.
I tend to enjoy movies with fractured story-lines of this sort, because the task is not merely to see events unfold, but to piece together what has already happened. Unfortunately, this movie lacks a narrative focus. Pilgrim seems a very ordinary fellow, and the movie never explains what makes his life story worth telling. Nothing about him is particularly attractive, or particularly repulsive, either. He's just bland. We see him as a POW, where one soldier has an inexplicably passionate grudge against him, while another befriends him. There will be some tragedy, some bombings, and some killings along the way. By flipping forwards and backwards in time the movie struggles to make all this engaging, because it all comes off rather tame for a war movie. An account of the bombing of Dresden is filmed with surprisingly little emotional power. There's a lack of thematic focus in these scenes; they seem to be there only to provide biographical information about this character, without actually contributing to the movie's larger purpose.
The later scenes are all over the map. There is even a Hollywood-style car wreckage sequence that probably cost more to film than anything else in the movie, including the scenes on Planet Tralfamadore. This bit of broad comedy feels out of place in the mostly contemplative story and brings the movie to a grinding halt.
The movie's message--that time is static, that everything which happens is inevitable, and that one's task in life should be to cherish the good moments rather than try to control what happens--is provocative enough. But the film lacks the grace and elegance that allowed Vonnegut's book to bring this message alive. Take, for example, the book's description of an attractive woman as a "sensational invitation to make babies." The book abounds with playful, wry prose of this sort that reinforces Vonnegut's mechanistic outlook on life. The story at its core is a philosophical argument, but Vonnegut prevents it from becoming dry and academic, which I cannot quite say about the film.
In the book, the time-tripping never feels like a mere narrative device; it feels like it's really happening. Even though there's still a distinct possibility that the experience is occurring only in Pilgrim's mind, it at least comes off as an actual experience. Pilgrim, in the book, is oddly calm and resigned to what's occurring, but not emotionless. He cries at one point. He's anxious about the situation. He's unsure about how to define himself. In the movie, we get none of the sense of Pilgrim struggling to adapt to the situation, of being forced to grow as a result.
I found, when reading the book, that the disparate sections of the story connected a lot better. The war scenes were there not only because they allowed Vonnegut to insert semi-autobiographical material into the novel, but because they tied into the story's questions about human existence, dwelling as they did on the moral dilemma underlying the bombing of Dresden. Being caught in an eternal time warp, Pilgrim doesn't fear death. But he doesn't really value life either. He shows no love for his rich wife, described in the book as fat and plain (though played in the movie by an actress who was neither of those things, but who still utters the lines about thinking nobody would marry her and promising her husband she'd go on a diet). He shows no love for anyone, indeed, even himself. So we're left to ponder whether his liberation from the human time scale is really desirable.
The movie, unfortunately, can't seem to portray his apathy without also making us feel apathetic. When I watched the movie, I was repeatedly tempted to turn it off in the middle, because I simply didn't find the story engaging. The book, on the other hand, I could not put down. I suppose the difference with the book, besides its witty prose, is that I found myself able to show concern even for a character who had lost sight of that very concept. Vonnegut understood, better than the movie did, that the glimpse we get of life on a cosmic scale does not take away our essential humanity.
The problem is, this looks more like a narrative device (and not a particularly original one, at that) than evidence of time travel. It's more like a story told out of order than a story about a man caught in a time warp. Sure, something weird is going on whenever he appears to "remember" the future, like when his younger self starts addressing his future wife, and a fellow soldier standing there thinks Pilgrim is propositioning him. But the film has relatively few such moments, and we can't help thinking that what we're seeing is simply the perspective of an older man experiencing flashbacks, a distinct possibility considering that we later learn that the older Pilgrim had a nervous breakdown.
I tend to enjoy movies with fractured story-lines of this sort, because the task is not merely to see events unfold, but to piece together what has already happened. Unfortunately, this movie lacks a narrative focus. Pilgrim seems a very ordinary fellow, and the movie never explains what makes his life story worth telling. Nothing about him is particularly attractive, or particularly repulsive, either. He's just bland. We see him as a POW, where one soldier has an inexplicably passionate grudge against him, while another befriends him. There will be some tragedy, some bombings, and some killings along the way. By flipping forwards and backwards in time the movie struggles to make all this engaging, because it all comes off rather tame for a war movie. An account of the bombing of Dresden is filmed with surprisingly little emotional power. There's a lack of thematic focus in these scenes; they seem to be there only to provide biographical information about this character, without actually contributing to the movie's larger purpose.
The later scenes are all over the map. There is even a Hollywood-style car wreckage sequence that probably cost more to film than anything else in the movie, including the scenes on Planet Tralfamadore. This bit of broad comedy feels out of place in the mostly contemplative story and brings the movie to a grinding halt.
The movie's message--that time is static, that everything which happens is inevitable, and that one's task in life should be to cherish the good moments rather than try to control what happens--is provocative enough. But the film lacks the grace and elegance that allowed Vonnegut's book to bring this message alive. Take, for example, the book's description of an attractive woman as a "sensational invitation to make babies." The book abounds with playful, wry prose of this sort that reinforces Vonnegut's mechanistic outlook on life. The story at its core is a philosophical argument, but Vonnegut prevents it from becoming dry and academic, which I cannot quite say about the film.
In the book, the time-tripping never feels like a mere narrative device; it feels like it's really happening. Even though there's still a distinct possibility that the experience is occurring only in Pilgrim's mind, it at least comes off as an actual experience. Pilgrim, in the book, is oddly calm and resigned to what's occurring, but not emotionless. He cries at one point. He's anxious about the situation. He's unsure about how to define himself. In the movie, we get none of the sense of Pilgrim struggling to adapt to the situation, of being forced to grow as a result.
I found, when reading the book, that the disparate sections of the story connected a lot better. The war scenes were there not only because they allowed Vonnegut to insert semi-autobiographical material into the novel, but because they tied into the story's questions about human existence, dwelling as they did on the moral dilemma underlying the bombing of Dresden. Being caught in an eternal time warp, Pilgrim doesn't fear death. But he doesn't really value life either. He shows no love for his rich wife, described in the book as fat and plain (though played in the movie by an actress who was neither of those things, but who still utters the lines about thinking nobody would marry her and promising her husband she'd go on a diet). He shows no love for anyone, indeed, even himself. So we're left to ponder whether his liberation from the human time scale is really desirable.
The movie, unfortunately, can't seem to portray his apathy without also making us feel apathetic. When I watched the movie, I was repeatedly tempted to turn it off in the middle, because I simply didn't find the story engaging. The book, on the other hand, I could not put down. I suppose the difference with the book, besides its witty prose, is that I found myself able to show concern even for a character who had lost sight of that very concept. Vonnegut understood, better than the movie did, that the glimpse we get of life on a cosmic scale does not take away our essential humanity.
The film Slaughterhouse 5 is a brilliantly portrayed interpretation of a great but typically multilinear novel by science fiction author Kurt Vonnegut. With all due respect to the literary critics, sci fi really is what Vonnegut most often wrote - whether or not it is viewed as allegory or even 'serious literature'. As such, it was not really made to convey the same messages,nor even the aesthetics of the book, but rather to convey the director's (and others on the creative team) impressions of the book.
The book is also brilliant, but none of Vonnegut's work is easily adapted to the medium of film. Not quite the task Cronenberg took on when he directed Burrough's Naked Lunch, but very similar in method.
S-5 exposes us to the life of Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks) and his many loves (his dog spot, his wife played by Holly Near and an actress played by Valerie Perrine), as he either blacks out and travels into the deep recesses of his memory experiencing the delusion of time travel or (as indicated by his occasional leaps forward in time), he actually has become 'unstuck in time.' Between trips back to Dresden during its WWII bombing and trips forward to the planet Tralfamador, it seems that Billy is constantly tripping. Yet he manages to build a successful and very normal American life despite his bizarre and uncontrollable time-travel habit.
The film illustrates the non-linear manner in which the book is written by skipping from time to time in a seemingly random manner, but it manages to do so without losing focus on Pilgrim, who is, in fact always living in the present regardless of what time he happens to be experiencing. Fantastic directoral method!
The film makes a lot of subtle, simple and very good points by making Billy - a quiet simple guy with an extraordinary set of circumstances in his life - a true hero simply because he is relatively nice, somewhat aloof, happy, and quite normal. Sacks' performance is spot-on.
This film is beautifully photographed, very well paced, perfectly directed and edited. The acting is all quite good, and comes from a well appointed cast mostly consisting of character actors. I was particularly impressed with Eugene Roche's excellent portrayal of Edgar Derby.
Highly recommended for the art-house crowd and friends of intelligent sci fi.
The book is also brilliant, but none of Vonnegut's work is easily adapted to the medium of film. Not quite the task Cronenberg took on when he directed Burrough's Naked Lunch, but very similar in method.
S-5 exposes us to the life of Billy Pilgrim (Michael Sacks) and his many loves (his dog spot, his wife played by Holly Near and an actress played by Valerie Perrine), as he either blacks out and travels into the deep recesses of his memory experiencing the delusion of time travel or (as indicated by his occasional leaps forward in time), he actually has become 'unstuck in time.' Between trips back to Dresden during its WWII bombing and trips forward to the planet Tralfamador, it seems that Billy is constantly tripping. Yet he manages to build a successful and very normal American life despite his bizarre and uncontrollable time-travel habit.
The film illustrates the non-linear manner in which the book is written by skipping from time to time in a seemingly random manner, but it manages to do so without losing focus on Pilgrim, who is, in fact always living in the present regardless of what time he happens to be experiencing. Fantastic directoral method!
The film makes a lot of subtle, simple and very good points by making Billy - a quiet simple guy with an extraordinary set of circumstances in his life - a true hero simply because he is relatively nice, somewhat aloof, happy, and quite normal. Sacks' performance is spot-on.
This film is beautifully photographed, very well paced, perfectly directed and edited. The acting is all quite good, and comes from a well appointed cast mostly consisting of character actors. I was particularly impressed with Eugene Roche's excellent portrayal of Edgar Derby.
Highly recommended for the art-house crowd and friends of intelligent sci fi.
- ironhorse_iv
- Feb 7, 2013
- Permalink
Kurt Vonnegut's novel detailing the strange odyssey of Billy Pilgrim was probably unfilmmable, though--to his credit--director George Roy Hill gives it a noble try. Stephen Geller adapted the popular book about a man living his life out of sequence, going back and forth in time before finally settling down on a distant planet with a movie-actress as his companion. 'Odd' is an understatement for this patchwork film. At first, all the scattered puzzle pieces are fun, but eventually the pacing flags and you're left with the main character, who simply isn't very compelling. Valerie Perrine gets stuck with the vulgar role of the actress, yet she manages to give the brightest performance in the picture. *1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Jul 30, 2002
- Permalink
"Slaughterhouse 5" is perhaps the best book-film translation I've ever seen.
Let me safely say that Kurt Vonneguts 'Slaughterhouse 5' is my favourite book ever. It is incredibly funny and moving above any book I've ever read. But it is also a very complex and philosophical story with many deeply rooted undertones. As such, I strongly urge people to READ THE BOOK before you see this movie. A great many points are left unexplained to the viewer, assuming they have read Vonneguts version. As I read it beforehand, the movie didn't insult my intelligence by putting Vonneguts ideas in plain view. Instead, it relies faithfully on the viewers interpretations, not unlike the book.
Once again, unless you have a mind open like a 7-11, READ THE BOOK. Take my advice, and be immersed in the greatest story of the 20th century.
Let me safely say that Kurt Vonneguts 'Slaughterhouse 5' is my favourite book ever. It is incredibly funny and moving above any book I've ever read. But it is also a very complex and philosophical story with many deeply rooted undertones. As such, I strongly urge people to READ THE BOOK before you see this movie. A great many points are left unexplained to the viewer, assuming they have read Vonneguts version. As I read it beforehand, the movie didn't insult my intelligence by putting Vonneguts ideas in plain view. Instead, it relies faithfully on the viewers interpretations, not unlike the book.
Once again, unless you have a mind open like a 7-11, READ THE BOOK. Take my advice, and be immersed in the greatest story of the 20th century.
The book Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut was a great book, the movie was good, but probably not as good to others who have not read the book. The movie is more about the time traveling aspect of the story, the book speaks a lot more of Dresden, in the book Dresden is more important, and the movie left of some characters and events and such, but thats expected. If you've read the book, see the movie, if you have not, you might still like it, but the books satire is what i love about the story, the movie didn't quite get that right in my opinion, but as a Vonnegut fan, 7/10 as a never-even-heard-of-Vonnegut-person 4/10.
- LoveDelicatessen
- Jul 25, 2003
- Permalink
Okay, the bombing of Dresden was a traumatic event. However, this movie treats that event as some kind of surrealistic happening which significantly understates the horror of what occurred there. Politics aside, a lot of people died there, died horrible deaths, yet,as much as it tries, this movie does little to evoke any feeling of compassion, the reason being that the story is told from the vantage point of an American, not a German. Perhaps if the story was told through another character, let's say, an eight year old German child who lost his or her entire family, then perhaps the movie would have been much stronger. War is subject not to be joked about or played with. It does not lend itself to a whimsical approach. The main character in this movie, an American soldier, is traumatized but his flashbacks are silly, completely out of place with the movie's somber theme, that war damages people, psychologically as well as physically.
There is a definite 70s feel to this production of a book that does an amazing job of spanning the most fascinating period of American history -- 1945-1970. I first saw this film in 1986 as a late teen at the height of Regan America, the cold war, nuclear detente. Billy Pilgram was the beginning of that world that I was just starting to pay attention to. The movie had a really profound effect on me at the time. Reading the book afterwards and getting into his other books, didn't detract at all from my assessment of the movie adaptation. Even seeing it now many years later doesn't detract from an amazingly solid film. The transitions as Billy gets unstuck in time are some of my favorite movie images. Also beautiful is the music which totally turned me on to Glenn Gould.
I read the book about a year ago, and decided to try and relive the book by watching the movie. The movie does a decent job following the action of the movie, but ultimately fails at the idea behind the book. Instead the movie is simply a series of action correlating with the book. I cannot stress enough, "ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK SHOULD BOTHER WITH THE MOVIE." The movie provides good visual aide for re-experiencing the book, but will only ruin your will to read the book if you try to watch the movie before reading.
- Bastard Out of Carolina
- Jul 11, 2001
- Permalink
Slaughterhouse-Five is my all-time favorite movie. If you haven't seen it, don't be fooled by the title (it's not the fourth sequel to a horror movie) or the fact that video stores, if they carry it, typically file it under "Sci-Fi" (it's not a space movie, well, not primarily). Slaughterhouse Five is a movie about war, family, business, pets, space, time, aliens, friends, bitter enemies, revenge, overeating, fascism, communism, and mostly about just wanting to be left alone. It is the funniest and saddest movie you're likely to see, and it encompasses more aspects of life than you could imagine. Worth repeated viewings.
- Mdc123-12-762674
- Apr 27, 2022
- Permalink
I rented and watched this film immediately following reading the book (this was Spring of 2004) and while the book was phenomenal and lead Vonnegut to being one of my all time favorite authors, when I had heard that there was a film, I knew I had to see it. I also found out that was directed by the late George Roy Hill (Slapshot, Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid) I figured it would be a pretty good adaptation.
Upon watching it I was almost angry at what I had saw. Now granted, on the surface, many of the events occurred just like they did in the book, however I felt that the film completely missed out on the underlying messages that Vonnegut was trying to convey, this is what makes Vonnegut's reading so great, and the movie missed the mark.
Even more so, the complete absence of Kilgore Trout was absolutely absurd, for he played a large role in the book and the events that occurred in the book.
I've heard that Mother Night (1996) and "Breakfast of Champions(1999) were much better adaptations (the same unfortunately couldn't be said for Slapstick (1982). However I am also looking forward to The Man Without a Country (2008). It is possible to translate Vonnegut over to film, however it is something that just needs to be done very carefully.
Upon watching it I was almost angry at what I had saw. Now granted, on the surface, many of the events occurred just like they did in the book, however I felt that the film completely missed out on the underlying messages that Vonnegut was trying to convey, this is what makes Vonnegut's reading so great, and the movie missed the mark.
Even more so, the complete absence of Kilgore Trout was absolutely absurd, for he played a large role in the book and the events that occurred in the book.
I've heard that Mother Night (1996) and "Breakfast of Champions(1999) were much better adaptations (the same unfortunately couldn't be said for Slapstick (1982). However I am also looking forward to The Man Without a Country (2008). It is possible to translate Vonnegut over to film, however it is something that just needs to be done very carefully.
I couldn't track it down, unfortunately, but remember that Rolling Stone interviewed Vonnegut in the late 70's, and he stated that there were two movies that Hollywood had done that were better than their books: Gone with the Wind, and Slaughterhouse-Five. Kurt said Hill left out stuff that he should have left out of the book.
I finally watched the film just yesterday, and agree that it was masterful at capturing the book. The time-traveling was exactly as Kurt described it. The characters were nailed. If only Hollywood could be this good when it interpreted books every time.
If you're unfamiliar with the book and the film, I'd suggest reading first, then watching. It'll make the more obscure parts of the film clear, and you won't be disappointed by George Roy Hill.
I finally watched the film just yesterday, and agree that it was masterful at capturing the book. The time-traveling was exactly as Kurt described it. The characters were nailed. If only Hollywood could be this good when it interpreted books every time.
If you're unfamiliar with the book and the film, I'd suggest reading first, then watching. It'll make the more obscure parts of the film clear, and you won't be disappointed by George Roy Hill.
- BandSAboutMovies
- Jan 4, 2020
- Permalink
- morrison-dylan-fan
- Oct 4, 2009
- Permalink