I hope you are all enjoyed what we saw of the movie so far. I know it was hard to see parts of it because of the darkness in the shots and the lack of clarity from the projector. But I think the jist of what is being expressed in the film does come through.
So, after watching about 3 quarters of the movie, and reading 3 quarters of the book, what do you think? There are obviously some serious changes that the director has made, and some subtle ones too.
Some things that I think would be interesting to talk about would be the inclusion of Paul Lazzaroo as much more of a prominent character, or perhaps the Howard Campbell.
Also, the change from book to screen changes the way we learn about the events. We no longer have Vonnegut telling us this story. It is now the director presenting images and vignettes. Was it in any way successful? What are some of the strengths that you can associate with either medium?
I don’t really like how the director has changed so many aspects of the story. It seems that some of the changes were unnecessary and, therefore, not in line with Vonnegut’s vision even though the gist of the story may be the same.
I think that the storyline is too fragmented to be translated to a movie well. The way it is written works well in book form, but I think that if I hadn’t already read the book I would be having a lot of trouble understanding what was going on. However, since I have read the book, it’s pretty entertaining.
I agree with you here Alex, but what bothered me even more than what was changed was the order in which events took place. It is hard to say that the movie went “out of order” compared to the book since there is little to no chronological stability in the first place, but some of the most climactic moments in the novel came at the beginning of the movie. For example, before we had much of a chance to learn about Paul Lazzaro’s character in the film, we hear him deliver his famous line about revenge being the sweetest feeling a person can experience. In the novel, this taking place at the end makes sense because it says something about Lazzaro as well as conveying Vonnegut’s beliefs about human nature. By placing this in one of the first scenes in which Billy and Lazzaro interact, to me, it takes away from the overall point that Vonnegut was trying to make and really turns it into a forgettable line in the movie.
I actually liked the movie. It is a modernistic approach, if you will, to a classic story. In a sense, the director has taken, like you said Alex, a fragmented book; sporatic memories really, and translated them into a continuous narrative. What an earthling thing to do !
Vonnegut’s work is very conscies in it’s motives and I thought that the boy who played Pilgrim was believable but not in turmoil as much as I wuld have liked to see in the later scenes of his life. (post-war) Even the during war scenes, seemed like a joke to the young Billy rather then a prisoner scenario.
I think the depiction and wideshots of Dresden and the Germans were very different from other depictions we, as a contemporary audience, have seen. The german soldiers seemed like followers, not angry not enraged with fury like we see in so many other ww2 filsm. Even the people of Dresden look like the economic crashes or ruin of war hadn;t hit them…I was wondering if this was historically accurate??
ALSO, the only colours (vivid ones at least) were used to show the blood from Billy’s head after the crash and to show the sun setting over Dresden…I wonder why ? Again we come back to the discussion of the importance of colour…I was thinking like Schindler’s List (all black and white, but only the little girl is in red)
\\//
I found reading a little about Dresden very interesting considering its importance in the book and I thought that I would give a brief history of the bombing and how it relates to the depiction in the book and movie.
Dresden was mainly untouched before the bombing. It did have military installations and significance. However, most of the legitimate targets were missed (whether intentionally or accidentally is debatable), and a large portion of the city was carpet-bombed. Proponents of the attack say that it was a justifiable target due to its military installations and manufacturing centers. Furthermore, the Germans had just launched their famous Battle of the Bulge counterattack so the war was not over and the amount of bombs dropped was not significantly greater than the amounts dropped on other German cities. However, skeptics point out that Dresden was not a powerhouse in militarily or manufacturing terms. Plus, most of the targets were missed and carpet bombing the center of the city was not necessary. The death toll was not as high as Hiroshima or Nagasaki as the book and movie claim (estimates put it at around 25,000, mostly civilian, so it was still horrible).
Nawel I think that the use of vivid colors was employed (at least in the case of the sun setting over Dresden) to make the bombing of the city more poignant. Having the vivid sun set over the pristine city makes its destruction that much more horrible.
I for one, did not enjoy the movie as much. Aside from the part that I could barely see the screen, it did seem too fragmented and out of sync. I believe that it could have been made a lot better if they stuck to the sequence more closely and I also found it difficult to follow, even having read the book. Another thing that I noticed, and Tony we talked about this, was that Paul Lazzaro’s role in the movie was much larger in the movie than the book. He’s a douche and I hate him so I didnt like that. There were also a scene or two that weren’t in the book either.
Overall, I love the book but dislike the movie….so far.
One aspect of the movie I was uneasy with was the Billy’s demeanor. He seemed far too cheery and upbeat compared to the melancholy character I got used to while reading the book. I wonder if the director has also changed the ending so that it feels more like an ending compared to the book. I would imagine the goal of the movie was to reach a wide audience that would not necessarily be aware of Vonnegut’s literary style.
I definately agree with Juval here, about the Billy’s demeanor. I too, found him to be in a state of laughter, mocking even. Yet in the book, Vonnegut presents us with a soul torured by his adventures through time and memory.
The book lets us specualte Billy’s insanity, while in the movie I just felt awkward seeing Billy enjoying the war so much, or just not present in the moment really. The book describes each scene with such vivid detail, that we get a sense that Billy (whether insane or not) is present during his experiences. But the movie Billy, is flailing through time, his life and traumatic memories without many cares… Well it seems like at least.
Also, Alex I do see how the use colour to present Dresden as a “city of oz” makes it destruction that much more horrible. Good point 🙂
definitely*
Im not really liking the movie. I cant really watch movies that are so different from the books. The fact that there is no Tralfamadorians at all is really weird. Even though they allude to the fact that there is some sort of other dimension that Billy is a part of you don’t get to experience Billy’s experience with them. Nor do I feel like I really connect with Billy as I did in the book. I understand it’s not going to be the same as in the book but I dont get that Billy is really screwed up and deeply, more than we can understand, affected by the war.
Especially because I think Vonnegut intended on saying everything he did in the book for a particular reason, it’s going to make it really hard to be able to portray that in a movie where you cant put everything in.
Yeah, I have to agree with you on this one. The Tralfamadorians are such a huge part of the book, and they are no where to be found here. There is a substantial amount of Vonnegut’s book that is dedicated to the interaction between Billy and the T’s, and it bothers me that it’s so absent in the film.
Maybe we are all a bit bias because we all seemingly like Vonnegut, but shit they are butchering the hell out of this book. The fragmentation is too much. The imagery is too forced. Billy’s character is just… not how I thought it should be at all. And man, no aliens. I was really looking forward to seeing some special effects straight out of the 70’s.
What they director did get right though: some parts were pretty damn funny. Especially the wife, Valencia, when she keeps coming to the door with a new desert. Or when she goes on her rampage on the road and all the men are running for the hills. Cracked me up, and was spot on for how I saw her character.
I feel like if we had all sat down to watch this movie, without having read the book, that it really would make no sense. The story uses narrative to explain how Billy jumps through time, and while there is still a lot to be interpreted through the book, the movie only offers you the letter that Billy writes at the beginning discussing how he is unstuck in time. I found the change in sequence from the book to the movie was distracting and unnecessary.
I disagree on Nawell’s view of Valencia, while in the book she was described as ugly, she was also described by Billy as “bearable”. That woman in the movie sounds like a dying cat when she speaks, I also found this distracting, and down right annoying. Furthermore, the scene where she goes nuts driving around in the car is just out right ridiculous. And unnecessarily long. Funny, but an awful lot of emphasis on a part of the book which I also found hilarious, but gained its hilarity and importance from the simplicity of the situation. The ridiculousness of Valencia in the movie also gave her a much larger part than in the book, shes more of background noise in the book, a mild annoyance to Billy’s existance.
I could keep going, but I will leave it at that.
Speaking of Aliens, we should all watch “The Fourth Kind” in class. No what Im saying Lee? haha. Anyways its pretty crazy and scary.
Anyways, I also feel like they may have left out the aliens partly because I imagine that they would be hard to depict in a real-life film. I mean they do look ridiculous: like a plunger, I believe they were described? I would definitely have a hard time finding an actor who looked like a plunger or finding an alternative of the sort, especially without special effects.
And I am still confused. Is this a war book with a sci-fi twist, or a war book with a little twist of insanity as a result? Well maybe its both, but its pretty damn awesome.
That is all
Having not been able to watch the movie, I find it hard to see how the plot would have held true without the trafalmadorians. It seems to me they they played a central role to the entire story, grounding the notion of being unstuck in time into the novel. I also think that having the trafalmadorians in the novel gave it contrast both morally and idealistically. It allowed us to compare ourselves, our actions, and our intentions to what vonnegut portrayed as a superior intelligence. Without that element I dont think the same conclusions can drawn from billy’s actions in the novel, thus making it drastically different from what vonnegut would have intended. I guess i’ll just have to find a copy of the movie and see for myself.