So after reading the novel and watching the film, what are everyone’s thoughts?
The film most certainly takes a different direction than the novel. This may have to do with the narratology that comes with writing the novel; Vonnegut specifically wrote the novel not to have conventional structure, but the film seems to drastically tear his version of the story up. Is there a point to this or is it just another viewpoint that comes from a restricted medium i.e. film.
I actually liked the movie. I think the unexplained pieces come together nicely, and Dwayne is clearly depicted as a crazy person..the book does tell us, which has a different effect, but the movie did a good enough job.
I love Kilgour Trout’s character, the man who plays him, and how he plays him. I sympathized with Trout a lot more in the film versus the book. I htink this is because the book, establishes a distance between the writters and the people. The “creator of the universe” and trout are connected through writing. BUT int he film the “creator” is removed as an individual.. (well I think..lol. We didn’t get to the part where we discover the “creator” is in the Inn..
I also, have to say that the only thing I really could have lived without was the weird sex-scene in between Francine and Dwayne…ALSO, why Bruce Willis?? I think that the guy who played the truck driver and who played the coach in remember the Titans…white coach….would have been AN AMAZING Dwayne Hoover..
I saw impressed with the weaving of Kilgore Trout’s with Dwayne Hoover’s story lines. It seemed very fluid and smooth. At no point did I ever think about how we got to the new character. The scenes were solid because they stood well on their own.
I found the book to be similar in this respect such that every time I was reading about Dwayne or Kilgore and then got to a switch I got right back into the proper character.
The movie is good, I think, and does a decent job of adapting Breakfast of Champions on screen. Because like you said Tony, it’s tough to use a book so unconventional in nature. I think what is lost from book to movie is something ANY director would have lost, because there is just no valid way to translate all of Vonnegut into a movie.
I agree with nawaeeze, Bruce Willis is an interesting guy to pick to play this part. I don’t think he does a particularly good job either. I feel like they should have made him appear more sane to the viewer, and to the rest of the characters… it seemed to me at least, when reading the book, it was a gradual built up until Dwayne snaps. And Bruce Willis just seems like he’s forcing it. Should have gotten a guy that was a bit crazy in real life to play this role… someone who could really relate to Dwayne’s character.
First half good. Second half, aka the last 32 minutes were the worst waste of motion pciture film I have ever expereinced and will ever experience (most likely)
I’m just going to ignore the fact that I ever watched that movie, and I pretend like I time travelled back to 3pm today while we watching, so I actually never finsihed the movie, and thus have no recollection of it.
ANYWAYS.
I wanted to bring up a quote from an external source which I found relevant to the novel…
“But you know happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.”
-Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Artist Rabo Karabakian says that “we are all beams of light” in his speech to justify his art work…
This is interesting to see the associations with light and happiness…Also the religious conotation that accompanies the term “light”, namely that it is a driect reference to God, or enlightment in which we could describe as an intellectual enlightement, and that is attained through artistic expression…
PS: HARRY POTTER IS DOPE.
I had mixed feelings about the movie. While it did hold true to some of the plot points and did a good job of conveying the majority of the overall story line, I do not think it did justice to the books intended meaning. The acting seemed a little too dramatic, almost forced, which does not suit the type of satirical comedy vonnegut employs in his works.
The ending is what I thought took away from the movie the most. This book was not intended to have a happy “Hollywood” ending, as we’ve seen with his previous works. This was a hard book to properly convert to a movie, and I applaud the director for attempting it. But as its ratings have shown, I don’t think this novel was meant to ever leave its original written form.
I definitely enjoyed this movie much more than Slaughterhouse-Five. Although I can’t help but feel that with such a star-studded cast (quite literally, I mean didn’t Michael Clarke Duncan win an Oscar?) that they could have done a better job. Also you’d think if you were going to have Kurt Vonnegut cameo, you’d at least ask for a little artistic input.
That book, could have been better adapted to film I think.
What I really enjoyed about the movie however, was Kilgore Trout. The actor’s interpretation of Kilgore was awesome, amazing, perfect. It was actually flawless. They should have made a movie just about Trout, forget Bruce Willis, let him go fight Snape in Die Hard.
I really didn’t like the presence of Dwayne’s Wife, she was too much of an interference in an already complicated story. Her presence wasn’t nearly that strong in the book (considering she was dead). It just made Dwayne look like a douche bag, which is not the intent in the book. If his wife is dead, he isn’t cheating.
I also felt like the way everyone was talking in that movie made them all seem like they were mentally ill on the verge of a breakdown. It was too much crazy to comprehend.