University of Virginia Library

CINEMA

Controversial 'Catch'

by Paul Chaplin
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"Catch 22" may be the most
controversial film of 1970. Some
people who have read the book,
have disliked the film; others, unfamiliar
with the novel, are praising
the film. Critics are also at odds,
calling Nichols' work a masterpiece
and triumph, or dismissing it as a
nice effort. After two viewings, I
find myself somewhere between
these groups, with leanings towards
enthusiastic praise.

The main problem with "Catch
22" is the familiarity, or lack of it,
one has with Joseph Heller's novel.
This has its obvious effect on Buck
Henry's script. Characters and episodes
have been dropped, and a
new sense of order has been created
for the film to make sense. The
cyclical nature of the film suggests
a nightmare, but characters and
scenes are too vague in their relation
to each other, causing some
confusion. As a result, we feel a
total detachment from most of the
characters, often not caring what
happens to them.

This distancing forces us to identify
and sympathize with Yossarian,
more than we could in the novel.
And here again is another vast
difference that we must accept to
appreciate Nichols film. After
laughing through the adventures of
Heller's airmen, we realize that our
laughter has been uncalled for and
the totality of the book is bleaker
than we thought. It is the darker
quality of the novel's final quarter
that Nichols and Henry have
brought to the screen.

In Nichols' "Catch 22," Yossarian
is the only sane person in an
environment of lunatics. This concept
was in Heller's novel, but
played a minor role to the escapades
of the characters and the larger
anti-war theme. To emphasis the
bleak aspects, Henry has axed away
a considerable amount of comedy
to focus on Yossarian as the character
to whom things happen. Thus
the individuals of the novel are in
many places rendered in terms of
caricature, which is sometimes
effective. Those roles which are

poor cutout figures are Colonels
Catheart and Kom, Milo Minderbinder,
and General Dreedle — yet I
believe the flamboyant acting of
Martin Balsam, Buck Henry, Jon
Voight, and Orson Welles is more at
fault than the script.

The pivotal role in the film of
course is that of Yossarian, played
by Alan Arkin. This is a most
challenging role, for Yossarian must
appear to act mad, while we must
believe he is sane. Arkin shifts well
in moods of shyness, confusion,
hysterical fear, anger and terror.
What is remarkable is that he does
this through his face, something
screen actors seem to have forgotten
as an expressive device, All the
indignation Yossarian feels towards
the mindless atmosphere around
him is express flawlessly by Arkin
in the bombing of the airstrip segment.
The scene is terrifying and
Arkin's acting makes it significant in
the development of Yossarian's
realization of his position in the
society he lives in.

On that last note, let me
consider Nichols the director and
his other two films. "Who's Afraid
of Virginia Woolf?" was essentially
a filmed stage play, noteworthy for
the performances of Taylor and
Burton. "The Graduate" while
possessing a few stage conventions,
was a step away from the theatre
and towards film. Benjamin, like
Yossarian and Martha and George,
is a misfit in his society. In this
case, it is slick and commercial
("Plastics"), but not unlike "Catch
22," it is morally corrupt and
repugnant to the protagonist. Just
as Yossarian comprehends the
society around him, Benjamin sees
it, rejects it and starts over. The
difference between the two is that
the last frame of "The Graduate" is
far more pessimistic than that of
"Catch 22." Here we know
Yossarian will make his life work
and succeed.

Nichols' camera is occasionally
flashy in "Catch 22," at times
without justification, as if he uses
technique o use technique. It
appears to me however, that
Nichols is establishing his style, and
in this film, borrowed others to test
his theories of direction. At times,
they are successful, but regardless,
"Catch 22" is a beautifully
composed and photographed film
that Nichols can be proud of. To
enjoy the film, I would suggest
burying your memories of Heller's
book and accepting Nichols' work
on its own. If you can not do this
(and I couldn't the first time I saw
it), I still think you'll agree that
"Catch 22" is the current candidate
for the American masterpiece of
1970.

(Now at The Paramount)