There are a lot of major differences between the novel and movie of Catch-22 as well as some similarities. The movie and book as a whole do have the same plot and follow a very similar story line. Like in all books that are made into movies there was much more information and detail in the book than there was in the movie, especially in the missions and the introduction of characters. The book is very complex and it was probably a challenge when putting it into a fixed time frame for a movie.
The aspect of war is portrayed very similar in the movies as it is in the novel. However in the novel the war was symbolic to its time and in the movie it seems that it is Just another movie that was made about war rather than movies that uses war as symbolism, which is a major point that Heeler was trying to make. IN the movie there is a feeling that the only thing that the war itself symbolizes is that it is a terrible hellish place to be at the time. The movie also reminds me of another war movie in that it uses a similar way of story telling; it reminds me of full metal Jacket.
It reminds me of this because it starts off quite funny then as the movie progresses it becomes more serious, this is somewhat similar in the book, but in the book there is always some kind of satire throughout. It seems as if in the first half of the movie everyone is silly and child like behavior, which is similar to how we are introduced to, characters in the book. The only difference is that there is reasoning to this foolish behavior of the characters that is explained in the book. “I’m nuts. Cuckoo. Don’t you understand? I’m off my rocker.
They sent someone else home in my place by mistake. They’ve got a licensed psychiatrist up at the hospital who examined me, and that was his verdict. I’m really insane. ” We can also see the different stages of Historian’s character where he changes form him also being quite foolish in the beginning of the movie and towards the middle he becomes quite serious and then goes back to being crazed and goes off the wagon. When runs off in the raft and finally is fed up with the war and decided he no longer cares about the repercussions that come with leaving or abandoning AR and goes off.
His en result being that he succeeded in his personal mission not to die. “One of the things [Historians] wanted to start screaming about was the surgeon’s knife that was almost certain to be waiting for him and everyone else who lived long enough to die. He wondered often how he would ever recognize the first chill, flush, twinge, ache, belch, sneeze, stain, lethargy, vocal slip, loss of balance or lapse of memory that would signal the inevitable beginning of the inevitable end. ”
One character that was very much underplayed in the movie was Major Major Major, there was not very much background to him and it seemed that he had little to do and had no “major” role in the movie. It seemed as if he was an unimportant character where in the book it is much more into detail about him where there is even a chapter after him. There is also not very much of an understanding as to who Historians is and why he is the way he is. In the book we soon find out that Historian’s whole goal is to not die and to also not leave but stay n the war and find loopholes to not doing anything.
In the movie this is not very easily understood and it seem almost as if you need to have read the book before watching the movie in order to understand it. In the book there is also flashbacks and the book does not really follow a chronological type order, it bounces back and fourth between present and past. This is in order to understand the characters better and to know their backgrounds and back-stories. The movie does not use this type of story telling and it impacts the way the story flows and how the story is told.
Using this type of writing is curtail to Healer’s portrayal of the story and the fact that the movies did not do this makes it for a inaccurate representation of Healer’s novel. This makes the characters part of the movie but it does not explain who they are, in the novel you connect with the characters and experience the book as if you were part of the war and were living it with the characters. When they go through something you know it as they are experiencing it and in the movie it as more of a typical movie voyeuristic feel to it. This takes away for the greatness of the book.
The fact that time and space are not relative concepts like I stated before really differs from the novel. It makes the whole feel of the book and movie very different. The major plot, however id pretty much the same. It starts the same with Historians being almost childish in his behavior and there are some scenes that match the book very well, like when he is opening letter or when they go drop a bomb in the middle of the ocean. The major battle that Historians has with himself and the war itself is still the same and it also ends on the same note ND in the same way.
All in all I would have to say that I enjoyed the book much more, but it is always interesting to see the difference between a novel and a movie. In most if not all cases the novel is much better. Works Cited Heeler, Joseph, and Herbert Supervened. “17. ” Catch 22. Dethroned: J. W. Seascapes Formal, 1994. N. Page. Print. “elm’s nuts. Cuckoo. Don’t you understand? I’m off my rocker. They sent someone else home in my place by mistake. They’ve got a licensed psychiatrist up at the hospital who examined me, and that was his verdict.
I’m really insane. ” Heeler, Joseph, and Herbert Supervened. “21 . ” Catch 22. Dethroned: J. W. Seascapes Formal, 1994. N. Page. Print. One of the things [Historians] wanted to start screaming about was the surgeon’s knife that was almost certain to be waiting for him and everyone else who lived long enough to die. He wondered often how he would ever recognize the first chill, flush, twinge, ache, belch, sneeze, stain, lethargy, vocal slip, loss of balance or lapse of memory that would signal the inevitable beginning of the inevitable end. ”