Comparison Between the Book and the Movie
Watching a movie adapted from a well-written book can make to be a very interesting experience. Being born in a world where excellently written books are adapted into mediocre films that cannot compare to the original material, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie stays faithful book in its plot and its conveying of the message. However, since movies tend to be 2 hours or shorter, they are usually compressed to meet this standard. As such, the book and the movie are different in some regards, even if it does stay true to the original.
Faithfully following the book, the book and the movie are similar in plot and the message they are both trying to convey. They both focus on the story of Billy Pilgrim, and his occasional jumps through time. Billy Pilgrim is captured by German forces during the Battle of the Bulge in Luxembourg in 1944. He is then transported to Dresden as a Prisoner of War (POW) to perform labor for the Germans. Both the movie and the book switch back and forth between Dresden and his post-war life, from his marriage, back to Tralfamadore, his death, Dresden, and back to his life after the war, leaving a jumbled mess of a story, as "there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre" (Vonnegut 10). The book and the film also touch up on the Tralfamadorian concept of the Illusion of Free Will. It is shown in both that the Tralfamadorians believe that time is happening all at once, at the same time. For example, I am writing this essay in this instance of time, and in a different instance in time, I am getting a High School Diploma. This is happening at the same time, and time is structured that I will always do those things at that time, "trapped in the amber of [that] moment..." (Vonnegut 76)
With a change of medium, a change of narrative point of view is also necessary for the film to transition nicely into something to watch. The first and last chapter of the book in which Kurt Vonnegut talks to the reader as himself is completely excluded. In addition to the need to compress, the first-person narrative of the first and last chapters of the book would have no place in a medium of a story mainly told through dialogue and visual action. Vonnegut does not mention anything about his old war buddy, Bernard O'Hare or their visit to Dresden after the city was rebuilt after the horrific fire-bombing. The saying "So it goes," is not present once inside the movie even though it is mentioned 106 times inside the book, emotionlessly dismissing death.
The ending for the both of them are also different. In the movie, the story ends with a generic cheering and fireworks show on Tralfamadore to celebrate Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack (a famous movie star with whom Billy Pilgrim mates with) having a baby boy. In the book however, the book switches back to Vonnegut as he describes what he and his other comrades did after the Bombing of Dresden. Birds were singing and one asked, "Poo-tee-weet," symbolizing the lack of anything intelligent about what had just happened.
Overall, both the film and the movie are well written works of art that everyone should have a chance to read and/or watch should they have the chance. I personally enjoy the book more than I did the movie, as the Vonnegut's blunt descriptions and deep symbolism intrigues me more than the movie, mainly due to the time constraints that restricted the movie from reaching the greatness of the original book.
The actors in this movie were very well played even without much experience done in previous years. Billy's actor was Michael Sacks, "who looks like a cartoon fall-guy copied in flesh" said by Vincent Canby in his movie review, reenacted the character very well. We see the difference in character from book to movie by viewing the actor, Michael Sack's, lack of expressions of his own outrage or inside thoughts. On the other hand, in the book, as readers, we can imagine and assume what Billy is possibly thinking. In the book Billy, had many dialogues and monologues where as in the movie that isn't presented as much. According to Vincent Canby, "The problem with the film, as it was with the novel, is that it's really not outraged or outrageous enough, much like its time-tripping gimmick." Nearly every time Billy falls asleep he begins to time hop through time. This may explain why Billy has been having bad dreams or in certain situations he would be wide awake and begins to have nervous breakdowns. Soon after his time travels he would come back to the present by being woken up by someone. Another thing that is hard to tell in the movie is when Billy is actually in the "present." The scenes in the movie about Billy were mixed up from being in the past to ending up somewhere else in a different year. Those time trips were also seen as visions.
What you see in the movie is pretty much what you read in the book with a few minor differences. an example in the beginning of the book is the prologue where Vonnegut meets an old war buddy and discusses about the book he wants to write later on named as "The Children's Crusade." Another missing part to the film was the characters Kilgore Trout and the author Kurt Vonnegut. And lastly another example in the book is when Edgar Derby is executed for stealing a teapot that he found in the firebomb ruins in Dresden; in the movie he is stealing a small figurine that reminds him of home. Other than those small indications, there are so many things missing in the movie that is from the book. The Tralfamadorian's respond to the "So it goes" saying to death and mortality various times and this small but influential part of the book isn't mentioned in film. Then we also see scenes in the movie that were never mentioned in the book. In the film, Derby mentions about the figurine to his wife in a letter which never happened in the book. Something else that doesn't happen in the book but was shown in the movie was when Billy helps his friends collect grandfather clocks and he hides under one of them when the Russians arrive.
The main issue I had with liking the film completely just as much as I read the book was one of the main missing key components. First, the movie only focuses on Billy Pilgrim's part of the story and does not address the idea of the book that he plans to write about. We also see that there is no mention of the author of the book, "Slaughterhouse Five," which is Kurt Vonnegut and his little inputs of experiences. This is what I missed most of all from the movie.Secondly, one thing in particular that I missed from the movie is the narrator's observational phrase of "so it goes." The small but simple phrase would have fit perfectly in between scenes but since the narrator was not part of the film at all there is no sense to why it should be included. A big scene that was not shown in the movie was when Billy Pilgrim is watching an old war movie and is watching it backwards. The is a visual that you grasp from the book of how the movie is playing backwards with the experience of bombs, smoke and flames that appear.
Aside from the book and film connections the little music that was included in the film was an elegant collection of piano pieces by Gleen Gould. The music fit in perfectly into scenes and matched to them. The music help compliment the movie and made it a success as well.
The scriptwriters way of ending the movie was not so bad at all, although it was different. According to a movie review done by Sam Sattler on a blog, "Slaughterhouse-Five, the movie, is another example of how, against all odds, the written word is indeed more powerful than cinematic images. This is true even for a relatively slim book like Slaughterhouse-Five. While I did enjoy both the book and the movie, I doubt I would have enjoyed the movie nearly as much without first having read the book; the opposite cannot be said." I do strongly agree with this movie review overall statement. I thought the movie reflected the book great and communicated the main parts of the story well, but we could not see the authors connection visually as we did with the book. If I were to overall rate this movie it would be a 7/10. The overall main message was communicated through film and wasn't a failure of turning a book to a film like many others I have seen. It is hard to incorporate the author, Kurt Vonnegut, into the film as a character that briefly comes and goes within scenes so as much as I would have liked to have seen him included in it I thought it was best the director didn't force it in awkwardly. Most people that saw the film only and never read the book enjoyed the movie and liked it a lot. I strongly suggest reading the book no matter what before or after the movie because nothing will compare to the original story,words, and the authors connections written in the book.
Contrasting the film to the novel, I have to dislike that the film did not show any signs of Kurt Vonnegut present as the novel did. But George Roy Hill created visual scenes by using sound and color that the novel could not do. In addition, by reading the novel first, then watching the movie I realize that George Roy Hill cut out the first and last chapters of the novel out of the film. In the beginning it jumped to when Billy's daughter is banging on the front of his door. In the film there were no scenes of Kurt Vonnegut, which I really disliked.
I feel like for first time viewers of the movie that did not read the book, it might have been hard to follow. To understand the film, in my opinion, you have to follow very closely to every detail. Also, I feel like the director did a moderate job of developing the character throughout him time traveling. The acting was not bad, but I would not say that it was great either. But in all, George Roy Hill did a wonderful job with the film compared to the novel and kept the viewers interested in the story and the characters as well.
Well if your director George Roy Hill you go all tricky and adapt Kurt Vonneguts time jumping novel.
Having not read the book i was drawn to the interweaving plotlines and the jumping from one time to the next.
Pauline Kael often called Roy Hill a workmanlike director ,but i have to say there is nothing workmanlike going on here.
His visual eye is top grade as Michael Sacks gives and outstanding performance as Billy Pilgrim an everyman with a gift which delights and frustrates him in equal measure.
The film is also bolstered by fine perfomances from Ron Liebman as Pilgrim crazed enemy and Sharon Gans as Billys annoying wife.
The film is packed with memeorable moments from the horrible attack on Dresden to a very funny scene involving the destruction of a Cadillac.
so my fianl word would be although the jumpy narrative takes some getting used to,Roy Hill has created a cracking early 70s timepiece.
-Billy Pilgrim (Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.)
This is my favorite philosophy of life. Thank God for Tralfamadorians.
The book was so masterfully adapted in this film, I cried. It requires full attention because the movie itself pays the most attention to minute details. The transitions from one time-trip to the next was so perfect I felt like clapping my hands each time. And I did. And I always will. Too bad they left out my favorite character, Which is: Kilgore Trout. But I felt nothing of substance was lost. It still gets every message across perfectly and maybe even accessibly, I feel, to those who have not read the novel. Though I could be wrong.
In my minds eye, the goof Billy Pilgrim looked something about Ewen Bremner (Spud from Trainspotting) but I knew it was invalid because that guy was Scottish. Then comes Michael Sacks. The perfect American to play as Billy Pilgrim. Goofy and comical as a Kid-Billy, and respectable and commanding as an adult one. The man and the part met. Excellently well played!
I will always, love this film to death. So it goes.