Post by gogoschka1 on Feb 24, 2017 16:42:36 GMT
Just recently I watched it again for the umpteenth time: and again I was blown away by the pure craftsmanship of filmmaking at display. The performances, the visuals, the narrative structure; this film still looks so modern as if it were made yesterday. It's a prime example of inventive seventies filmmaking and Nichols was at his peak as a director.
The commentary track on the DVD by Nichols (inverviewed by none other than Steven Soderbergh) is a highlight in itself, but what I don't understand is: why is this masterpiece not held in higher regard by film fans and critics? I mean, I get that it doesn't do the book justice (in the sense that it is a very loose adaptation and it takes a lot of liberties) but it doesn't really try to be a direct adaptation; what it does - and in my mind very successfully - is trying to capture the spirit of the book.
I wonder if Nichols had opted for a different title and simply put the tag: "INSPIRED by the novel 'Catch-22'" on the film - would the film be viewed today as the classic masterpiece it actually is?
The commentary track on the DVD by Nichols (inverviewed by none other than Steven Soderbergh) is a highlight in itself, but what I don't understand is: why is this masterpiece not held in higher regard by film fans and critics? I mean, I get that it doesn't do the book justice (in the sense that it is a very loose adaptation and it takes a lot of liberties) but it doesn't really try to be a direct adaptation; what it does - and in my mind very successfully - is trying to capture the spirit of the book.
I wonder if Nichols had opted for a different title and simply put the tag: "INSPIRED by the novel 'Catch-22'" on the film - would the film be viewed today as the classic masterpiece it actually is?
