I had seen the movie before, of course, and hadn't really liked it, although I was sharp enough to realize that the repetitive flashbacks to Yossarian in the plane where Snowden is dying in his arms, feeling cold as shock sets in, and Yossarian is reduced to reassuring him that everything will be OK, is the underlying motif. But now it has just rocketed up to my number one anti-war movie – that question of what is the #1 anti-war movie recurs frequently. I think Dr. Strangelove, which shares a genre with Catch 22, whatever that genre is named, is #2, or maybe you could switch them around. Since movies stay as they are and since movies are a conversation between the print and the viewer, it must be me who has changed.
Pretty much everyone in Catch 22 is a caricature except Yossarian, the only sane and normal person, except maybe Luciana, the whore he wants to marry but who dies when the supercilious pipe-smoking Aarfy throws her out the window after he fucks her because it would tarnish his preppy image if the truth got out. In Dr. Strangelove, Mandrake is a normal human being, and maybe the President, but that might be it. The normal vs. the crazy others in the world, I guess that's the description.
Catch 22 has PTSD before PTSD had a name, or at least an acronym. That's the point of Yossarian and Snowden, how it recurs – that's PTSD. And then there is moral injury, in spades, shown but not named, because the name came in the 1990's, invented by my high school and undergrad classmate, Jonathan Shay, in his book Achilles in Vietnam. You can see the impulse to throw faux medals over the White House fence, because here in World War II the officers are doing the same obscene shit as we heard about with Vietnam, when soldiers are ordered to do unholy acts that are perversions of war, which upsets them deeply, and then they are given medals with the hope that the medals will obscure the sins.
What a strange term, perversions of war. It's OK to kill soldiers but not civilians. Why is it OK to kill soldiers? Because they will kill you if they can, or they will take important things from you. OK, OK, what's the alternative? I can't think of any. But still, perversions of war. Wow.
The irony that pervades it heightens the sadness rather than undercutting it, I think. It's the irony that lifts it above the other anti-war movies, I think. More than Paths of Glory, for instance. Such an anti-official movie, completely appropriate for the 60's. The insistence on true human relationships in one man, and the bureaucracy and of course, capitalism, and common social conventions and the ignorance of most people. All the perversions of society visited upon war.
Catch 22 has unspeakable tragedy, dressed up with irony, which is hilarious, but can you really laugh? Can you really laugh at Strangelove? The sadness, craziness. Irrational idiocy of bureaucracy. The good war, they say, WW II. Of which there is not one true example in history. Justified war, that there is. But not good. And crazy personal lives that keep going on. Crazy. Irony, irony. You have to hold the concepts in your mind at the same time. The absurdity that is both hilarious and tragic. Maybe Kafka, maybe that's the antecedent. Maybe Vonnegut, with all that craziness from PTSD, living on Titan and being watched by aliens as you procreate – Vonnegut and Joseph Heller were friends, which is so appropriate.
How can you laugh at tragedy and malignant craziness? It's more like gaping at it, maybe. I wonder if it's in Cervantes. We invent new names for things, which is good, but it was always there, lurking somewhere.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment