Meditations on the Philosophy of Tralfamadore: Kurt Vonnegut and George Roy Hill
1987; Salisbury University; Volume: 15; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0090-4260
Autores Tópico(s)American Political and Social Dynamics
ResumoCynically viewed, George Roy Hill's film adaptation of Slaughterhouse-Five is a standard Hollywood venture1-a popular novel spiced up by a director in tune with public taste. (Hill had just completed the highly successful Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.) Typically, the story must be livened up, since even a popular novel like Slaughterhouse-Five is too gloomy and too pacifistic. So Valencia's race to the hospital becomes a farcical demolition derby, the relationship between Edgar Derby and Billy Pilgrim is sentimentalized, Paul Lazzaro's bad guy role is expanded (even though the novel made a point of having no villains) (13), and Billy is given Spot as a comic canine side-kick-a proven gimmick from the Screwball Comedy. One also eliminates the slurs on religion and the dehumanized portrayal of sex. It is particularly important that the audience walk out smiling, where Vonnegut ends the novel in the streets of bombed-out Dresden at the end of World War II, Hill ends it with Billy, Montana, and their newborn son curled up in bed together while the invisible Tralfamadorians cheer wildly and fireworks go off overhead. The formula worked reasonably well: the film received mixed reviews and no Academy Award nominations, but was given a prize at Cannes, and continues to do well on college campuses.2 Although some critics dismissed the film as just such a travesty, others praised its treatment of time (Atwell), its editing (Sharpies), or discussed its success in adapting Vonnegut's unusual novel (Dimeo, Mayer, Nelson, and Rice). Neil Isaacs, in one of the most serious considerations of the film, restates the first premise of adaptation: faithfulness to the literary original is not possible. The only valid application of a standard of faithfulness would be to the essence of the work. But this assumes that a complex work of art can be rendered simple, that a distillation of novel or film into a single statement or concept or thrust can effectively identify the work. (124) The question, Isaacs suggests, is not whether the film recaptures the novel, but whether it establishes its own artistic vision. He concludes that Slaughterhouse-Five, settling for cliche responses and quick laughs, does not, and thereby loses its integrity (131). This complaint was echoed by other critics,3 particularly in response to the ending. They felt that Hill's final scenes fled into fantasy, escaping precisely those horrors of life and war that Vonnegut wanted to portray. What makes the question worth reconsideration is the fact that Vonnegut himself is delighted with the film: I love George Roy Hill and Universal Pictures, who made a flawless translation of my novel Slaughterhouse-Five to the silver screen. I drool and cackle every time I watch that film, because it is harmonious with what I felt when I wrote the book. (Between Time and Timbuktu xv) His approval is puzzling, since a major difference can be found in the view of life which film and novel present. The key is in the way Vonnegut and Hill react to the philosophy which the Tralfamadorians offer Billy Pilgrim: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones (107). Vonnegut reverses that proposition; he dwells on the bad times and finds few good ones. Hill is more positive, taking a realistic look at the awful times, but also searching for some joy in life. The difference is one of comic perspective: Vonnegut is a satirist in the Jonsonian vein, laughing cynically at human foibles. Hill could almost be called Aristophanic, conjoining elements of despair and laughter. The comparison of these two artistic visions, then, will provide insight into both works and, hopefully, offer some perspective on the relationships of film and literature. Ignore the awful times. . At root, the Tralfamadorian philosophy suggests adopting a detached stance from the problems of the world. To some readers, it might seem that Vonnegut accepts this view, since he has written his novel (according to the title page) somewhat in the telegraphic schizophrenic manner of tales of the planet Tralfamadore, and has filled it with endless repetitions of so it goes, the Tralfamadorian reaction to death. …
Referência(s)