Book Review I - Catch-22

Book Review I
Catch-22 (published 1961)

Somehow I came out alive this semester. After blundering through in an almost never-ending pile of garbage, I made it out. The relief is immense, but I suppose the stress will only be completely eradicated once I get my grades for all my classes (only two and three labs to go!). During the end of the semester and finals, I was so down to write reviews about anything, but I knew I should actually prioritise my study time. I was going to review Forbidden Planet, but it's been so long that all I can say it's thumbs way up so definitely check it out. Then with Prince's death, I was going to review Purple Rain, but I watched it at least one year ago, probably more like two, and it was actually just plain boring (except for Sex Shooter - love that song!). And, well, I haven't watched any films in a while, so instead I'm here to review something new - a book!

I'm a pretty avid reader, and if I really like a novel, I can speed through it pretty quickly. Though lately I have been trekking through classics, like Le comte de Monte-Cristo (finished tome 1! Only another six hundred pages to go) and The Divine Comedy (which I am reading in English because my Italian is level zero), so my reading has been limited. Usually I don't really have much to say about classics except a yay or nay because either it was to my liking or it wasn't, or it was so darn long and weird that maybe I actually can't say anything. But sometimes I come across a classic where I have a lot to say, and that's the case with Joseph Heller's Catch-22.

Catch-22 tells the story of John Yossarian, part of the air forces during World War II, who wishes he could be anywhere but Italy in the middle of a war. In an attempt to leave the forces forever, he is faced with the now famous Catch-22: any man who continues to fly missions is deemed insane, and thus is free to leave, but any man who doesn't want to fly is sane, and must stay.

From this alone, we know the book is anti-war. I found it hilarious since I bought Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie!) at the same time as this guy, and let me tell you, Starship Troopers is definitely pro-military. But whatever, I mean, I would never join the forces/national guard/reserves/whatever everything is referred to in your country. Maybe to help out through my knowledge of optical devices or lasers (or xasers! I know they're called x-ray lasers, but the "l" stands for "light" and I take it as visible light, not just electromagnetic radiation, so eff you guys. Although I just found out that our gamma lasers are going to be called "grasers", not "gasers", which upsets me... TANGENT), but I'm not ready to face any training associated with joining those guys (I like the physical aspect, but chemical warfare exposure? People exploding in your face? No). And I agree that World War II and the Vietnam War messed people up and war itself is hideous - hence why I would never join - but I also believe that human civilisation will always use war and fighting to sort problems, nor can we expect other peoples to not want to come rushing with guns. I would hope that psychological benefits would be offered to any participant in a war without a bat of the eye, but, well, that isn't always the case. Either way, while I agree with the global "make peace, not war", I also believe it's naive to think the movements will actually work. Unless the politicians are the ones stuck fighting, they'll continue.

Anyway, here I am criticising the message of the book without even giving it a chance. Well, okay, the book does present the same point I said (and it probably inspired it) - the commissioned officers who sit on their asses and don't do shit will obviously up the missions because it doesn't damage them in any way - they care about the status. But I found it a bit offensive how the book took it. I mean, every person I have spoken to who has participated in the military can be... somewhat crazy (seriously, you're joining the army - what do you expect?), but completely respectable people who had some level of intelligence - at least those who Catch-22 shames with banalities and stupidities. If I was in the forces, I don't know how I would appreciate the book. Anti-war, fine, but to say everyone in the army is a moron is massively exaggerated. "But the book is a satire! It's funny and exaggerating!" you will say. Yes, that's true, but unlike the portrayal of an Irishman as a drunk, a stereotype, this one feels like it has no basis. It's like portraying an Irishman as a voodoo witch doctor - it's off and doesn't make sense. At least to me - maybe you'd see it differently.

Now, let's say the message aside. I mean, I'm actually only thinking about this now that I've sat down and started writing and thinking about it. Because I thought the book was funny. I laughed at the contradictions, I laughed at the mannerisms of some people - that is, until the book started dragging. Catch-22 if nothing else, was longer than it should have been. The catch-22's throughout the book died off once you knew exactly what everyone was going to say. It reminded me of Heart of Darkness. Let me explain - Heart of Darkness was a novella and it explained the sanity of man and the animalistic nature that cannot be escaped (see: Apocalypse Now). That novella could have gone on and on about the man's journey through the Congolese jungle, but it didn't - the novella was short, to the point, and told me what I wanted to know. But Catch-22 went on forever. Dude, seriously, as much as I laughed at the Champlain and the crazy behaviour of Yossarian, by page 200, I was wondering how this could go on any longer. And it went on for another three hundred pages about. Jesus, are you serious? It literally taught me nothing new and the whole paradoxical style died. It was gone. It was over. Sure, the whole time you're wondering what the hell is up with Orr (read the book to get it), but seriously, this thing was unnecessarily long. And it pissed me off because it was so long. I just wanted to finish it, to say I was done, and it went on.

I don't really have much else to say about Catch-22. I can see why the paradoxes brought it to fame, but I think the book should not be considered a classic. Its message is a bright light blinding you, and then it drags on for way longer than it should have. I didn't agree with the way the message was portrayed and honestly, I didn't get the end - what the hell does it mean that Yossarian runs away from the war? Honestly, it feels like a cop-out - I stayed until the end, so should the protagonist. It's like the book itself couldn't escape and just ran away... But seriously, what does it mean if a captain just leaves its crew? Yossarian feels bad because he's leaving everyone after the commissioned officers tell him he's free if he tells fabulous stories about them, but then it's like, "Eff it, I'll run away, that means I don't have to feel bad." Court-martialed and just bullshit all around.

Anti-war is fine, but Catch-22 was kind of bullshit in its way of going about the subject. Slaughterhouse-Five? Sure, that was cool. But don't read Catch-22 - the synopsis will tell you the highlight of the book, and that's all you need.

Review CXXXI - The Little Prince

Review 131
The Little Prince (2015)

Somehow a friend and I got on the topic of Le petit prince (The Little Prince, but whenever I refer to it in French in this review, I'm referring to the book - let me make a distinction) back in February, and we agreed we would check out the film. Personally, I felt a little conflicted as I was worried the story would be warped to fit some social agenda, as Zootopia was (please see my review to see I'm not just talking out of my ass). But hey, a deal's a deal, right? At first I thought the film had come out, but then it turned out it hadn't... Thankfully my friend proposed that we watch it this week, and in fact, found it playing at a dollar cinema near his house. Being the frugal and little-business supporter I am, I was down, so down. Heading into an almost rundown mall, we proceeded with caution into the theatre... An old man greeted us with free popcorn since it was our first time, as well as one dollar snacks. The film ticket, practically priceless. Guys, if you know of a dollar cinema in your area, go. Anyway, the man told us to proceed to room two, and sneaking in, we were presented with a huge movie area, full of cinema chairs and, well, school chairs. We sat down, dying of laughter, and the film projected on to the screen with an audience of six, the other four being two mother-child pairs. Awesome. I was set for Mark Osborne's The Little Prince. (And yes, I did watch it in English given that the film was brought forth through an American company. I'm a bit of a purist, could you tell?)

The protagonist of our story is an aspiring young girl (voiced by Mackenzie Foy) with an equally ambitious mother (Rachel McAdams). After failing an entrance exam into the prestigious Werth Academy (which was apparently named after the child the book was dedicated to, but I'm sure the word itself has to do with it), the duo move into the neighbourhood to ensure entry. However, their crazy Aviator neighbour (Jeff Bridges) will change the little girl's life forever with the story Le petit prince.

I was pleasantly surprised by this guy. I was sure, sure I would find something to hate about it, but I have to say that I don't have many complaints. It's important to know that the film is not just the original novella telling - as you can tell from my synopsis - but the story of a little girl who needs to remember that she's a little girl. She, of course, accomplishes this through her neighbour who gives her the story of The Little Prince, which actually worked super well. The film misses out on some primary characters the little prince meets along the way, but it applies the one that fit well into it. Personally, I had no problem with this because the ones it keeps it portrays properly. Honestly, it keeps the adultness of the story while still appealing to a child. I mean, I think the story is maybe lost a bit on a super young child, but it definitely doesn't contain anything super creepy or scary that a young child couldn't handle. And honestly, this is more a critique of the novella which I think is absolutely fantastic in showing a child the depressing ways of the world, but nonetheless with a way that gives a clear, perhaps ambiguous, but happy ending. Honestly, I'm sorry that I didn't read this book as a child - for particular reasons, I avoided it. But I would cent pour cent recommend it for a child, as well as an adult. Just... perfect.

But before I go on too much of a tangent about the book, let me talk about the movie. The Little Prince succeeds in a more contemporary view of the loneliness and pressure a child may face now. Parents are pushing their children to become grown-ups and adding the stress of succeeding in school. Now, I am not saying this is bad - you need to teach your children discipline and you need to show them the value of education (or at least through my view), but as the movie shows, taking it to the extreme is not the way to go about it. It also shows the single-mother household, a growing reality that I can only imagine reflects the truth - a mother who is not necessarily home as often as she can be, with a child having to grow up before their time. The Little Prince shows the faults in this: one, that a child needs to live a little before growing up and actually having to take on major responsibilities, and two, the importance of a family relationship. It should always be a parent's duty to take care of their child, not the school system they are being put into. I also think it is important for a child to have both a mother and father influence, but I don't think this was necessarily intentional from the filmmaker's point of view, i.e. having the Aviator as a male. Anyway, the film really handled this well. It stresses the idea that growing up isn't the problem, but forgetting is. And honestly, I agree. That's a philosophy of my life where I feel like having an optimistic, sometimes naive view of the world is what let's you get by. And it keeps you young at heart and sincere. Obviously I'm not saying that you should neglect all duties of your life, but anyway, I'm not going to talk about my followings - I'll let you watch the film/read the book and let you make up your own mind.

As for the animation, I was, once again, pleasantly surprised. I thought the animation was going to be... cheap for whatever reason, but it wasn't. I personally absolutely loved the animation for the story time of the little prince - I loved the organic feel, and I loved the fox's tail, hehe. That really made the film for me. Otherwise, the animation was CGI - nothing stupendous, but it did its job. But that animation for the little prince... Awesome! A great way to separate reality from fiction... You know what I mean.

Now I will get back to one point of the book that shines through, and I was just so thankful for. The lesson of taming an animal in order to make it special. Guys, this message is just too true. I remember sitting in a psychology class of mine and the teacher saying that living in huge cities has really made "there are other fish in the sea" line a reality - now, it's so easy to give up on someone to find someone "better". Our disposable culture has constructed us to think that holding out is not a goal and that we should always think of ourselves. But this story - it really shows a truth. That psychology class really hit me as my teacher seemed convinced this was normal and should be the way to live. But the reality is, if you truly care about someone, you both "tame" each other and that is what makes them special. The little prince's conflict of finding out his rose was not the only one in the world was something I think everyone feels at some point, but the fox points out that it is the connection that makes them special, even if they aren't unique. Chasing Amy addresses this in a different way, but Alyssa (our lesbian protagonist who falls for Holden) hides the fact that she has been with other guys before in order to let Holden feel special in a way she feels he never would have understood. Sometimes it's hard just through words to believe, but Le petit prince really shows this, and I felt it such a relief. Of course, if you're with someone you don't belong with, I wouldn't say stay with them, but if you find someone worth keeping, it shouldn't be about trying to find someone more unique, but toughing it out and seeing how you two belong. And honestly, if that was the message from the book alone, I would be there. I would be behind it one hundred and ten percent. And don't worry, the movie keeps this real as well. And I feel it's more applicable than ever as I grow older. Just... wonderful.

The Little Prince is what our children should watch. Yeah, it used a female protagonist just because female protagonists are lacking, but whatever, I don't care - the film stays true to a classic book which teaches us to love and treasure those around us, and shows us that grown ups can be weird, but growing up is not something to fear. Definitely a great, great story. Merci, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Vraiment, merci. And thank you, Mark Osborne, for staying true to a classic.